Religion question
Laurie
exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about 15-20
minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
attending church anyway.
laurie
mommy to Jessica, 2.5 years
and Christopher, 5.5 months
*This email address is now valid*
just me
"Laurie" <mug...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:8lrhb.106845$qj6.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but can anyone share with me what
> exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
> that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
> anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
> I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
> to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about
15-20
> minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
> attending church anyway.
>
Congregational churches are mainline protestant. The leader of the
community is an ordained minister, many of whom are married and, in this day
and age, many of whom are women. Communion is present, usually the first
service of a month, there is a board of people who direct the church in
concert with the minister, and there are often subcommittees to address
specific areas like budget or calling a new minister. Having grown up in
Congregational churches and attended many Catholic services I suspect you
would find a big difference in certain doctrin but could also find that
there are more similarities than differences. Good luck in finding the
church home that meets your familys needs best.
-Aula
dragonlady
"Laurie" <mug...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but can anyone share with me what
> exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
> that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
> anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
> I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
> to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about 15-20
> minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
> attending church anyway.
You would have to call to ask specifically which protestant
denomination, but it is most likely Unitited Church of Christ, which is
a liberal main line protestant denomination which practices
congregational polity (ie, there is no organizational heirarchy outside
the congregation telling them what to do -- the lay members of the
congregation "own" the church and make the decisions.)
It would be open to anyone who wishes to attend; however, protestant
services are different from Catholic services in some significant ways,
and the theology is different, so it's hard to say if you would be
comfortable there. You might find it wonderful -- it's certainly worth
checking out.
meh
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care
Clisby
Laurie wrote:
> I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but can anyone share with me what
> exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
> that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
> anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
> I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
> to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about 15-20
> minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
> attending church anyway.
>
It's a mainline Protestant denomination, but I'd expect they'd encourage
anybody to come. I've never been to a Congregational church, but I
have the impression it's fairly similar to a Baptist church in that
there's not a church hierarchy like you have in the Catholic church (or
Methodist or Episcopal churches, for that matter). The individual
congregation runs the church, picks the minister, etc.
Clisby
ColoradoSkiBum
: anybody to come. I've never been to a Congregational church, but I
: have the impression it's fairly similar to a Baptist church in that
: there's not a church hierarchy like you have in the Catholic church (or
: Methodist or Episcopal churches, for that matter). The individual
: congregation runs the church, picks the minister, etc.
In that respect it is similar to a Baptist church, but that would be the
only way. The Congregational church is generally much more reserved in
terms of their expression of worship. (I grew up in the Congregational
church, and have been to many services at Baptist churches.)
--
ColoradoSkiBum
H Schinske
>It's a mainline Protestant denomination, but I'd expect they'd encourage
>anybody to come. I've never been to a Congregational church, but I
>have the impression it's fairly similar to a Baptist church in that
>there's not a church hierarchy like you have in the Catholic church
I think technically it is *most* similar to the Presbyterian church. In fact I
think in the US those two denominations have some sort of joint operating
agreement -- in small towns where they could afford only one church, the
Presbyterians and the Congregationalists used the same church. Or something
like that. I am sure someone here knows far more about it than I do.
--Helen
Wendy
> In that respect it is similar to a Baptist church, but that would be the
> only way. The Congregational church is generally much more reserved in
> terms of their expression of worship. (I grew up in the Congregational
> church, and have been to many services at Baptist churches.)
I'd agree with this. I was a Catholic as a child and my husband was
raised Baptist and we go to a Congregational Church now. Our church is
very austere - sleek wood and pews with walls and doors forming boxes (for
everyone) and lots of silent prayer and beautiful flowers and
music. There is very little decoration and no stained glass - just some
ribbons hung during various liturgical seasons. It has some litergy but
not nearly as much as a Catholic church.
One of the things I really like about it is that no one checks your
doctrine at the door. You can believe anything you want and just join the
community in spiritual endeavors at whatever place you happen to be on
your spiritual path. No one is keeping tabs on how often you come or how
well dressed you are, either.
Two more points to add that no one else mentioned: whenever you see a
white-spired New England village church it's probably a Congregational
church. The history is that it formed the first town governments in most
New England villages as it was settled. I believe mine was formed in 1678
(yes, I'm in the U.S. and no, that isn't a typo.)
The other point is that new people walking through the door are VERY VERY
welcome. As fresh meat. A church run entirely by committee ALWAYS needs
new committee members. My advice is to decline being appointed to any
committee until you've been going for a year. Seriously. You're likely
to be offered the chair of some committee on your second visit! :-)
As for it being cross-denominational with Presbyterians, I don't know
about that, but mine is cross-denominational with Unitarian-Universalist
(a "protestant" religion so liberal that it can't necessarily even be
called Christian anymore.) My guess is that individual churches fall all
over the place on the liberal/traditional spectrum.
-- Wendy
ColoradoSkiBum
: I'd agree with this. I was a Catholic as a child and my husband was
: raised Baptist and we go to a Congregational Church now. Our church is
: very austere - sleek wood and pews with walls and doors forming boxes (for
: everyone) and lots of silent prayer and beautiful flowers and
: music. There is very little decoration and no stained glass - just some
: ribbons hung during various liturgical seasons. It has some litergy but
: not nearly as much as a Catholic church.
Well there's a difference--the Congregational church I was raised in was
very ornate and had lots of stained glass. But like you said it was also
very private, like nobody shouted out "hallelujiah!" or "amen" during the
survices. Much more private, less demonstrative.
--
ColoradoSkiBum
Jon Ericson
> I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but can anyone share with me
> what exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small
> town and that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant
> denomination, or for anyone christian, or for anyone at all?
Generally the term "congregational" refers to a church in which the
congregation (basically the people who are members of the local
church) have authority. It doesn't usually refer to any particular
denomination of Protestants, but to certain types of denominations.
Of course non-denominational churches are congregational too.
Historically the congregational movement is a reaction of the Roman
Catholic Church and to Protestant denominations that retained the
Catholic authority structure. (An example of the later is the
Episcopalian/Anglican denomination. They retained bishops, but
rejected papal authority.) One key difference is that pastors are
hired by the local church rather than assigned by higher authorities.
> Forgive me if I'm being dumb but I'm catholic and haven't got a
> clue.
You aren't being dumb. It's worth checking out the people who might
be watching your children in the nursery and teaching them. One of
the drawbacks to Congregationalism is that a newcomer can't be certain
about theology and beliefs of the leadership without examining what
they say. Until you meet the pastor and hear what he has to say, you
won't know.
> I'd like to go to that church to get to know the people in town, but
> there is a catholic church only about 15-20 minutes away so it's no
> big deal to go there. I'm not too good about attending church
> anyway.
Judging from the above, I sure hope you give the congregational church
a try. Most likely it will be very different from the Catholic Mass.
Hopefully it will challenge your beliefs an draw you closer to God.
It would also be a great place to meet people and find friends for
your children.
As an aside, the surest way I know to evaluate a church's teaching is
to compare it to what the Bible says. Be especially wary of people
that take a verse or two out of historical and textual context and
base their belief system on it, and people who have significant
extra-biblical sources for their beliefs.
Jon
--
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for
yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD.
-- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
Clisby
Good grief, I've been to Baptist churches where nobody shouted out
"hallelujah" or "amen" during the service. I would not assume that was
the norm in a Baptist church.
Clisby
Jeff
"Laurie" <mug...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:8lrhb.106845$qj6.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
> that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
> anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
> I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
> to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about
15-20
> minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
> attending church anyway.
From the other replies, I gather that the a Congregational churchese are
different in different communities. I realize that Catholic churches are
different in different communities, but I think that the differences in
Congregation churches are bigger.
Here is some history on Congregational churches:
http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/shortcourse/congo.htm/. Amazing, that Google.
Speaking of google:
http://religion-cults.com/Christianity/Protestant/P-Denominations.htm
http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/rel/xprotest.htm
http://www.1upinfo.com/encyclopedia/categories/protdenom.html
I believe many of these churches are related to the United Church of Christ.
Unfortunately, although the church, synogue, etc., has traditionally played
a big role in people's lives, education in the US is very poor when it comes
to learning about other faiths. It would be great if schools could teach a
course (perhaps in high school) called "The history of religion in the US,
including differences in beliefs, organization, and membership."
Unfortunately, schools and school boards would get many complaints (and
questions, at least, about whether this violates the seperation of church
and state) and church-related schools (full-time schools and religious-only
ed) rarely have time for comparative religion.
The only thing that I remember learning about Protestants is that they don't
believe in certain things (Trinity, saints, confession, celibacy of priests,
letting females become ministers). I still know very little about the
differences between the various denominations.
Sad, really. And I think I know more about different religions (especially
Judiasm and Islam) than most people.
My advice to you is to go both churches (on alternate Sundays) and see which
one you fit in better, considering the distance to the catholic church and
that when you kids get into school, many of their friends will go to the
local church, but if you go the church that is farther away, you are also
teaching your kids about faith and the importance of what you believe.
Also, look up the church on the internet (google the name of the town to
which you will move and the name of hte church or just the town name and
church).
Jeff
Marion Baumgarten
> The only thing that I remember learning about Protestants is that they don't
> believe in certain things (Trinity, saints, confession, celibacy of priests,
> letting females become ministers). I still know very little about the
> differences between the various denominations.
>
Protestants believe in the Trinity.
Jeff
"Marion Baumgarten" <mari...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1g2n024.g1rzhqlwt520N%mari...@mindspring.com...
See, they didn't even teach that right.
Of course, I think that God is so complex that we don't really have a chance
of figuring it out.The Trinity is just the beginning of the things we can't
begin to understand, really. Our brains don't have the necessary processing
capacity. The earth and human existence is such a tiny part of the universe.
Jeff
Clisby
At least some Protestants believe in confession (if I'm correct in
thinking that by "believe in" Jeff means they formally confess sins,
followed by absolution pronounced by a priest) This is a standard part
of the Episcopal liturgy. As far as I know, Episcopal (and other
Anglican) priests allow personal confessions - it's just not
particularly common.
Clisby
Marion Baumgarten
religious groups- a one page summary approved by representatves of that
religion and an illustration. I bought it on Amazon.com several years
ago.
Marion Baumgarten
Wendy
Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in the
Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity of Christ
thing is where I lose the Christian monniker. It sure FEELS like a
protestant church, though, what with the white steeple and the puritan
hymns.
> See, they didn't even teach that right.
I have a great deal of trouble teaching what my own faith believes since
it is so individual a religion. My daughter's doing a confirmation class
right now and I'm supposed to present the Unitarian-Universalist point of
view and I'll have to do actual research to figure it out, since I don't
think, "we believe anything we want to believe" is a useful overview.
Wendy
Marion Baumgarten
> Jeff wrote:
> > "Marion Baumgarten" <mari...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> >> Protestants believe in the Trinity.
>
> Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in the
> Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity of Christ
> thing is where I lose the Christian monniker. It sure FEELS like a
> protestant church, though, what with the white steeple and the puritan
> hymns.
>
No, UU 's are not Christian, hence not Protestant. (Though they come out
of a Protestant tradition). Protestants- Methodist, Lutheran, Reformed,
Anglican, Prebyterian, Amish, Congregationalist, Pentacostal, Baptist
all believe in the Trinity.
An individual UU cxan ceratinly be a Chrristian (since my undersatnding
is they can believe anything they want), but the denominationa s a whole
is not Christian.
>
AGreen1209
>the norm in a Baptist church.
>
>Clisby
Well, almost anything is normal in a Baptist church, because there are so many
kinds of Baptists - Southern, Primitive, American, Missionary, to name a very
few. And then there are the independent Baptists.
Amanda
a member of the Southern variety of Baptist :-)
Clisby
I didn't mean it would be abnormal - just that I wouldn't assume it
would happen in any given Baptist church, for exactly the reasons you
mentioned.
Clisby
Jon Ericson
> Jeff wrote:
>> "Marion Baumgarten" <mari...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>>> Protestants believe in the Trinity.
>
> Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in
> the Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity
> of Christ thing is where I lose the Christian monniker.
That Jesus is the Incarnation of God, is pretty much the central
belief of Christianity. It is the idea that binds Catholics, Orthodox
believers and Protestants into the one universal Church. It is also
what separates the Church from what used to be called heretics, cults
and false religions.
Jesus claims to be God in the Bible (especially in John, but it can
also be seen in the other Gospels, and of course in Revelation), so
you have to ask "why?". C. S. Lewis writes about this question in
_Mere_Christianity_. If Jesus knew that he was just a man but claimed
to be God, than he was a liar and, since many people devoted their
lives to him even to death, a very evil man. If he thought he was
God, but wasn't, then he was insane. In either case, he wouldn't be
worth giving your life to or basing a religion upon.
On the other hand, if Jesus really is God, the only proper response to
him is worship. His resurrection, which is testified to in all the
Gospels and in the letters that make up the New Testament, is strong
evidence that his claim to be God is true. If you don't believe in
the divinity of Christ, you have an awful lot of things to explain.
> It sure FEELS like a protestant church, though, what with the white
> steeple and the puritan hymns.
You should listen to the words of those hymns; many of them have the
Trinity as a central theme. (Unless of course, they aren't Puritan at
all.)
Wendy
> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>> Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in
>> the Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity
>> of Christ thing is where I lose the Christian monniker.
> Jesus claims to be God in the Bible (especially in John, but it can
> also be seen in the other Gospels, and of course in Revelation), so
> you have to ask "why?".
I never asked "why" - I thought I knew. Because God is in all of us. He
is God, you are God, I am God.
> On the other hand, if Jesus really is God, the only proper response to
> him is worship.
Or to treat everyone well, since they are all God. Actually, I tend to
hear that element of Jesus's teachings when I listen. He didn't seem to
be after worship, but rather after getting everyone else to treat each
other well. At least that's my interpretation.
>> It sure FEELS like a protestant church, though, what with the white
>> steeple and the puritan hymns.
> You should listen to the words of those hymns; many of them have the
> Trinity as a central theme. (Unless of course, they aren't Puritan at
> all.)
The words got changed.
Wendy
Jon Ericson
> Jon Ericson wrote:
>> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>>> Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in
>>> the Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity
>>> of Christ thing is where I lose the Christian monniker.
>
>> Jesus claims to be God in the Bible (especially in John, but it can
>> also be seen in the other Gospels, and of course in Revelation), so
>> you have to ask "why?".
>
> I never asked "why" - I thought I knew. Because God is in all of us. He
> is God, you are God, I am God.
I for one, know full well that I am *not* God, nor could I ever be.
Either you are crazy (to believe yourself God), or you've redefined
the word God. Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
>> On the other hand, if Jesus really is God, the only proper response to
>> him is worship.
>
> Or to treat everyone well, since they are all God. Actually, I tend to
> hear that element of Jesus's teachings when I listen. He didn't seem to
> be after worship, but rather after getting everyone else to treat each
> other well. At least that's my interpretation.
When Jesus claimed to be God, he was saying that he was absolutely
unique. What do you suppose he meant by "I am the way and the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?
You are right that he didn't say, "Worship me" in those words. But he
was crucified because his contemporaries understood the implications
of what he *did* say.
dragonlady
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
There are both trinitarian and unitarian protestants.
A belief in absolute monotheism (interpreted as NOT believing in the
trinity) is what split the Unitarians from the Calvanists, a very long
time ago. There are still some mainstreatm Christian denominations that
are basically Unitarian, though not many at the moment.
dragonlady
wrote:
Not only that, but it isn't true. We are obligated to believe what our
responsible search for truth and meaning leads us to -- which is
different, and more difficult than, believing "anything we want to
believe". What's more, describing the initial splits from Calvinist
doctrine by both the Unitarians and the Universalists (merged in early
1960's) gives some great background on how we got to be who we are today.
As your congregation's religious educator or minister for help with
this, or, if for some reason that isn't helpful or easy, feel free to
contact me privately; just remove the obvious from the e-mail -- it is
the address I use regularly -- and I'll be delighted to offer any
assistance I can.
meh
(Director of Religious Education, Unitarian-Universalist)
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > It sure FEELS like a protestant church, though, what with the white
> > steeple and the puritan hymns.
>
> You should listen to the words of those hymns; many of them have the
> Trinity as a central theme. (Unless of course, they aren't Puritan at
> all.)
>
The Unitarian Unversalist hymnal does not use the old words to most of
they hymns, and you would find very little that is trinitarian in them.
meh
dragonlady
Clisby <cli...@mindspring.com> wrote:
I was raised in a church with "congregational" in it's name. It was
VERY fundamentalist, had stained glass windows but was otherwise quite
plain, and there was lot's of "hallelujahing" and "amening" during the
sermon.
dragonlady
mari...@mindspring.com (Marion Baumgarten) wrote:
That is correct. We are not admitted to the US Council of Churches (as
more than observers) because, as a denomination, we are not Christian.
There are individutal UU congregations that identify as Christian, and
certainly individual members; there is even an affiliated organization
of Christian UU's, and I know a number of UU ministers who identify as
Christian.
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>
> > Jon Ericson wrote:
> >> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
> >>> Not me. I'm a Unitarian-Universalist and I believe that falls in
> >>> the Protestant realm. Maybe not. I'm not sure. The whole divinity
> >>> of Christ thing is where I lose the Christian monniker.
> >
> >> Jesus claims to be God in the Bible (especially in John, but it can
> >> also be seen in the other Gospels, and of course in Revelation), so
> >> you have to ask "why?".
> >
> > I never asked "why" - I thought I knew. Because God is in all of us. He
> > is God, you are God, I am God.
>
> I for one, know full well that I am *not* God, nor could I ever be.
> Either you are crazy (to believe yourself God), or you've redefined
> the word God. Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
I can answer for my own beliefs only, or even describe the historical
Unitarian and Universalist beliefs, but cannot speak for all UUs -- no
one can. To find out what any particular UU believes about Jesus, you
have to ask them.
I do not believe that Jesus was uniquely devine. That is, he was a
child of God to exactly the same degree that each of us is a child of
God -- no more, no less. He may have been more in touch with his own
divinity than most of us. He was not alone -- there have been others,
and will be others, who are also closer to the devine than the average
human -- but that spark of divinity lies within each of us, as does the
potential for drawing closer to the divine.
Marion Baumgarten
>
> There are both trinitarian and unitarian protestants.
Tell me some, I'm serious- not trying to be argumentative but please
tell me one Christian denomination that is unitarian and protestant.
>
Marion Baumgarten
Wendy
> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>> I never asked "why" - I thought I knew. Because God is in all of us. He
>> is God, you are God, I am God.
> I for one, know full well that I am *not* God, nor could I ever be.
> Either you are crazy (to believe yourself God), or you've redefined
> the word God.
Thanks for including the possibility that I view God differently than you
rather than being just plain crazy.
>> Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
Bingo. Or rather, no more divine than you or I. My personal belief is
that a chunk of God breaks off and gets born in us. I believe Jesus was a
teacher to be revered. But I also revere Buddha and Mohammed and various
other people who are very involved in helping us make our way along a
spiritual path.
> When Jesus claimed to be God, he was saying that he was absolutely
> unique. What do you suppose he meant by "I am the way and the truth
> and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?
I don't know. I'm not even sure he said it. I tend to think that there's
nothing new under the sun, though. Sure Jesus was unique. But so are
you.
> You are right that he didn't say, "Worship me" in those words. But he
> was crucified because his contemporaries understood the implications
> of what he *did* say.
Whatever.
Wendy
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgr81g...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>> I for one, know full well that I am *not* God, nor could I ever be.
>> Either you are crazy (to believe yourself God), or you've redefined
>> the word God. Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
>
> I can answer for my own beliefs only, or even describe the historical
> Unitarian and Universalist beliefs, but cannot speak for all UUs -- no
> one can. To find out what any particular UU believes about Jesus, you
> have to ask them.
Fair enough. This goes a step or two beyond Congregationalism by the
way.
> I do not believe that Jesus was uniquely devine. That is, he was a
> child of God to exactly the same degree that each of us is a child of
> God -- no more, no less. He may have been more in touch with his own
> divinity than most of us. He was not alone -- there have been others,
> and will be others, who are also closer to the devine than the average
> human -- but that spark of divinity lies within each of us, as does the
> potential for drawing closer to the divine.
Jesus's claims about himself indicate that he a had different view of
himself than you do. Paul saw Jesus as unique.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
-- Philippians 2:5-11 (NIV)
But it now occurs to me that an appeal to authority, even Biblical
authority, might not hold water with you. Certainly I find it
difficult to reconcile what you've said with what I read in the Bible.
Jon Ericson
> Jon Ericson wrote:
>> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> writes:
>
>>> I never asked "why" - I thought I knew. Because God is in all of
>>> us. He is God, you are God, I am God.
>
>> I for one, know full well that I am *not* God, nor could I ever be.
>> Either you are crazy (to believe yourself God), or you've redefined
>> the word God.
>
> Thanks for including the possibility that I view God differently
> than you rather than being just plain crazy.
Just trying the possibilities. When most people use the word God,
they tend to be thinking of things like omnipotent, creator of the
universe, holy, perfect, etc. Unless you let people know that you
have a radically different definition, don't be surprised if they
assume you are delusional.
Please understand that saying "He is God, you are God, I am God," is
hugely offensive to me. Trying to tease out a bit of common ground, I
do agree that you, I and Jesus are spiritual beings.[1] I'm sorry if you
feel I was attacking you.
>>> Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
>
> Bingo. Or rather, no more divine than you or I. My personal belief
> is that a chunk of God breaks off and gets born in us. I believe
> Jesus was a teacher to be revered. But I also revere Buddha and
> Mohammed and various other people who are very involved in helping
> us make our way along a spiritual path.
Hmm... It really makes me wonder what "God" means to you then. I
can't imagine a definition that would satisfy all of those people.
>> When Jesus claimed to be God, he was saying that he was absolutely
>> unique. What do you suppose he meant by "I am the way and the truth
>> and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?
>
> I don't know. I'm not even sure he said it.
Ah. I assume you are implying some sort of textual corruption or that
John put words in Jesus's mouth?
>> You are right that he didn't say, "Worship me" in those words. But he
>> was crucified because his contemporaries understood the implications
>> of what he *did* say.
>
> Whatever.
Why do think he was killed then?
Jon
Footnotes:
[1] But then, so are the angels and Satan.
Banty
Wow - not too many posters to USENET are kind enough to identify the fallacies
in their own posts.
Saves some trouble - thanks.
Cheers,
Banty
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
That would be correct. I do not view the Christian Bible as
authoritative. I do find inspiration in it, but I also find inspiration
in other sacred writings. That is something that can be said is true of
most Unitarian Universalists: we say we draw our inspiration from many
sources, including world religions. For Christian UU's, the Bible, and
the teachings of Jesus, are the most important sources -- but they, too,
may draw inspiration from the teachings of Lao Tzu or the writings of
Carl Sagan.
dragonlady
mari...@mindspring.com (Marion Baumgarten) wrote:
Christology is actually pretty complex, and for some of the more liberal
Christian denominations I'm not sure it is easy to classify them as
trinitarian or unitarian; I am not an expert, just an interested
student. It is true that, since the 4th century, when the issue was
brought to a head, most Christian churches have been trinitarian
(particularly since many unitarians were killed . . .). That has been
the orthodox position. (In the 4th century, by the way there were TWO
opponents to the notion of the trinity: one group, the Gnostics, that
said that Jesus was not fully human -- they pretty much died out -- and
another, the primary opponents, who said that Jesus was not fully God,
but a creation of God, and therefore NOT God.)
However, there is still (or again, maybe, since they were forbidden and
therefore underground until relatively recently) an active Unitarian
Church in Transylvania that would have to be considered part of the
Protestant Reformation; I've spoken with several of their ministers,
and they definately consider themselves Christian and reject the
trinity. There is a group called The Way International, which is
generally considered protestant, which specifically rejects the trinity.
There are some groups of Quakers who appear, at least on the surface, to
reject the trinity -- but i haven't looked into that in enough depth to
say for certain.
I don't know exactly what every Christian church teaches; as I think
about it, I'd love to find a website that explores each church's formal
position wrt the trinity!
lizzard woman
"dragonlady" <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:mehouck-64879E...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> For Christian UU's, the Bible, and
> the teachings of Jesus, are the most important sources -- but they, too,
> may draw inspiration from the teachings of Lao Tzu or the writings of
> Carl Sagan.
Carl Sagan, atheist, no?
--
sharon, momma to savannah and willow (11/11/94)
Laurie
been crazy. I appreciate all the info!
laurie
mommy to Jessica, 2.5 years
and Christopher, 5.5 months
*This email address is now valid*
Laurie wrote in message
<8lrhb.106845$qj6.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net>...
>I'm a little embarrased to ask this, but can anyone share with me what
>exactly a "congregational " church is? We're moving to a small town and
>that is the only church in town. Is it a protestant denomination, or for
>anyone christian, or for anyone at all? Forgive me if I'm being dumb but
>I'm catholic and haven't got a clue. I'd like to go to that church to get
>to know the people in town, but there is a catholic church only about 15-20
>minutes away so it's no big deal to go there. I'm not too good about
>attending church anyway.
>
>laurie
>mommy to Jessica, 2.5 years
>and Christopher, 5.5 months
>
>*This email address is now valid*
>
>
dragonlady
"lizzard woman" <kimo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> "dragonlady" <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:mehouck-64879E...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> > For Christian UU's, the Bible, and
> > the teachings of Jesus, are the most important sources -- but they, too,
> > may draw inspiration from the teachings of Lao Tzu or the writings of
> > Carl Sagan.
>
> Carl Sagan, atheist, no?
I don't know his personal theology. But when he writes about the
cosmos, I find his words to be awe inspiring in the best sense of the
word "awe".
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgisms...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Jon Ericson says...
>>
>>But it now occurs to me that an appeal to authority, even Biblical
>>authority, might not hold water with you. Certainly I find it
>>difficult to reconcile what you've said with what I read in the Bible.
>
>
> Wow - not too many posters to USENET are kind enough to identify the
> fallacies in their own posts.
>
> Saves some trouble - thanks.
I was under the mistaken impression that dragonlady agreed that the
Bible is authoritative. My original point was that Jesus claimed to
be God (in the traditional sense) and that his earliest followers also
claimed he was God. If there is any source that is authoritative on
those questions, it would have to be the Bible.
See <http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/authorit.html>.
Wendy
> Please understand that saying "He is God, you are God, I am God," is
> hugely offensive to me. Trying to tease out a bit of common ground, I
> do agree that you, I and Jesus are spiritual beings.[1] I'm sorry if you
> feel I was attacking you.
Well, I'm contrite, too. I didn't mean to be hugely offensive. I should
have seen the obvious potential, though!
>>>> Do you somehow believe Jesus was God, but not divine?
>>
>> Bingo. Or rather, no more divine than you or I. My personal belief
>> is that a chunk of God breaks off and gets born in us. I believe
>> Jesus was a teacher to be revered. But I also revere Buddha and
>> Mohammed and various other people who are very involved in helping
>> us make our way along a spiritual path.
> Hmm... It really makes me wonder what "God" means to you then. I
> can't imagine a definition that would satisfy all of those people.
I'm not trying to satisfy all those people. I'm also not trying to get
other people to believe what I believe.
>>> When Jesus claimed to be God, he was saying that he was absolutely
>>> unique. What do you suppose he meant by "I am the way and the truth
>>> and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."?
>>
>> I don't know. I'm not even sure he said it.
> Ah. I assume you are implying some sort of textual corruption or that
> John put words in Jesus's mouth?
Both. None of the gospels are contemporaneous with Jesus. IIRC, the
earliest one is 50 years after his death. There's a bit of time for
editing in there.
>>> You are right that he didn't say, "Worship me" in those words. But he
>>> was crucified because his contemporaries understood the implications
>>> of what he *did* say.
>>
>> Whatever.
> Why do think he was killed then?
Politics.
In another post in this thread you quote (and I paraphrase) that Jesus
made himself humble, therefore God exalted him. The "therefore" in that
sentance does not work. Fact: Jesus made himself humble. Unknown: God's
attitude towards that. At least, that's the way I read it. I understand
that other people interpet the Bible differently, with more faith and less
criticism than I do. My methods are NOT preferred if you like feeling
like you know the truth. I never feel like I know the truth.
Wendy
Jon Ericson
In that case, I wonder if you believe that the Bible accurately
records Jesus's teachings? If not, I don't think there is much left
for you to find inspirational.
It sounds like you have some internal criteria for excepting and
rejecting teaching. (Perhaps based on the level of "inspiration"?) I
know you can't speak for other Unitarian Universalists, but I would be
interested in know what your criteria is and why you believe it is
authoritative.
I draw inspiration from a variety of sources also. Christians have
not cornered the market on wisdom (or thankfully ignorance either).
For instance, Carl Sagan described the beauty and vastness of the
universe. He talks of the terrible and wonderful forces that brought
light out of darkness, formed countless worlds, produced life in the
oceans and over the course of eons, resulted in crown of the universe:
humanity. Science never had a spokesman like him.
A Christian can't help but recall the Creator who directs these
forces. Mr. Sagan might say that such a person doesn't exist and that
the wonder of the universe is that out of chaos came people who can
attempt to asign order to it. So, though he inspires, Mr. Sagan was
wrong about something very important.
I don't think you can seperate Christ's teachings from the things he
did in his life, nor from the manner in which he died. "[Jesus] then
began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be
rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and
that he must be killed and after three days rise again." (Mark 8:31)
How can anyone draw inspiration from this without understanding that
Christ's death was necessary to save humanity from our evil deeds?
This is the crux of the teachings of Jesus; without it, his live was
meaningless.
toto
<meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <7WIib.88000$6C4.8621@pd7tw1no>,
> "lizzard woman" <kimo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> "dragonlady" <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:mehouck-64879E...@newssvr21-ext.news.prodigy.com...
>> > For Christian UU's, the Bible, and
>> > the teachings of Jesus, are the most important sources -- but they, too,
>> > may draw inspiration from the teachings of Lao Tzu or the writings of
>> > Carl Sagan.
>>
>> Carl Sagan, atheist, no?
>
>I don't know his personal theology. But when he writes about the
>cosmos, I find his words to be awe inspiring in the best sense of the
>word "awe".
>
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbd.htm#BALONEY
If not an Atheist, Sagan was certainly a rationalist who was highly
skeptical of religious claims and explanations about the universe. In
addition to his defense of scientific methodology, he was a staunch
advocate of evolutionary mechanism as a sensible way of explaining the
origins of life, and often came tantalizingly close to dismissing the
need for postulating a deity to explain phenomena in the universe.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/sagan.htm
> meh
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> dragonlady <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <rcgisms...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> > Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> But it now occurs to me that an appeal to authority, even Biblical
> >> authority, might not hold water with you. Certainly I find it
> >> difficult to reconcile what you've said with what I read in the
> >> Bible.
> >
> > That would be correct. I do not view the Christian Bible as
> > authoritative. I do find inspiration in it, but I also find
> > inspiration in other sacred writings. That is something that can be
> > said is true of most Unitarian Universalists: we say we draw our
> > inspiration from many sources, including world religions. For
> > Christian UU's, the Bible, and the teachings of Jesus, are the most
> > important sources -- but they, too, may draw inspiration from the
> > teachings of Lao Tzu or the writings of Carl Sagan.
>
> In that case, I wonder if you believe that the Bible accurately
> records Jesus's teachings? If not, I don't think there is much left
> for you to find inspirational.
>
No, I don't believe that the Bible accurately records Jesus's teachings,
though I suspect that at least some of it is accurate. The process of
deciding which of the writings about Jesus to include in the canon and
which to reject had far more to do with the politics of the 4th century
than with any evidence of which was more accurate. There is some great
stuff in the Gospel according to Thomas, and Mary's as well -- these
were not included, and there was a nearly successful attempt to destroy
all copies.
However, even if you completely eliminate Jesus's life and teachings
from the Bible, there is a lot of beauty and inspiration. I love the
121st Psalm, and find it comforts me. While much of Paul's writing
leaves me cold, several of the chapters in his letters to the
Corintheans are beautiful. I love the story of Joseph, and the message
of retribution not taken. I love the story of the exodus, and the
willingness to go on into the unknown in spite of fear. There is so
much in the Bible that has nothing to do with Jesus life and death --
though I also find much of beauty and truth in Jesus' teachings as
recorded in the Bible, I find many other passages that are beautiful and
inspirational as well.
> It sounds like you have some internal criteria for excepting and
> rejecting teaching. (Perhaps based on the level of "inspiration"?) I
> know you can't speak for other Unitarian Universalists, but I would be
> interested in know what your criteria is and why you believe it is
> authoritative.
I don't believe any writing is authoritative: I take inspiration where
I find it. I believe (in the words of the Unitarian Universalist
Prinsiples and Purposes) that every individual should engage in a "free
and responsible search for truth and meaning". That has taken me to
many places, including scriptures from different religions as well as
contemporary writers, such as Buddhist Thicht Naht Hahn (whose name I am
undoubtedly spelling incorrectly!)
I don't think I can tell you what my criteria are for finding something
inspirational, at least not in this forum. It is far too complex, and
involves an intellectual component, an emotional component, a spiritual
component -- and probably many more things that are even less easy to
describe in words.
This weekend, I listed to a speaker whose religious beliefs I do not
share. Many of her specific beliefs were contrary to my own. Still,
there were things she said which touched me deeply. I will take those
things with me, while rejecting those portions which did NOT inspire me
-- and which, in some cases, I found downright offensive.
> I draw inspiration from a variety of sources also. Christians have
> not cornered the market on wisdom (or thankfully ignorance either).
> For instance, Carl Sagan described the beauty and vastness of the
> universe. He talks of the terrible and wonderful forces that brought
> light out of darkness, formed countless worlds, produced life in the
> oceans and over the course of eons, resulted in crown of the universe:
> humanity. Science never had a spokesman like him.
>
> A Christian can't help but recall the Creator who directs these
> forces. Mr. Sagan might say that such a person doesn't exist and that
> the wonder of the universe is that out of chaos came people who can
> attempt to asign order to it. So, though he inspires, Mr. Sagan was
> wrong about something very important.
>
> I don't think you can seperate Christ's teachings from the things he
> did in his life, nor from the manner in which he died. "[Jesus] then
> began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be
> rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and
> that he must be killed and after three days rise again." (Mark 8:31)
> How can anyone draw inspiration from this without understanding that
> Christ's death was necessary to save humanity from our evil deeds?
> This is the crux of the teachings of Jesus; without it, his live was
> meaningless.
>
That's not what Jesus said about the crux of his teaching. When the
lawyer asked him what was most important in his teachings, Jesus quoted
what Hillel said when asked to recite the law while standing on one
foot: to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
I do not accept the Calvinist view of humanity as depraved and in need
of salvation. There is an old line that the Universalists rejected
Calvinist doctrine because they believed that God was too good to
condemn anyone to hell -- and the Unitarians rejected Calvinist doctrine
because they thought that man was too good to be condemned to hell.
Although Unitarian Universalism is no longer considered a Christian
religion, historically both the Unitarians and the Universalists were
Christian, and both found scriptural justification for their positions:
that God was a God of love and salvation was universal, and a rejection
of the trinity (Unitarianism).
I find truth in both statements: I do not believe that humanity is
evil, and I do not believe in a God who would condemn us to hell.
One of the best descriptions I heard of Unitarian Universalist
Christians was that they follow the religion OF Jesus -- not the
religion ABOUT Jesus. I think, for many Chrsitians, like yourself, it
is more about how Jesus lived and died, and the meaning of his death,
than about what he taught. I am not suggesting that you pay no
attention to what he taught, only that, for you, his death (and
resurrection) are far more important -- as you say, without it, his
teachings, for you, are meaningless. For me, his death is a sad
commentary on how we treat prophets, but no more than that. For me, his
resurrection is Christian mythology -- an interesting story from which
we can draw universal truths, but not, literally true.
Jon Ericson
> Jon Ericson wrote:
>
>> Please understand that saying "He is God, you are God, I am God," is
>> hugely offensive to me. Trying to tease out a bit of common ground, I
>> do agree that you, I and Jesus are spiritual beings. I'm sorry if you
>> feel I was attacking you.
>
> Well, I'm contrite, too. I didn't mean to be hugely offensive. I
> should have seen the obvious potential, though!
It's ok. Just a misunderstanding.
[On Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed and various other people.]
>> Hmm... It really makes me wonder what "God" means to you then. I
>> can't imagine a definition that would satisfy all of those people.
>
> I'm not trying to satisfy all those people. I'm also not trying to get
> other people to believe what I believe.
I know. What I was trying to ask was, what conclusion about the
meaning of the word God can you draw from all those sources?
[On one of Jesus's claims to be uniquely God]
>>> I don't know. I'm not even sure he said it.
>
>> Ah. I assume you are implying some sort of textual corruption or that
>> John put words in Jesus's mouth?
>
> Both. None of the gospels are contemporaneous with Jesus. IIRC,
> the earliest one is 50 years after his death. There's a bit of time
> for editing in there.
The earliest of the Gospels was most likely Mark. Almost nobody
argues for a date later than 70 AD anymore, and it was likely written
several years earlier. That's 35 to 37 years after the death of Jesus
at the latest. Paul's letters were all earlier. That means that
Christian accounts of Jesus were circulating in Judea within the
lifetime of people who had heard his teaching.
John's gospel was written later than the other accounts, however, so
there was more opportunity for altering Jesus's words. In fact there
are several "hidden" gospels from the second century that read more
like Paul Bunyan stories than histories. But there is strong internal
and external evidence that John was written by Jesus's disciple John.
If so, what you are suggesting is a rather astonishing conspiracy by
Jesus's followers who would have given their lives to death for
something they knew was a lie.
I hope you see that if the recorders of Jesus's teachings felt free to
make things up, we have no way of knowing anything Jesus taught. We
might as well say we are inspired by radio static.
>> Why do think he was killed then?
>
> Politics.
Well politics certainly played a part. Pilate commanded his
crucifixion for political reasons. But the Sanhedrin brought Jesus
to Pilate because he claimed to be the Christ. It was the charge of
Blasphemy that stuck. Take a look at the end of Mark chapter 14 and
the beginning of chapter 15.
> In another post in this thread you quote (and I paraphrase) that Jesus
> made himself humble, therefore God exalted him. The "therefore" in that
> sentance does not work. Fact: Jesus made himself humble. Unknown: God's
> attitude towards that.
The "therefore" works because Jesus was doing the will of the Father.
It was God's desire that Jesus live the life and die the death that he
did, therefore He honored Jesus. If Jesus is God, His will cannot be
separated from His Father's, and He will do what His Father asks Him
to do to the glory of God.
There are many things I'm uncertain about (like most of Revelation),
but this is not one of them.
Jon
Banty
>
>Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> In article <rcgisms...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Jon Ericson says...
>>>
>>>But it now occurs to me that an appeal to authority, even Biblical
>>>authority, might not hold water with you. Certainly I find it
>>>difficult to reconcile what you've said with what I read in the Bible.
>>
>>
>> Wow - not too many posters to USENET are kind enough to identify the
>> fallacies in their own posts.
>>
>> Saves some trouble - thanks.
>
>I was under the mistaken impression that dragonlady agreed that the
>Bible is authoritative. My original point was that Jesus claimed to
>be God (in the traditional sense) and that his earliest followers also
>claimed he was God. If there is any source that is authoritative on
>those questions, it would have to be the Bible.
>
>See <http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/authorit.html>.
Why not the Koran, or the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
You take the Bible as authority only because that's what you know in your
culture. It's no more authoritative than any other religious book. There's not
even an a priori reason to expect that religious authority should be found in a
book. Or any source. Or even that there would be a relitious authority.
Banty
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgd6cz...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> In that case, I wonder if you believe that the Bible accurately
>> records Jesus's teachings? If not, I don't think there is much left
>> for you to find inspirational.
>
> No, I don't believe that the Bible accurately records Jesus's teachings,
> though I suspect that at least some of it is accurate. The process of
> deciding which of the writings about Jesus to include in the canon and
> which to reject had far more to do with the politics of the 4th century
> than with any evidence of which was more accurate.
I don't contend that the canon was chosen based on historical accuracy
or that the Bible is historically accurate because it is canon.
Instead, like any book, the books of the Bible should be evaluated
based on internal and external evidence.
> There is some great stuff in the Gospel according to Thomas, and
> Mary's as well -- these were not included, and there was a nearly
> successful attempt to destroy all copies.
I think you will find that these where written much later than the
other gospels. I suspect that so few complete copies survive not
because of a conspiracy to destroy them, but because they weren't
worth copying. (It's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm
open for correction.)
> However, even if you completely eliminate Jesus's life and teachings
> from the Bible, there is a lot of beauty and inspiration. I love the
> 121st Psalm, and find it comforts me. While much of Paul's writing
> leaves me cold, several of the chapters in his letters to the
> Corintheans are beautiful. I love the story of Joseph, and the message
> of retribution not taken. I love the story of the exodus, and the
> willingness to go on into the unknown in spite of fear. There is so
> much in the Bible that has nothing to do with Jesus life and death --
> though I also find much of beauty and truth in Jesus' teachings as
> recorded in the Bible, I find many other passages that are beautiful and
> inspirational as well.
My point was that if you eliminate the Bible, there isn't much of
Jesus's teaching left. (From the above it seems beauty, inspiration
and perhaps comfort are things you look for in the Bible.)
>> I don't think you can seperate Christ's teachings from the things he
>> did in his life, nor from the manner in which he died. "[Jesus] then
>> began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be
>> rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and
>> that he must be killed and after three days rise again." (Mark 8:31)
>> How can anyone draw inspiration from this without understanding that
>> Christ's death was necessary to save humanity from our evil deeds?
>> This is the crux of the teachings of Jesus; without it, his live was
>> meaningless.
>
> That's not what Jesus said about the crux of his teaching. When the
> lawyer asked him what was most important in his teachings, Jesus quoted
> what Hillel said when asked to recite the law while standing on one
> foot: to love God, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
The question the teacher of the law actually asked was "Of all the
commandments, which is the most important," according to Mark 12:28 or
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" according to
Matthew 22:36. In other words, the question was about the old
covenant and not the new. (Covenant is a word that we don't use
much anymore. It means here, "an agreement between God and man".
Paul says that Jesus brought a new covenant that supersedes the old
agreement between Moses and God.)
> I do not accept the Calvinist view of humanity as depraved and in need
> of salvation. There is an old line that the Universalists rejected
> Calvinist doctrine because they believed that God was too good to
> condemn anyone to hell -- and the Unitarians rejected Calvinist doctrine
> because they thought that man was too good to be condemned to hell.
> Although Unitarian Universalism is no longer considered a Christian
> religion, historically both the Unitarians and the Universalists were
> Christian, and both found scriptural justification for their positions:
> that God was a God of love and salvation was universal, and a rejection
> of the trinity (Unitarianism).
>
> I find truth in both statements: I do not believe that humanity is
> evil, and I do not believe in a God who would condemn us to hell.
Do you at least believe humanity is capable of evil? You've quoted
the greatest commandment. Do you know anyone who follows it? Note
that Jesus says you must "Love the Lord your God with all your heart
and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
strength."
The second statement can only be dealt with after the first.
Jon Ericson
> Why not the Koran, or the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
>
> You take the Bible as authority only because that's what you know in
> your culture.
How presumptuous! I hope to raise my own son the way I was raised;
with a love for God and a curiosity of the world around us.
> It's no more authoritative than any other religious book. There's
> not even an a priori reason to expect that religious authority
> should be found in a book. Or any source. Or even that there would
> be a relitious authority.
I suppose I could give you my rationals for believing the Bible, but
when you come right down to it, I believe because of what Jesus did
for me. I know in my life I have done evil things, and he has saved
me from the wickedness of my past. I have rejected the One who first
loved me, and He has forgiven me and resorted our relationship.
Jon Ericson
> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
>
>>Jon Ericson wrote:
>>
>>> Please understand that saying "He is God, you are God, I am God," is
>>> hugely offensive to me. Trying to tease out a bit of common ground, I
>
> I find a lot of your (Jon's) posts hugely offensive in this thread.
> It is not up to you to vet what other people believe or do not
> believe. or to say that it is offensive or that they have 'explaining'
> to do. No one was asking about your beliefs.
I'm sorry I was offensive. I don't seem to be expressing myself well.
People are, of course, free to to believe what they will and don't
need to justify themselves to me or anyone besides themselves. My
original purpose was to find out how someone could claim to be a
Christian and not believe in the Trinity. (It turns out they weren't
really claiming to be Christian, if I'm not mistaken.) I've got
fairly strong opinions aobut the question it seems. :)
> For the record, although I belong to a church that does believe in the
> Trinity, I've never quite seen what the sense of that belief is. And
> I struggled for a long time in college with my inability to believe in
> the Bible where scientific theory was at odds with what the Bible said
> - especially the bit about creating the world in 7 days.
For the record, I don't believe the word "day" signifies a literal 24
hours.
Jon
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> dragonlady <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <rcgd6cz...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> > Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> In that case, I wonder if you believe that the Bible accurately
> >> records Jesus's teachings? If not, I don't think there is much left
> >> for you to find inspirational.
> >
> > No, I don't believe that the Bible accurately records Jesus's teachings,
> > though I suspect that at least some of it is accurate. The process of
> > deciding which of the writings about Jesus to include in the canon and
> > which to reject had far more to do with the politics of the 4th century
> > than with any evidence of which was more accurate.
>
> I don't contend that the canon was chosen based on historical accuracy
> or that the Bible is historically accurate because it is canon.
> Instead, like any book, the books of the Bible should be evaluated
> based on internal and external evidence.
>
> > There is some great stuff in the Gospel according to Thomas, and
> > Mary's as well -- these were not included, and there was a nearly
> > successful attempt to destroy all copies.
>
> I think you will find that these where written much later than the
> other gospels. I suspect that so few complete copies survive not
> because of a conspiracy to destroy them, but because they weren't
> worth copying. (It's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm
> open for correction.)
>
Actually, most scholars place Thomas as having been written somewhere
between the second half of the first century and the second half of the
second century -- contemporary with or even earlier than the canonized
gospels. Some even hypothosize that it is the "Q" source that the
synoptic gospels borrowed from. Thomas, the author, is thought to have
been one of the apostles -- unless I'm mistaken, the one commonly
referred to as 'doubting Thomas'.
And, since it was associated with the gnostic gospels, there WAS a
sincere attempt to destroy all copies -- they didn't disappear because
they weren't worth copying, but because there was a concerted effort to
get rid of them.
<<snip for brevity>>
It isn't that I'm not interested in what the Bible has to say -- only
that I don't consider it the Word of God, or authoritative, therefore
careful exegesis is unimportant to me.
> >
> > I find truth in both statements: I do not believe that humanity is
> > evil, and I do not believe in a God who would condemn us to hell.
>
> Do you at least believe humanity is capable of evil? You've quoted
> the greatest commandment. Do you know anyone who follows it? Note
> that Jesus says you must "Love the Lord your God with all your heart
> and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
> strength."
>
> The second statement can only be dealt with after the first.
It would be impossible to NOT notice that humans are capable of great
evil. But I believe they are also capable of great good, and that that
possibility -- the possibility for great good -- lies within each of us.
The people I know personally who seem to best embody the command to love
God (defined in various ways) and to love their neighbors are two
Buddhists who, I think, are boddhisatva, or at least very close. I
certainly know people who try, and several who seem to come close -- and
they come from many, many different faith traditions.
dragonlady
> Rosalie B. <gmbe...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>Jon Ericson wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please understand that saying "He is God, you are God, I am God," is
> >>> hugely offensive to me. Trying to tease out a bit of common ground, I
> >
> > I find a lot of your (Jon's) posts hugely offensive in this thread.
> > It is not up to you to vet what other people believe or do not
> > believe. or to say that it is offensive or that they have 'explaining'
> > to do. No one was asking about your beliefs.
>
> I'm sorry I was offensive. I don't seem to be expressing myself well.
> People are, of course, free to to believe what they will and don't
> need to justify themselves to me or anyone besides themselves. My
> original purpose was to find out how someone could claim to be a
> Christian and not believe in the Trinity. (It turns out they weren't
> really claiming to be Christian, if I'm not mistaken.) I've got
> fairly strong opinions aobut the question it seems. :)
Well, if that's what you are after . . .
I am NOT claiming to be Christian -- however, there are those who call
themselves Christian who are not trinitarians. If you are interested in
how and why, and what the scriptural basis for those beliefs are, go
back to study the writing of Francis David, who was the first bishop of
the Transylvanian Unitarian Church. He decided to reject anything that
wasn't biblical, and after careful study, he rejected the doctrine of
the Trinity as a human creation and began to preach his conception of
"One God" as he believed it was found in Jesus' teaching. That was the
radical step in the Reformation and brought about the beginning of
Unitarian theology in Transylvania in 1566. He is included as an
important figure in tracing the history of American Unitarianism as
well. David died in prison for refusing to recant his beliefs.
There are currently Christian Unitarian churches in England and in
Transyvlania, and Unitarian Universalists who consider themselves
Christian but who reject the trinity. The Way International
specifically rejects the trinity. Without more research, I could not
tell you which other Christian churches reject the trinity.
Banty
>
>Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
>> Why not the Koran, or the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
>>
>> You take the Bible as authority only because that's what you know in
>> your culture.
>
>How presumptuous! I hope to raise my own son the way I was raised;
>with a love for God and a curiosity of the world around us.
But you haven't answered my question. With all that curiosity, surely you can
answer why your path happens to be Christian.
>
>> It's no more authoritative than any other religious book. There's
>> not even an a priori reason to expect that religious authority
>> should be found in a book. Or any source. Or even that there would
>> be a relitious authority.
>
>I suppose I could give you my rationals for believing the Bible, but
>when you come right down to it, I believe because of what Jesus did
>for me. I know in my life I have done evil things, and he has saved
>me from the wickedness of my past. I have rejected the One who first
>loved me, and He has forgiven me and resorted our relationship.
So are you here to witness? Which, frankly, wouldn't be appreciated.
Marie has been remarkably expressive and patient. I'll take my answer as to
whether or not you're curious and really endeavoring to learn something in this
thread, rather than to witness, by your responses to her.
Banty
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgwub7...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> dragonlady <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> writes:
>>
>> > There is some great stuff in the Gospel according to Thomas, and
>> > Mary's as well -- these were not included, and there was a nearly
>> > successful attempt to destroy all copies.
>>
>> I think you will find that these where written much later than the
>> other gospels. I suspect that so few complete copies survive not
>> because of a conspiracy to destroy them, but because they weren't
>> worth copying. (It's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm
>> open for correction.)
>
> Actually, most scholars place Thomas as having been written somewhere
> between the second half of the first century and the second half of the
> second century -- contemporary with or even earlier than the canonized
> gospels. Some even hypothosize that it is the "Q" source that the
> synoptic gospels borrowed from. Thomas, the author, is thought to have
> been one of the apostles -- unless I'm mistaken, the one commonly
> referred to as 'doubting Thomas'.
You hold to a very late dating of the canonized gospels then. There's
an interesting explanation of the dating of the Bible at
<http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/jesus.html>.
> And, since it was associated with the gnostic gospels, there WAS a
> sincere attempt to destroy all copies -- they didn't disappear because
> they weren't worth copying, but because there was a concerted effort to
> get rid of them.
That doesn't surprise me. What would surprise me is if it had been
successful. Christianity spread too quickly and too far.
> It isn't that I'm not interested in what the Bible has to say -- only
> that I don't consider it the Word of God, or authoritative, therefore
> careful exegesis is unimportant to me.
That's a reasonable stance. The Gospel of Thomas is in that category
for me.
>> > I find truth in both statements: I do not believe that humanity is
>> > evil, and I do not believe in a God who would condemn us to hell.
>>
>> Do you at least believe humanity is capable of evil? You've quoted
>> the greatest commandment. Do you know anyone who follows it? Note
>> that Jesus says you must "Love the Lord your God with all your heart
>> and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your
>> strength."
>>
>> The second statement can only be dealt with after the first.
>
> It would be impossible to NOT notice that humans are capable of great
> evil. But I believe they are also capable of great good, and that that
> possibility -- the possibility for great good -- lies within each of us.
I find for myself, that even when I most want to do good and resist
evil, that I can't. The more I interact with people, the more I try
to be actively compassionate; the more arrogant and insensitive I prove
myself to be. Seeing God more clearly reveals my deep indifference to
Him. Perhaps I am simply a troubled person who wishes that the rest
of the world shares his disease. That would surprise me though, since
so many people are looking for the cure.
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgvfqr...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Jon Ericson says...
>>
>>Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> writes:
>>
>>> Why not the Koran, or the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
>>>
>>> You take the Bible as authority only because that's what you know in
>>> your culture.
>>
>>How presumptuous! I hope to raise my own son the way I was raised;
>>with a love for God and a curiosity of the world around us.
>
> But you haven't answered my question. With all that curiosity,
> surely you can answer why your path happens to be Christian.
Oddly I can't.
Ok. I'll bite. My knowledge of the Koran is strictly second hand.
I've never even heard of item number two on your list. I have not
done an extensive comparison of religions, so of course I'm not a
Christian for strictly rational and logical reasons. I acknowledge
that there are lots of good people who believe things I've never even
heard of before. I believe many things that are arbitrary and false
simply because where I was born and who I've come in contact with in
my life. When I talk about my experiences, I am only one of billions
of viewpoints over the existence of humanity. A purely rational
observer wouldn't notice my voice over the others, much less think I
am speaking truth. It is both arrogant and ignorant to assert that I
am right at the expense of all other views.
Perhaps that is the extent of world we really live in. But I think
there is a deeper purpose to it all. Most of us believe that. And we
search for that meaning. Some of us think we've found answers. Which
would you prefer, that we hide our potential answers from others so
that only we benefit if they prove true or that we reject our beliefs?
(I wish it hadn't taken me so long to understand that I was responding
to people who didn't claim to be Christian. If I had, I would have
phrased things differently, I think. People *have* been very patient
with me.)
Wendy
> Well, if that's what you are after . . .
> I am NOT claiming to be Christian -- however, there are those who call
> themselves Christian who are not trinitarians.
I feel like I'm more Christian than I am anything else. I've studied the
Bible at the college level, I've taught religious ed in a cross-
denominational United Church of Christ/Unitarian-Universalist church
and I was a practicing Catholic through age 9 (when a divorce absolved my
secular Jewish mother from having to pretend to be Catholic anymore.)
My mother later remarried a Buddhist and I draw my religious observances
and cultural stories from many sources, but Christian is the strongest.
I live my life as a Christian and worship with Christians and live in
a Christian world and enjoy the Christian myths as celebrated with the
pagan undertones. (Easter bunnies, anyone?) The religious text within
sight of my desk is a well-worn Bible. No, I don't choose to take "as
gospel" every element in it - neither does just about anyone. (Reread
Leviticus.) But I'm too assimilated to be Jewish and I'm not regular in
the practice of Buddhism and I'm affiliated with a Christian Church... so
yes, I'd say I'm Christian. The only reason to doubt it is when people
really get down to the nitty gritty and grill me on my doctrine. At that
point I have to admit that I don't believe in the Redeeming Divinity of
Christ.
I just try not to be around people who judge just how "good" a Christian I
am by which elements of Christian doctrine I choose to believe.
By the way, I think I did a pretty good job in the previous paragraph of
describing our liberal-American Congregational Church. When it gets right
down to it I'd guess that a HUGE percentage couldn't pass muster as
"Christians" to other "Christians". Shall we just agree to not worship
together?
Wendy
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> writes:
>
> > In article <rcgvfqr...@jpl.nasa.gov>, Jon Ericson says...
> >>
> >>Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> Why not the Koran, or the writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah?
> >>>
> >>> You take the Bible as authority only because that's what you know in
> >>> your culture.
> >>
> >>How presumptuous! I hope to raise my own son the way I was raised;
> >>with a love for God and a curiosity of the world around us.
> >
> > But you haven't answered my question. With all that curiosity,
> > surely you can answer why your path happens to be Christian.
>
> Oddly I can't.
>
> Ok. I'll bite. My knowledge of the Koran is strictly second hand.
> I've never even heard of item number two on your list.
Don't know if you are curious or care, but just in case you do want to
know what she's talking about, here's an extremely abbreviated history:
Ali Muhammad was a Muslim who began preaching in the 1800's.
He began to call himself the B?ab, or the Gate, and said his mission was
to prepare the world for the coming of a universal Messenger of God. In
1848, the Bab formally broke with Islam, but this did he and his
followers continued to be persecuted as apostate, and in 1850, he was
arrested and executed.
Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri was born to a wealthy family in Tehran in 1817,
he had passed up the opportunity to enter a government position, instead
choosing a life of service to the poor. He became popular, and
established a reputation as a fair and kind man. Though they never
met, he was a follower of the Bab, and eventually, it was determined
that he was the Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God, the one who the Bab had
prophesied. He was enormously well educated, and quoted scriptures from
many world religions to show that he was the fulfillment of prophesy
from all of them; he said he would be the last of God's messages for
1000 years. He taught that God had sent many messengers, and that all
religions were right, but that his teachings were more developed --
because humanity was ready for a more developed faith -- and would unite
all religions.
Followers of this faith are called the Bahai; it is a quickly growing
faith throughout the world -- maybe the one growing most quickly right
now. However, Bahai's continue to be persecuted in the mid-east and
many other countries.
>I have not
> done an extensive comparison of religions, so of course I'm not a
> Christian for strictly rational and logical reasons. I acknowledge
> that there are lots of good people who believe things I've never even
> heard of before. I believe many things that are arbitrary and false
> simply because where I was born and who I've come in contact with in
> my life. When I talk about my experiences, I am only one of billions
> of viewpoints over the existence of humanity. A purely rational
> observer wouldn't notice my voice over the others, much less think I
> am speaking truth. It is both arrogant and ignorant to assert that I
> am right at the expense of all other views.
>
> Perhaps that is the extent of world we really live in. But I think
> there is a deeper purpose to it all. Most of us believe that. And we
> search for that meaning. Some of us think we've found answers. Which
> would you prefer, that we hide our potential answers from others so
> that only we benefit if they prove true or that we reject our beliefs?
Go ahead and share your answers; I, for one, am always happy to hear
about how someone else's faith works for them. As long as you
understand that, just because it is a truth that works for you, it is
not the only truth around. Some of us have found other truths that work
well for us.
The problem comes when you share your truths in a way that seems to say
that my truths must be wrong, or dangerous. I support any search for
truth and meaning -- and if, for you, that means a fairly literal
interpretation of the Christian Bible, than I can be happy for you. I
hope you can be happy for the joy some of us find in something else.
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> dragonlady <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> writes:
>
> > In article <rcgwub7...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> > Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> dragonlady <meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > There is some great stuff in the Gospel according to Thomas, and
> >> > Mary's as well -- these were not included, and there was a nearly
> >> > successful attempt to destroy all copies.
> >>
> >> I think you will find that these where written much later than the
> >> other gospels. I suspect that so few complete copies survive not
> >> because of a conspiracy to destroy them, but because they weren't
> >> worth copying. (It's been a while since I looked at this, so I'm
> >> open for correction.)
> >
> > Actually, most scholars place Thomas as having been written somewhere
> > between the second half of the first century and the second half of the
> > second century -- contemporary with or even earlier than the canonized
> > gospels. Some even hypothosize that it is the "Q" source that the
> > synoptic gospels borrowed from. Thomas, the author, is thought to have
> > been one of the apostles -- unless I'm mistaken, the one commonly
> > referred to as 'doubting Thomas'.
>
> You hold to a very late dating of the canonized gospels then. There's
> an interesting explanation of the dating of the Bible at
> <http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/jesus.html>.
I looked, and it said that the canonized gospels date from about 65 CE
to 120 CE; since dating for the Gospel of Thomas ranges from 50 CE to
150 CE, that is contemporaneous with the canonized gospels. Also, the
citation you give refers to a presumed "Q", a collection of Jesus'
sayings from which several of the other gospels drew, and some scholars
hypothosize that the Gospel of Thomas is that document.
> > It would be impossible to NOT notice that humans are capable of great
> > evil. But I believe they are also capable of great good, and that that
> > possibility -- the possibility for great good -- lies within each of us.
>
> I find for myself, that even when I most want to do good and resist
> evil, that I can't. The more I interact with people, the more I try
> to be actively compassionate; the more arrogant and insensitive I prove
> myself to be. Seeing God more clearly reveals my deep indifference to
> Him. Perhaps I am simply a troubled person who wishes that the rest
> of the world shares his disease. That would surprise me though, since
> so many people are looking for the cure.
Or perhaps you have found a window to the devine that works for you.
Huston Smith, a scholar of religions, uses a metaphore of a stained
glass windows to describe the various religions: he says there may be
an Ultimate Truth, but it is filtered through different parts of the
stained glass. The truth we each see depends upon what part of the
window we see through. For you, raised in a Christian culture, the
Christian faith is how you find truth and meaning. Others find their
truth and meaning (their 'cure') in many, many other places, including
in science, 12 step programs, Paganism -- the phenominal variety of
colors in the window is beautiful to me.
Jon Ericson
> The problem comes when you share your truths in a way that seems to
> say that my truths must be wrong, or dangerous. I support any
> search for truth and meaning -- and if, for you, that means a fairly
> literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, than I can be happy
> for you. I hope you can be happy for the joy some of us find in
> something else.
Augustine talks of the City of God and the City of Men which are
constantly at war with one another. These cities are intermingled in
our society. Some of the people who go to my church (I assume) are
citizens of the City of Men. Some people who have never been to a
Christian church are members of the City of God. These two cities
will not be separated until the final judgment. In the end, it will
be God who decides the citizenship of each person.
I don't believe that God requires us to take a test or meet certain
requirements to be citizens of His city. He chooses His citizens for
reasons that are unknown to us and may seem arbitrary. He rejected
Cain, but accepted Abel. We can't join His city by force.
I also believe something that seems contradictory even to me. Each
step we take propels us closer or farther away from God. When Jesus
claims to be God, we can either fall on our knees in worship or turn
our backs on him. We don't honor him by saying he was a good teacher.
Pursuit of truth is, in my opinion, always good and always dangerous.
It's sometimes easier to remain in the safety of our current beliefs,
because there is always a chance that we will learn something that
shakes up our lives. Too many Christians choose to stay within the
walls of the Church as if that could shield them from evil.
So can I be happy for you? I don't know. On the one hand, it seems
better to pursue God than not. On the other, it seems to me that it
would be easy to be misled by focusing on inspiring, beautiful and
comforting things from a variety of religious backgrounds. In my
experience, the difficult, even ugly, parts of Christianity are the
most important things to grapple with. It would be a shame to be
inspired by the command to love your neighbor as yourself, but miss
the truth that you must lose your life in order to save it, for
instance.
I'm not sure you really care if I'm happy for you or not, though. I'm
just some guy on Usenet. It sounds to me as if you are accusing me,
in a polite way, of being narrow-minded.
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure you really care if I'm happy for you or not, though. I'm
> just some guy on Usenet. It sounds to me as if you are accusing me,
> in a polite way, of being narrow-minded.
>
> Jon
Not really; I will say that many in your faith ARE narrow minded.
I will accuse anyone who believes they have found the One Truth, and
attempts to paint anyone else's faith as misguided (at best) or evil (at
worst) of being narrow minded, though I don't usually bother to comment
one way or another unless they become abusive.
I don't think you HAVE been abusive. You have stated what you believed
in a relatively non-confrontational way, which is why I've been willing
to engage in conversation -- you seemed to really want to understand
where I was coming from. Unfortnately, too many of your faith ARE
abusive in their attempts to "save" us; I would have to include a
relative of mine, for example, who can be downright nasty to my kids and
me. You, unfortunately, have to deal with that baggage: many of us
have been, for want of a better word, assaulted by fundamentalist
Christians, and it can be hard to trust that a conversation with someone
of your fath about religion will NOT degenerate into that sort of
assault.
As far as whether I really care if you are happy for me, personally --
probably not. But I *do* care if you (or anyone else, of any faith) can
step outside their own faith to see the joy and goodness in someone
else's faith. If a faith prevents that, then I think there is something
lacking.
Jon Ericson
> In article <rcgptgz...@jpl.nasa.gov>,
> Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
>
>> You hold to a very late dating of the canonized gospels then. There's
>> an interesting explanation of the dating of the Bible at
>> <http://personal.bgsu.edu/~roberth/jesus.html>.
>
> I looked, and it said that the canonized gospels date from about 65
> CE to 120 CE; since dating for the Gospel of Thomas ranges from 50
> CE to 150 CE, that is contemporaneous with the canonized gospels.
> Also, the citation you give refers to a presumed "Q", a collection
> of Jesus' sayings from which several of the other gospels drew, and
> some scholars hypothosize that the Gospel of Thomas is that
> document.
My source[1] puts the latest date at C.140 CE, based on the dating of
three Greek fragments of Thomas. The author was *not* the apostle
Thomas, but a "fictitious author: Judas Didymus Thomas [who] appears
only in writings of East Syrian origin."[2] The early dating is 60-70
CE based on the presumed age of the tradition. It is composed of
sayings of Jesus, which seem to be ordered by word association.
Although some of the sayings have parallels in the Synoptic Gospels,
the ordering and details of the language show that Thomas is
independent of them. The surviving copy of Thomas is Coptic.
Q is an inferred common source of Matthew and Luke. They also used
material from Mark and outside sources. If Thomas was contemporaneous
with them, they were either unaware of it or didn't draw from it. The
Q material taken together can be dated before the destruction of the
temple, perhaps in the 40s.
I disagree with many of the assumptions that some Biblical scholars
make when dating these texts. For instance, material that refers to
the Old Testament (which Jesus was certainly familiar with) is dated
after texts that omit the references. But a conservative (textually
conservative not theologically) dating puts Q thirty years or more
before Thomas. That Thomas appears better suited for oral
transmission, advertises itself as "secret sayings" and was not widely
circulated, tends to confirm this chronology.
For people interested in reconstruction the Historical Jesus (a
pointless exercise in my opinion), Thomas is of vital importance since
it represents an independent tradition. In the history of
Christianity, it is barely worth a footnote until 1945 when a complete
copy was found.
Jon
Footnotes:
[1] Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz. The Historical Jesus; A
Comprehensive Guide. 1996. Translated by John Bowden. Fortress
Press, Minneapolis. 1998.
[2] Ibid. Page 38.
Jon Ericson
> I don't think you HAVE been abusive. You have stated what you
> believed in a relatively non-confrontational way, which is why I've
> been willing to engage in conversation -- you seemed to really want
> to understand where I was coming from. Unfortnately, too many of
> your faith ARE abusive in their attempts to "save" us; I would have
> to include a relative of mine, for example, who can be downright
> nasty to my kids and me. You, unfortunately, have to deal with that
> baggage: many of us have been, for want of a better word, assaulted
> by fundamentalist Christians, and it can be hard to trust that a
> conversation with someone of your fath about religion will NOT
> degenerate into that sort of assault.
Something about the above strikes me as odd; I hesitate to mention it
since I am extra sensitive to it. I don't defend nastiness and abuse
for any cause. The end does not justify the means.[1] And of course
I don't know the first thing about your relative.
With that said, I wonder if you've put yourself in the shoes of a
hypothetical fundamentalist Christian?[2] Imagine that you believe
that Jesus is the *only* way to heaven, that anyone may claim a ticket
to heaven by doing a single, easy act, and that there are millions of
people who are headed straight to hell because they haven't heard of
Jesus or answered his call.
Can you understand the torment this would be? You've got a product
that sells itself, no-one is buying, and you are to blame. If
motivated by love, rejection of this message can be particularly hard.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this misunderstanding "cheap grace". It
comes from an incomplete understanding of who Jesus was and the life
he calls us to. Like anyone else, Christians are prone to taking the
easy bits and ignoring the hard bits. Tragically, rather than reaping
the benefits of true grace, they suffer in a religion of works.
Another way to correct this misunderstanding, I suppose, would be to
study a bunch of other religions and see that there are a bunch of
different points of view. Kinda like reading Palestinian and Jewish
travel guides to find out what it's like to live in Jerusalem.
Jon
Footnotes:
[1] Especially sense the means pretty much assure the opposite of
intended results. ;)
[2] Do you have any positive associations with the word
fundamentalist? It's probably better to avoid labeling anyone
who doesn't take that label on themselves. The original
technical meaning isn't terribly useful anymore.
dragonlady
Jon Ericson <Jon.E...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
I don't have to imagine -- I used to be a fundamentalist evangelical
Christian. I remember what it felt like to believe that those I loved
who did not believe as I did would spend an eternity in hell. What made
me stop believing those things doesn't matter -- suffice it to say that
I no longer believe the things I used to believe, but my memory gives me
more patience when approached by someone of those beliefs. I still have
friends (and relatives) who believe I am headed to hell; there are ways
of presenting that belief that are abusive, and ways that are not.
While I will listen (and exchange ideas, if they are interested) with
those who approach me with dignity and respect, I am not so patient with
those whose approach is punative and abusive. (The relative to whom I
referred is very clear that he doesn't care WHAT I believe, and is
completely uninterested in any sort of dialogue. He explained that,
since I don't call myself a Christian, what i believe doesn't matter, it
is just wrong. He further explained that if I DID call myself a
Christian, he would want to understand, but only so he could show me the
errors in my thinking. It is one of the reasons that, although I find
myself more and more often turning to Jesus' teachings, I am unlikely to
ever call myself a Christian again. It would offend him too much.)
Since I DID leave that belief system, I have been subjected to both
gentle and abusive approaches, by people I cared about. Those I respect
most are those who clearly manifest their faith in their lives. Some
people have a deep joy about them, and live their lives in a way that
clearly demonstrates the inner light/grace of God/divinity/Buddha spirit
-- whatever name you give it, some are clearly more in touch with it
than others, and that includes some people who identify as
fundamentalist Christians. Those folks are never abusive when they tell
others of their faith. They make sure everyone knows about it, but
without being at all unpleasant.
I don't think this conversation has any intereste for others in this
newsgroup; I had not intended to respond further, but I also don't want
to cut off any conversation in which you are interested -- as you can
undoubtedly tell, religion in general fascinates me, and I seldom break
off any sort of dialogue before everyone else is sick to death of it!
However, if you are interested in talking further, I have no objection
to being contacted by e-mail; remove the obvious from my e-mail address
to reach me.
>
> Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this misunderstanding "cheap grace". It
> comes from an incomplete understanding of who Jesus was and the life
> he calls us to. Like anyone else, Christians are prone to taking the
> easy bits and ignoring the hard bits. Tragically, rather than reaping
> the benefits of true grace, they suffer in a religion of works.
>
> Another way to correct this misunderstanding, I suppose, would be to
> study a bunch of other religions and see that there are a bunch of
> different points of view. Kinda like reading Palestinian and Jewish
> travel guides to find out what it's like to live in Jerusalem.
>
> Jon
>
> Footnotes:
> [1] Especially sense the means pretty much assure the opposite of
> intended results. ;)
>
> [2] Do you have any positive associations with the word
> fundamentalist? It's probably better to avoid labeling anyone
> who doesn't take that label on themselves. The original
> technical meaning isn't terribly useful anymore.
I understand both the original meaning (as it was adopted by those who
used the term themselves -- I've read that document) and it's current
usage probably far better than most! I had assumed, from some of what
you've written, that you WOULD take that label on for yourself; if I am
incorrect and have offended you by it's use, I apologize. I certainly
did not intend it to be insulting -- only descriptive. Since
Christianity comes in so many different types, I often find it useful to
try to be more descriptive than just "Christian".
Wendy
> He further explained that if I DID call myself a
> Christian, he would want to understand, but only so he could show me the
> errors in my thinking. It is one of the reasons that, although I find
> myself more and more often turning to Jesus' teachings, I am unlikely to
> ever call myself a Christian again. It would offend him too much.)
I haven't reached the state where I give up being called a Christian, even
though I've publically admitted that I don't believe in the divinity of
Christ. I resent the term being co-opted by people who examine my beliefs
in details - I believe so much of what they believe about how people
should be treated and ways to conduct my life, and I am immersed in a
Christian culture, and followers of all OTHER religions would refer to me
(or hate me as) a Christian - I'm just not quite ready to give up on
identifying myself as that. In fact, I believe my version of Christianity
is more the rule than the exception. (Raise your hand if you don't
believe in immaculate conception - of either Mary OR Jesus.)
> Since I DID leave that belief system, I have been subjected to both
> gentle and abusive approaches, by people I cared about.
I'm lucky: my mother didn't become a Jehovah's Witness until after I had
already grown up and left home. She knows exactly where I come by my
religious faith and hasn't nagged me about not being one of the
Chosen. But my youngest brother married a JW who was raised that way and
she views me as just short of Satan. The evil she ascribes to me is
amazing!
> I don't think this conversation has any intereste for others in this
> newsgroup; I had not intended to respond further, but I also don't want
> to cut off any conversation in which you are interested -- as you can
> undoubtedly tell, religion in general fascinates me, and I seldom break
> off any sort of dialogue before everyone else is sick to death of it!
> However, if you are interested in talking further, I have no objection
> to being contacted by e-mail; remove the obvious from my e-mail address
> to reach me.
I've been following it. You say what I mean so much better than I do!
Wendy
Marion Baumgarten
> dragonlady wrote:
> > He further explained that if I DID call myself a
> > Christian, he would want to understand, but only so he could show me the
> > errors in my thinking. It is one of the reasons that, although I find
> > myself more and more often turning to Jesus' teachings, I am unlikely to
> > ever call myself a Christian again. It would offend him too much.)
>
> I haven't reached the state where I give up being called a Christian, even
> though I've publically admitted that I don't believe in the divinity of
> Christ. I resent the term being co-opted by people who examine my beliefs
> in details - I believe so much of what they believe about how people
> should be treated and ways to conduct my life, and I am immersed in a
> Christian culture, and followers of all OTHER religions would refer to me
> (or hate me as) a Christian - I'm just not quite ready to give up on
> identifying myself as that. In fact, I believe my version of Christianity
> is more the rule than the exception. (Raise your hand if you don't
> believe in immaculate conception - of either Mary OR Jesus.)
Sigh- the doctrine of the immaculate conception (which is the idea that
Mary was conceived in the ordinary physical way, but without the taint
of original sin) and the virgin birth of Jesus are two different
doctrines. Which parts of Christianity believe which, I won't get into,
except to say that the Virgin birth of Jesus is a much older doctrine.
I, myself, publically proclaim my belief in the doctrine of the Virgin
Birth almost every Sunday when I say the Nicene Creed. I assume that my
fellow parishoners believe it as well, but it's really none of my
business. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "We do not wish windows into men's
souls."
I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
longer Christian.
B'hai's believe that Jesus was a cool dude too, but that doesn't make
them Christians. Jews for Jesus think Jesus was the Messiah and for Jews
that means that they can't be Jewish, too. Now in 20 BCE, it might have
been a different story, but that's today's reality.
Marion Baumgarten
A'82
Dana Netherton
<1g2zkx5.12rhyb7nm9l92N%mari...@mindspring.com>, mari...@mindspring.com
said...
<snip>
> I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
> it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
> core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
> comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
> longer Christian.
>
> B'hai's believe that Jesus was a cool dude too, but that doesn't make
> them Christians. Jews for Jesus think Jesus was the Messiah and for Jews
> that means that they can't be Jewish, too. Now in 20 BCE, it might have
> been a different story, but that's today's reality.
>
>
> Marion Baumgarten
> A'82
Well said, Marion. I agree entirely.
What complicates the matter, of course, is that the European cultures
have been close-hauled with Christianity for so many centuries that
truckloads of peoples in the cultures feel that they're Christians by
virtue of being members of the cultures. A few non-American examples:
1. I remember a German Lutheran pastor (female) shaking her head ruefully
as she described some people she knew in Hanover who believed that they
must be Lutheran, because they love Bach's music.
2. There are plenty of anecdotal quotes from Greeks who can't conceive of
a Greek not being an Orthodox Christian (and who have trouble conceiving
of an Orthodox Christian who isn't a Greek). Doctrinal beliefs? Level of
observance? For them, secondary issues.
3. I remember a local-TV-news on-the-street interview in London (UK) with
a mother who was protesting the removal of the Lord's Prayer from the
daily assembly at her children's school. (The assembly was introduced as
a "daily act of worship" in the first Education Act providing for state
funding of schools, in the 1800s. It was still described as such in the
version of the Act in force in c. 1983, when I saw this news broadcast.
AFAIK it is still described as such in the current version of the Act.)
No, she told the local-TV reporter, she didn't go to church, but this was
a Christian country (she said), and she learned the Lord's Prayer in
school, and her children should learn the Lord's Prayer in school. And
that's probably the full extent of the religious instruction they would
ever get.
And there are certainly plenty of Americans who fall into that bucket,
too.
What complicates it still further is our "collective memory" of the Bad
Old Days, when in specific times and places before the 1700s or so
answers to questions about one's religious beliefs could lead to the
gallows -- or worse. When those times came along, being a "Christian"
was how one stayed alive.
No doubt that was sometimes hard to do, considering the level of
religious instruction available in some of those places and times.
Pragmatic people would probably just try to figure out what the
interrogator wanted them to say, and say it.
And in the political turbulence that accompanied and followed the
Reformation, some places in Western Europe shifted back and forth from
one religious "side" to the other several times ... almost certainly with
disastrous results for the continuity (and depth) of belief of the people
who lived there.
All of which means that it's real hard to label someone during a
conversation as a "Christian" or as a "not-Christian" without either (1)
pegging the label to the church they're affiliated with (which isn't
always a precise peg, as Wendy notes in her own case), or (2) seeming to
be trying to re-open the Days of the Spanish Inquisition (which is off-
putting, at the very least!). :-)
Perhaps this is a different kind of problem from the one presented when a
religious organization on the fringe of Christian doctrine and history,
such as the "Unification Church" ("Moonies"), the "Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter Day Saints" ("Mormons"), the "Church of Christ, Science"
("Christian Science"), and so forth, claims to be "a Christian church"
... just like "all the other Christian churches".
In that context, it seems much safer to examine official doctrines and
practices against some "standard" set of Christian doctrines and
practices. Even though many members of such groups might be less-than-
thrilled to be denied the status of belonging to "a Christian church".
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton, A '72
Default address is a spam dump. Use it, and
I'll never see it. To reach me, e-mail:
dana 1 netherton 2 net, where "1" = at, and "2" = dot
--------
I don't belong to an organized religion.
I'm Eastern Orthodox.
Wendy
>> I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
>> it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
>> core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
>> comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
>> longer Christian.
But see, you don't get to decide what religion I am. You can decide that
I'm not as far along on my journey as you are, or that I'm not a very GOOD
Christian, but you can't tell me that I'm not Christian. Every
non-Christian in the world would call me Christian. I'm half Jewish,
culturally Jewish, but have never been to services at a Temple or had any
religious training. OTOH, I've had religious training as a Catholic
(including being baptised and having a first Communion). I worship in a
Christian church and even teach Sunday School. I don't believe everything
that the person in the pew next to me believes, but absolutely NO ONE I
know believes every single thing.
> 1. I remember a German Lutheran pastor (female) shaking her head ruefully
> as she described some people she knew in Hanover who believed that they
> must be Lutheran, because they love Bach's music.
I just went to a wedding at a Lutheran church. Some of the family attend
services and are noticeably pious. But some are just of Germanic heritage
and it's the church they use for baptisms, weddings and funerals and
pretty much nothing else. They think they're Lutheran. I think they are
non-observant Lutherans, but, yes, they are culturally Lutherans.
> What complicates it still further is our "collective memory" of the Bad
> Old Days, when in specific times and places before the 1700s or so
> answers to questions about one's religious beliefs could lead to the
> gallows -- or worse. When those times came along, being a "Christian"
> was how one stayed alive.
And guess what, that heritage works out to a tradition of people who
practice Christianity being at all ends of the observant spectrum. Face
it, there are Christians who don't believe everything you think they ought
to believe, but they self-identify and are identified by non-Christians as
Christian. Like it or not, it's the way it is.
I'm curious about whether you would look at Sadie Bigelman with a mezzuzah
on her door and Passover Sedars and observing the High Holidays and say
she isn't Jewish on closer examination of her doctrine.
> All of which means that it's real hard to label someone during a
> conversation as a "Christian" or as a "not-Christian" without either (1)
> pegging the label to the church they're affiliated with (which isn't
> always a precise peg, as Wendy notes in her own case), or (2) seeming to
> be trying to re-open the Days of the Spanish Inquisition (which is off-
> putting, at the very least!). :-)
So why get into it at all? I just can't see a reason to judge someone
else's beliefs and correct their self-appelation. If someone refers to
themselves as a young woman do you stop to quiz them on exactly how old
they are?
> Perhaps this is a different kind of problem from the one presented when a
> religious organization on the fringe of Christian doctrine and history,
> such as the "Unification Church" ("Moonies"), the "Church of Jesus Christ
> of Latter Day Saints" ("Mormons"), the "Church of Christ, Science"
> ("Christian Science"), and so forth, claims to be "a Christian church"
> ... just like "all the other Christian churches".
I don't understand what the problem is. Someone says they're
Christian. You want to discuss Christianity for some reason and they go
into further detail and say they're Mormon. You say your version. No
problem.
> In that context, it seems much safer to examine official doctrines and
> practices against some "standard" set of Christian doctrines and
> practices. Even though many members of such groups might be less-than-
> thrilled to be denied the status of belonging to "a Christian church".
I don't see ANYTHING safe about this at all.
Wendy
Wendy
> Sigh- the doctrine of the immaculate conception (which is the idea that
> Mary was conceived in the ordinary physical way, but without the taint
> of original sin) and the virgin birth of Jesus are two different
> doctrines.
I actually knew that. I'm meant to lump the two "special" births into the
question and used sloppy language. Thanks for correcting it.
> I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
> it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
> core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
> comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
> longer Christian.
What religion are they then? What would a Muslim see them as?
My observation is that Christianity is always changing, not just in the
world but in an individual person's spiritual journey. That's one reason
there is such a spectrum of level of observances between different
churches (and even individuals in a specific congregation.)
Wendy
Banty
>
>Dana Netherton wrote:
>>> I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
>>> it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
>>> core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
>>> comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
>>> longer Christian.
>
>But see, you don't get to decide what religion I am. You can decide that
>I'm not as far along on my journey as you are, or that I'm not a very GOOD
>Christian, but you can't tell me that I'm not Christian. Every
>non-Christian in the world would call me Christian. I'm half Jewish,
>culturally Jewish, but have never been to services at a Temple or had any
>religious training. OTOH, I've had religious training as a Catholic
>(including being baptised and having a first Communion). I worship in a
>Christian church and even teach Sunday School. I don't believe everything
>that the person in the pew next to me believes, but absolutely NO ONE I
>know believes every single thing.
But some things, such as the divinity of Jesus, is very central.
You can self-identify as an 'Ooooga-booga' as far as I care. But Christianity
is a religion of profession, not heritage. If you call yourself Christian
without believing in the most central doctrine of Christianity, you're not
communicating.
Banty
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Banty, that has not been/is not always the case. There are/have been
people who call themselves Christians going back many centuries who do
NOT believe that Jesus is/was God. How far they go has varied. Some
reject the trinity by stating that Jesus was a creation of God, and
there is only one God, so Jesus is not God -- but still consider Jesus
to have been a unique creation of God's. Others insist on the full
humanity of Jesus, but believe that he was the most important of God's
messengers, and they believe they are following the same religion that
Jesus taught. All have used scriptural references to justify their
position -- the more educated going back to the original languages as
much as possible. They include priests and ministers as well as laity.
Many, many people would deny all of those folks the right to call
themselves "Christian", on the same basis that you do. Many of those
folks were executed for refusing to adhere to the official doctrine of
the Christian church -- but died insisting that they were Christians.
While we no longer execute folks (at least in the USA) for not adhering
to a specific doctrine, there are still people who insist that anyone
who doesn't follow THEIR interpretation of the Bible isn't a "real"
Christian. Heck, the Fundamentalist church of my childhood taught us
that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics weren't Christians, but
cults. (It was the proverbial Last Straw -- I never went back after that
Sunday.)
As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
themselves. However, since there are so many variations within
Christianity, without having more information they do NOT communicate
all that much. Even if you stick to only those folks who believe in the
unique divinity of Jesus, the differences between Catholics and Seventh
Day Adventists and Quakers and Mennonites and . . . well, it's a huge
variety. If it is important for me to know exactly what type of
Christian, or the specifics of their belief, I'll ask further questions
to determine exactly what they DO mean.
Dana Netherton
36E301.071...@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net
said...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
dragonlady,
You made a couple of points here, and rather than jumble them into one
response I'm going to separate them out.
On this point, well, this is obviously something where people's mileage
varies. :-)
However it's not a Fundamental Principle of Religion.
For example, you're not going to get most Jews to agree that you're a Jew
simply because you "so identify yourself". I'm aware of a couple of
groups that have "so identified themselves", but that are not eligible
for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return:
- Jews for Jesus (and their cousins, Messianic Jews)
- Black Hebrews (for a neutral overview, see
<http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b58.html>) (This group has been granted
the status of permanent residents, but not citizenship)
You can debate with the rabbis all you wish, but you won't get anywhere.
So it's a point where people do differ ... and the position that you
might consider to be a "hard line" position -- "membership is granted by
the group, it is not simply up for grabs by anyone who claims it" -- is
one that is not held *only* by Christians.
Shucks, as soon as membership in a group begins to accumulate privileges,
you're going to get a rush of people eager to claim membership. Is it
truly so self-evident that they should be able to claim it, simply by
saying so?
Not to me. Again, IMHO, and YMMV.
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton
Dana Netherton
36E301.071...@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net
said...
Yes, that has always been true. The theological term for that group is
"Christian heretics".
Individuals with this belief have usually been tolerated within churches,
in the belief that they are likely to do no lasting harm and that
they might learn better. Churches have taken a harder line when
individuals have formed movements that sought to make their opinions the
official position of their church.
> Many, many people would deny all of those folks the right to call
> themselves "Christian", on the same basis that you do. Many of those
> folks were executed for refusing to adhere to the official doctrine of
> the Christian church -- but died insisting that they were Christians.
Generally when they got a movement going within a church that threatened
to change its official teachings. And generally when that church had
connections with the state -- hence, generally in pre-"Enlightenment"
Europe. (Before the 1700s, that is.)
As I think of the many Christian heresies that have popped up in the last
2,000 years, I can't actually come up with many movements that have (1)
explicitly denied the divinity of Christ and also (2) produced large
numbers of executed people. For example the Gnostic heretics sometimes
called Albigensians (in the early 1200s or so) died in large numbers, but
their beliefs were not quite the same sort of thing as you're describing.
And very few of the Protestants killed during the Reformation held these
views.
(Some? Probably. Once the foundations were kicked out from under the feet
of people, you got a lot of wild-eyed preachers spouting all sorts of
amazing stuff ... along with a lot of people who were willing to listen.
But very few had these specific views. Lutherans and Reformed Christians
(whether on the Continent or in Britain) -- solid Trinitarians, all --
were by far the majority of the non-Catholics killed during that period.)
The Unitarian movement really arose in the 1700s, out of the so-called
"Age of Enlightenment/Age of Reason" (dash it all, that "trinity"
business is *so* unreasonable, what, what?) ... about a century after
Europe had burned itself out in religious wars (most notably, the Thirty
Years War, 1618-48, mostly in Germany). So that crowd never really faced
lethal persecution of the kind you described.
> While we no longer execute folks (at least in the USA)
Where do "we"? In Europe? LOL! Not today's Europe, by any means. The
European Union is debating whether even to mention Christianity in a
document describing the fundamental rights of its citizens. At this
point, those defending a reference to Christianity are firmly on the
defensive.
> for not adhering
> to a specific doctrine, there are still people who insist that anyone
> who doesn't follow THEIR interpretation of the Bible isn't a "real"
> Christian. Heck, the Fundamentalist church of my childhood taught us
> that Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics weren't Christians, but
> cults. (It was the proverbial Last Straw -- I never went back after that
> Sunday.)
Oh, that's certainly true of course. For that matter, that church would
consider me to be Beyond The Pale.
Now, if you respond by saying, "No one can say who a Christian is", then
in effect you have given up and you have let them win. Because then the
*only* people who will be saying who "Christians" are ... will be the
fundies.
> As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
> themselves.
Addressed in another post. :-)
> However, since there are so many variations within
> Christianity, without having more information they do NOT communicate
> all that much. Even if you stick to only those folks who believe in the
> unique divinity of Jesus, the differences between Catholics and Seventh
> Day Adventists and Quakers and Mennonites and . . . well, it's a huge
> variety. If it is important for me to know exactly what type of
> Christian, or the specifics of their belief, I'll ask further questions
> to determine exactly what they DO mean.
Personally, I don't need to know "whether" someone is a "Christian". I
do like to know whether someone belongs to my own group ... but that
often matters less than whether the person is friendly, whether the
person knows what he or she is doing, and so forth.
I only really "need to know" whether they belong to my group when they
show up in my church expecting to claim the privileges of membership. And
even then it's not usually *I* who needs to decide ... it's the church
leadership.
(This is where the example comes in that someone raised, up-thread, of
the modern Unitarian-Universalists, who are not accepted in the U.S.
National Council of Christian Churches. That's a matter of official
recognition and official membership in a group defined in a specific
official way. It's very different from how one handles a member of a
congregation who expresses "different" views about things.)
As for folks who "show up in my church", shucks, we get plenty of
visitors, and they're welcome to come and visit as often and as long as
they want. We only need to look at their "membership card" (a metaphor,
we don't really have them of course) if they want to be considered
members.
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton
Banty
says...
I had a Sunday School teacher try to tell me Muslims worship the stone in the
corner of the Ka'aba. Same result.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
>themselves. However, since there are so many variations within
>Christianity, without having more information they do NOT communicate
>all that much. Even if you stick to only those folks who believe in the
>unique divinity of Jesus, the differences between Catholics and Seventh
>Day Adventists and Quakers and Mennonites and . . . well, it's a huge
>variety. If it is important for me to know exactly what type of
>Christian, or the specifics of their belief, I'll ask further questions
>to determine exactly what they DO mean.
Can you give examples of Christian movements which do not recognize the divinity
of Jesus? Because if someone describes themselves as 'Christian' meaning just
'hey I'm a good person too', that I do not recognize.
Banty
Dana Netherton
no-...@mtholyoke.edu said...
> Dana Netherton wrote:
> >> I really don't care if you call yourself a Christian or not, but for me
> >> it's not just a synonym for "nice person"- there is a general set of
> >> core beliefs which the Christian community has held over time and there
> >> comes a point when if a group doesn't hold to enough of them they are no
> >> longer Christian.
>
> But see, you don't get to decide what religion I am. You can decide that
> I'm not as far along on my journey as you are, or that I'm not a very GOOD
> Christian, but you can't tell me that I'm not Christian. Every
> non-Christian in the world would call me Christian. I'm half Jewish,
> culturally Jewish, but have never been to services at a Temple or had any
> religious training. OTOH, I've had religious training as a Catholic
> (including being baptised and having a first Communion). I worship in a
> Christian church and even teach Sunday School. I don't believe everything
> that the person in the pew next to me believes, but absolutely NO ONE I
> know believes every single thing.
1. Wendy, let's be sure to get the attributions right. Marion said those
words, not me. :-)
Yes, I seconded them, but I didn't write those very words. :-)
2. I'm not trying to "decide what religion you are". I don't want to.
But I do want the term "Christian" to have *content*. I want it to mean
more than, "what I have decided to call myself today".
In Christianity, unlike many other world religions, doctrine has
historically been considered at least as important as behavior. So if
you want to emphasize behavior to the exclusion of doctrine, that's
certainly your call -- but you're doing something different from what
Christians have done over the last 2,000 years.
*shrug* You may feel it's an improvement. People's mileage varies, of
course. But it is *different*.
> > 1. I remember a German Lutheran pastor (female) shaking her head ruefully
> > as she described some people she knew in Hanover who believed that they
> > must be Lutheran, because they love Bach's music.
>
> I just went to a wedding at a Lutheran church. Some of the family attend
> services and are noticeably pious. But some are just of Germanic heritage
> and it's the church they use for baptisms, weddings and funerals and
> pretty much nothing else. They think they're Lutheran. I think they are
> non-observant Lutherans, but, yes, they are culturally Lutherans.
Yes, exactly: the "cultural" member vs the "religious" member.
Lots of American churches gained lots of members in the post-WW II era,
the late 1940s and 1950s ... and those same churches lost lots of members
in the Vietnam War and post-war era, the 1960s and 1970s. Conservative
critics have tended to blame this on "changes" that the churches made in
the 60s and 70s.
I'm inclined to think that what happened was that those churches gained
lots of "cultural" members in the Red Scare era -- when it became
important in some social circles to be "seen" in church -- and then lost
those "cultural" members when being "seen" in church stopped being quite
so important, in those same social circles.
While the "religious" members continued to go to church, throughout.
You might be too sensitive/touchy on this point to hear this, Wendy, but
I actually don't care very much whether or not "cultural" members are
called "members". For internal purposes within the denomination, I have
no problem with the denomination allowing them to function as members ...
just as you do, within yours. Shucks, I feel, it does no harm, and might
do them some good. (And might do the "religious" members some good, too,
if they can take advantage of the opportunity to show some humility and
tolerance.)
And I wouldn't want to see them pressured to "up their (spiritual) ante"
... I wouldn't want to see "religious" members leaning on them to become
more "religious", more like *them*. I'd rather see these people set a
good example ... show something attractive enough to persuade the
"cultural" members to want to go further.
Which I think is very close to what you have said you would prefer.
Now, you asked a question:
<snip>
> I'm curious about whether you would look at Sadie Bigelman with a mezzuzah
> on her door and Passover Sedars and observing the High Holidays and say
> she isn't Jewish on closer examination of her doctrine.
First, it's not up to me to say whether she's "properly" Jewish.
I'm not Jewish myself, so I have no business critiquing her approach to
Judaism.
Second, though, I know enough about Judaism to be aware that it does take
a very different approach to membership (and adherence) than Christianity
does.
As I noted earlier, Christianity has always considered doctrine/belief to
be roughly on a par with behavior, in terms of importance. But not all
religions do.
Judaism, *unlike Christianity*, puts behavior *way* higher than
doctrine/belief.
Oh, there are some beliefs you can't have. You can't believe that Jesus
Christ is God the Son Incarnate ... mostly because of the millennia of
bitter rivalry between Judaism and Christianity. You can't believe that
Mohammed is truly the Prophet of God ... mostly because Mohammed
delivered a new collection of commandments, some of which conflict with
the Written and Oral Torahs.
But you can renounce a belief "in God", you can become a Buddhist ... and
still be a Jew in good standing, as far as I've seen. (In fact, I
believe a council of rabbis in 18th century Poland debated whether God
existed, decided He did not, and then went off to the synagogue for
prayers. Because what they *did* was less important than what they
*believed*.)
But that's Judaism. It's not Christianity.
So ... if Sadie Bigelman has her this and that, and does this and that
... and (very important) if her mother was Jewish ... then odds are that
her local Jewish community will accept her as Jewish. Which is fine by
me.
And if it doesn't, then that's fine by me too. Because it's not my call.
And (as far as I'm concerned) that's all that matters: that her Jewish
community accepts her as Jewish. Because it's not up to me.
They should set their standards for membership in their group, not me (an
outsider).
Just as Christians should set our standards for membership in our
group(s), not Christians (outsiders).
> > All of which means that it's real hard to label someone during a
> > conversation as a "Christian" or as a "not-Christian" without either (1)
> > pegging the label to the church they're affiliated with (which isn't
> > always a precise peg, as Wendy notes in her own case), or (2) seeming to
> > be trying to re-open the Days of the Spanish Inquisition (which is off-
> > putting, at the very least!). :-)
>
> So why get into it at all? I just can't see a reason to judge someone
> else's beliefs and correct their self-appelation. If someone refers to
> themselves as a young woman do you stop to quiz them on exactly how old
> they are?
Well now, I don't think I've ever told someone, "You're not a Christian
even if you think you are." (If I did, I was 30+ years younger and not
entirely sane.) So you're aiming at the wrong target, if you're thinking
of your Fundie acquaintances and then firing at me. :-)
What I have said, and what I believe that I can rightly say, is, "Those
beliefs are not Christian beliefs: they do not belong to the set of
beliefs historically held as important by the Christian community."
This doesn't judge you, it doesn't predict what will happen when you face
the Final Judgement ... shucks, I cant! -- I'm no prophet or saint, I
have no insight into that! But it does make a statement that can be
verified by looking at Christian history.
> > Perhaps this is a different kind of problem from the one presented when a
> > religious organization on the fringe of Christian doctrine and history,
> > such as the "Unification Church" ("Moonies"), the "Church of Jesus Christ
> > of Latter Day Saints" ("Mormons"), the "Church of Christ, Science"
> > ("Christian Science"), and so forth, claims to be "a Christian church"
> > ... just like "all the other Christian churches".
>
> I don't understand what the problem is. Someone says they're
> Christian. You want to discuss Christianity for some reason and they go
> into further detail and say they're Mormon. You say your version. No
> problem.
When dealing as an individual with another individual, I agree -- no
problem. The two of you exchange your versions ... who knows, maybe one
or both of you learn something from it. If so, great.
But this topic doesn't only come up as a matter of conversations between
individuals. Which is why I mentioned (as an "on the other hand")
conversations between groups and organizations, and said ...
> > In that context, it seems much safer to examine official doctrines and
> > practices against some "standard" set of Christian doctrines and
> > practices. Even though many members of such groups might be less-than-
> > thrilled to be denied the status of belonging to "a Christian church".
>
> I don't see ANYTHING safe about this at all.
Someone noted, somewhere up-thread, that the Unitarian-Universalist
Church has not been admitted as a full member of the U.S. National
Council of Christian Churches, because its official doctrines aren't a
sufficiently close fit with the doctrines required for official
membership in that council.
*shrug* Frankly, the NCCC *has* to have some sort of criteria for
membership, or its reputation for mainstream respectability will attract
all sorts of fringe groups.
So long as the NCCC is not shrieking, "You're all a bunch of pagans, and
you're going to go to hell!", I don't see a danger. It's certainly safer
to make this distinction in this impersonal "official" setting than in
the face-to-face setting you and others have described.
--
(Mr) Dana Netherton
Tracy Cramer
>Well, almost anything is normal in a Baptist church, because there are so many
>kinds of Baptists - Southern, Primitive, American, Missionary, to name a very
>few. And then there are the independent Baptists.
>
>Amanda
>a member of the Southern variety of Baptist :-)
I was raised Lutheran in PA (IOW fairly conservative). When I worked in a print
shop in NC years ago, we did printed matter for a Souther Baptist church. On one
of the items, there was a reference to "speaking in tongues." I was completely
amazed at the idea of a church service where people did this and other things,
such as yelling out "amen." Totally different from the church I went to as a
kid.
Tracy
======================================
We child proofed our home 3 years ago
and they're still getting in!
======================================
Wendy
> So it's a point where people do differ ... and the position that you
> might consider to be a "hard line" position -- "membership is granted by
> the group, it is not simply up for grabs by anyone who claims it" -- is
> one that is not held *only* by Christians.
I still say I get to choose. My step-father was a practicing
Buddhist. My father is loosely Lutheran. My grandfather (important
in raising me) was Catholic and that was the religion assigned me at
birth. My mother is currently a Jehovah's Witness (though that's recent.)
But my mother's mother is Jewish, the daughter of immigrants who
spoke Yiddish. My brother and my sons all had a bris. We celebrate
passover in half-ass manner (this year we watched "Prince of Egypt") and
Purim by telling Queen Esther's story and booing Hammen while eating
Hammentaschen. We eat apples and honey at Rosh Hashanah and start a new
school year. (This year I forgave an uncollectable debt that was bugging
me - I forgave it for my own spiritual well-being.)
Despite all this, I am a practicing Christian. I consider the Jewish
stuff to be heritage. In fact, I didn't realize until I was a married
adult that Christians don't celebrate Purim. (Esther's such a great
story!) We put gelt in our Christmas stockings and eat Matzoh all through
Lent.
I say that I get to choose what religion I am. I eat ethnically Jewish
food, my family has a Ben and a Sam in it, I gave my boys each a bris just
to keep their options open, but I have never worshipped in a Temple and
have spent my entire life worshipping with Christians. I'd feel like a
fraud as a Jew - no, not a fraud, I'd feel like a Christian disguised as a
Jew.
I'm the only one who can make this choice. I am enrolled as a member in a
cross-denominational Christian church. Voila. The answer emerges. But I
bet Israel would take me if I chose to go.
Wendy
Wendy
> In Christianity, unlike many other world religions, doctrine has
> historically been considered at least as important as behavior. So if
> you want to emphasize behavior to the exclusion of doctrine, that's
> certainly your call -- but you're doing something different from what
> Christians have done over the last 2,000 years.
I wouldn't exclude doctrine, but my guess is most Christians have been
pretty shaky on doctrine - being illiterate and all. Mostly Christianity
grows in small pockets that diverge frequently and exist because they
are passed down cultural means with doctrine changing all along. My
Church's original minister in 1673 was Samuel Mather (Cotton's cousin) and
I'll bet the Puritan theology he preached 430 years ago differs quite a
lot from what we heard in that building yesterday. (For example, our
congregation is "open and affirming" as a religious principle.)
>> I just went to a wedding at a Lutheran church. Some of the family attend
>> services and are noticeably pious. But some are just of Germanic heritage
>> and it's the church they use for baptisms, weddings and funerals and
>> pretty much nothing else. They think they're Lutheran. I think they are
>> non-observant Lutherans, but, yes, they are culturally Lutherans.
> Yes, exactly: the "cultural" member vs the "religious" member.
> I'm inclined to think that what happened was that those churches gained
> lots of "cultural" members in the Red Scare era -- when it became
> important in some social circles to be "seen" in church -- and then lost
> those "cultural" members when being "seen" in church stopped being quite
> so important, in those same social circles.
> While the "religious" members continued to go to church, throughout.
I'm inclined to think that being religious and showing up in church are
not subsets of each other. My father is one of those Lutherans who never
goes to church. He knows a deacon from days when he used to work on his
farm as a boy and thinks the man is cruel and hypocritical and he can't
get past that to find value in the whole organized religion stuff. Yet
he's a spiritual man who considers himself Lutheran. The "religion" is
passed through "cultural" mechanisms. (Judging by the emails he
promulgates to me he tends to be pretty mainstream Republican Christian
Defensive.)
> You might be too sensitive/touchy on this point to hear this, Wendy, but
> I actually don't care very much whether or not "cultural" members are
> called "members".
It sounds like you are saying he isn't a real Lutheran because he doesn't
attend Church. Is that what you MEANT to say? (I got the part where
you're saying I'm not a real member of my Church, despite having spent 20
hours this week on Church activities with other members of the
congregation, including participating in the Confirmation Class training.)
> For internal purposes within the denomination, I have
> no problem with the denomination allowing them to function as members ...
> just as you do, within yours. Shucks, I feel, it does no harm, and might
> do them some good. (And might do the "religious" members some good, too,
> if they can take advantage of the opportunity to show some humility and
> tolerance.)
> And I wouldn't want to see them pressured to "up their (spiritual) ante"
> ... I wouldn't want to see "religious" members leaning on them to become
> more "religious", more like *them*. I'd rather see these people set a
> good example ... show something attractive enough to persuade the
> "cultural" members to want to go further.
> Which I think is very close to what you have said you would prefer.
I'd prefer if you acknowledged that Church members come in all flavors of
beliefs and they get to be a member of whatever religion they say they
are. Sort of like how someone who spends all day painting canvasses gets
to be called an artist even if she's really really BAD at painting. Even
if she paints with better painters I can't imagine anyone of them
declaring she isn't a real painter because she isn't as good as they are.
> As I noted earlier, Christianity has always considered doctrine/belief to
> be roughly on a par with behavior, in terms of importance. But not all
> religions do.
And I say it has made behavior more important in almost every single way
throughout the ages. Did anyone really think people converted under
torture? I doubt it. I think they were just content with letting people
believe whatever they happened to believe as long as they didn't tell
anyone. (And that tradition is necessary because not everyone believed
the same things.) It's certainly a Puritan tradition!
Suddenly I'm remembering Homer Simpson praying, "Oh Jeebus, save
me!" When push comes to shove Homer is the most Christian star of a TV
show I can think of. He doesn't know the rules (or the names!) and
doesn't pay a whit of attention in Church each week (where he goes with
earbuds in so he can listen to the game) but when push comes to shove he's
quite thoroughly Christian. Just a bad one.
> Just as Christians should set our standards for membership in our
> group(s), not Christians (outsiders).
Ah, see, maybe that's the problem. And it brings us accidently back on
topic, too: I go to a Congregational Church. Maybe I think I'm Christian
because my version is good enough for the standards for membership in my
group.
I happened to be discussing the Divinity of Christ with my minister this
week. We were reading the verse where Christ says what lessons were most
important: love God and love others as you love yourself. I said I
thought they were part of the same thing: love God and love the God in
everyone. She said that was a fairly common intepretation.
I went on to talk about how I couldn't find the place where Jesus says to
WORSHIP him. He says to follow his teachings. He says to worship
God. He says to be kind to each other. He says he is the annointed one
that Isaiah spoke about... and he clearly thought he had a better path
through to the worship of God than his antecedants had... but the path
seemed through respecting the dignity of the most down-trodden, by raising
everyone up onto the same par. Over and over again I see him saying he's
the son of God, but so are we all and we can redeem ourselves by acting
like him, i.e., respecting the God in everyone.
Anyway, she is probably scrambling right now to find me some authority to
back up Christ's Divinity. I'll look at it. But she didn't throw me out
of the Church of bar me from instructing the children because I have
questions of faith.
> What I have said, and what I believe that I can rightly say, is, "Those
> beliefs are not Christian beliefs: they do not belong to the set of
> beliefs historically held as important by the Christian community."
I think you're missing the distinction between official doctrines and
personal beliefs. Or making the common usenet error of thinking that
everyone believes the same way you do - at least in your own
congregation. I doubt it's true. (But I don't doubt that most people
would have the sense to keep their doubts to themselves.)
>> > In that context, it seems much safer to examine official doctrines and
>> > practices against some "standard" set of Christian doctrines and
>> > practices. Even though many members of such groups might be less-than-
>> > thrilled to be denied the status of belonging to "a Christian church".
>>
>> I don't see ANYTHING safe about this at all.
> So long as the NCCC is not shrieking, "You're all a bunch of pagans, and
> you're going to go to hell!", I don't see a danger. It's certainly safer
> to make this distinction in this impersonal "official" setting than in
> the face-to-face setting you and others have described.
Okay. NCCC gets to say who it's members are. But the midwestern farmer
of Germanic stock who says he's a Lutheran (but never does anything
about it) still gets to call himself a Christian. (I'm just imagining my
father falling over in a faint if anyone suggested he wasn't!)
And the Church-going Congregationalist who follows the teaching of Jesus
and participates in congregational life and prayer gets to call herself a
Christian even if the NCCC doesn't like it (or even if Israel gives her a
passport.)
By the way, I'm exhausted from walking 6 miles yesterday in CropWALK. My
family raised $500 for Church World Service. I'm pretty sure THEY think
I'm a Christian.
Wendy
Hillary Israeli
Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
*I'm the only one who can make this choice. I am enrolled as a member in a
*cross-denominational Christian church. Voila. The answer emerges. But I
*bet Israel would take me if I chose to go.
I don't believe so.
Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970*
Addition of sections 4A and 4B
1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall
be inserted after section 4:"Rights of members of family
[snipped item 4A as irrelevant to this discussion - h.]
4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a
Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member
of another religion."
You, Wendy, are apparently a member of another religion (and I hope you do
not take offense at my pointing it out. I am not trying to be snarky) so I
don't think the law of return includes you.
-h.
--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net in...@hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large :)
Marion Baumgarten
> Dana Netherton wrote:
>
> > In Christianity, unlike many other world religions, doctrine has
> > historically been considered at least as important as behavior. So if
> > you want to emphasize behavior to the exclusion of doctrine, that's
> > certainly your call -- but you're doing something different from what
> > Christians have done over the last 2,000 years.
>
> I wouldn't exclude doctrine, but my guess is most Christians have been
> pretty shaky on doctrine - being illiterate and all.
Guess you haven't read much about Araianism? One of his ideas was to set
theological concepts to popular tunes of the day. If nothing else,
priests were literate and they (depending on your point of view) kept
the church doctrine faithful or censored it. Also literacy is not the
only way to teach doctrine. I'm not denying that doctrine changes over
time, but the divinity of Jesus s a pretty big part of Christianity.
>Mostly Christianity
> grows in small pockets that diverge frequently and exist because they
> are passed down cultural means with doctrine changing all along.
Protestantism, maybe- certainly not true for the Catholic and Orthodox
branches of Christianity.
Marion Baumgarten A'82
Dana Netherton
no-...@mtholyoke.edu said...
> Dana Netherton wrote:
>
> > So it's a point where people do differ ... and the position that you
> > might consider to be a "hard line" position -- "membership is granted by
> > the group, it is not simply up for grabs by anyone who claims it" -- is
> > one that is not held *only* by Christians.
>
> I say that I get to choose what religion I am. I eat ethnically Jewish
> food, my family has a Ben and a Sam in it, I gave my boys each a bris just
> to keep their options open, but I have never worshipped in a Temple and
> have spent my entire life worshipping with Christians. I'd feel like a
> fraud as a Jew - no, not a fraud, I'd feel like a Christian disguised as a
> Jew.
>
> I'm the only one who can make this choice. I am enrolled as a member in a
> cross-denominational Christian church. Voila. The answer emerges. But I
> bet Israel would take me if I chose to go.
Wendy,
I just noticed how you're framing the statement: "what religion I am".
I (and perhaps Marion, and ?perhaps? Banty) would be more inclined to
say, "what religion I belong to".
If "religion" is simply a matter of "identity", life-style, etc, then
perhaps it could be something that a person can choose without checking
in with other people.
But if "religion" is something we "belong to", then we can't become a
member of that religion unless somebody already in the religion is
willing to let us in. Which means that it's not utterly, totally, and
solely up to us.
Now, I'm going to repeat something I said in another post earlier today.
Wendy, I'm not here to declare whether or not you're a Christian.
Shucks, if you're a member-in-good-standing of a conventional Christian
denomination, then that is hard to dispute, isn't it?
What I *am* here to say is that it's not just up to the person to declare
whether he or she is a Christian "because I say so", any more than a
person can simply declare that he or she is an American "because I say
so".
And, as Hillary rightly pointed out, the only way you'd be accepted as an
Israeli citizen under the Law of Return would be if you stopped calling
yourself a Christian.
Because the rabbis won't take just anyone-who-says-she's-a-Jew; they have
their rules too, and all the self-affirming positive-thinking statements
in the world won't change their minds about those rules.
Dana Netherton
no-...@mtholyoke.edu said...
> Dana Netherton wrote:
>
> > In Christianity, unlike many other world religions, doctrine has
> > historically been considered at least as important as behavior. So if
> > you want to emphasize behavior to the exclusion of doctrine, that's
> > certainly your call -- but you're doing something different from what
> > Christians have done over the last 2,000 years.
>
> I wouldn't exclude doctrine, but my guess is most Christians have been
> pretty shaky on doctrine - being illiterate and all. Mostly Christianity
> grows in small pockets that diverge frequently and exist because they
> are passed down cultural means with doctrine changing all along. My
> Church's original minister in 1673 was Samuel Mather (Cotton's cousin) and
> I'll bet the Puritan theology he preached 430 years ago differs quite a
> lot from what we heard in that building yesterday. (For example, our
> congregation is "open and affirming" as a religious principle.)
Just as a point of information here, not every church has been changing
like that. Doctrine in the Eastern Orthodox Church hasn't changed
noticeably since Justin Martyr was teaching catechumens in Rome c. 150.
I know -- I've read his Dialogue with Trypho, and have noted how often
teachings that sound quirky to western ears slip quite comfortably into
Orthodox ears.
(Oh, doctrines have been fleshed out, when people have tried to introduce
new teachings that would change things; but they have not changed
direction. On Easter Sundays we still read a sermon preached in c. 400
AD, and to us it sounds as fresh as it did then.)
True, things have changed a great deal in the West. IMHO, this is one
reason (among several reasons) why Eastern and Western Christianity split
apart, about 1000 years ago: the West was making changes that the East
did not like, and the West insisted that the East make the changes too.
Rather than make those changes, the East allowed the West to go its own
way.
But they haven't changed anything like as much, in the East. Which stood
the East in good stead, when the Turks overran the entire territory of
the Eastern Roman Empire ... and, while the Turkish Empire was
collapsing, when the Bolsheviks took over the Russian Empire. When the
Turks collapsed in the Balkans and in Greece, and when the
Communists collapsed in Russia, Ukraine etc, the Orthodox Church was
still there. Weakened by centuries of Turkish and decades of Communist
persecution, but still there, and still in a state to be renewed.
One way we did that is by embedding truckloads of doctrine in the worship
services. Our hymns are amazing teaching vehicles -- the Sunday morning
Matins service is our equivalent of Adult Sunday School. The hymns
rotate on at least three different cycles (annual/day of the year,
seasonal, and an 8-week cycle), ensuring that the hymns follow a regular
pattern, while the specific hymns sung on any two Sundays will never be
exactly alike.
So -- when the Turks refused to allow the Greek Orthodox Church to print
books for Christian Education, and when the Communists refused to allow
Sunday School classes to meet (the potentially seditious groups that they
were, Dana observes sourly), the faithful were still exposed to sound
Orthodox doctrine in the texts of the hymns.
And our use of icons reinforces this (our churches are decorated with
icons as richly as we can afford), since the icons present key events in
ways that help knowledgeable parents to teach key points of doctrine to
their children while they're there during services.
("See Christ smash the bars of Hades and liberate Adam and Eve and the
Old Testament saints ... and see the Holy Theotokos depicted in the
Burning Bush with Moses, an event which foreshadowed the placement of
God, who is "a living fire", in the Virgin's womb (she who carried the
Fire within her, but was not consumed by it) ... and see the disciples
fall down in awe before the Transfigured Christ, shining with Uncreated
Light so bright that it dazzled their eyes ..." and so forth)
With teaching aids such as these, written teaching materials become less
crucial to the survival of sound doctrine. Books are still good! I like
books, and so does Orthodoxy! But Orthodoxy can survive without books in
the parishes. It has survived in such a state, and it has done so in our
lifetime.
You went on to say:
> >> I just went to a wedding at a Lutheran church. Some of the family attend
> >> services and are noticeably pious. But some are just of Germanic heritage
> >> and it's the church they use for baptisms, weddings and funerals and
> >> pretty much nothing else. They think they're Lutheran. I think they are
> >> non-observant Lutherans, but, yes, they are culturally Lutherans.
>
> > Yes, exactly: the "cultural" member vs the "religious" member.
>
> > I'm inclined to think that what happened was that those churches gained
> > lots of "cultural" members in the Red Scare era -- when it became
> > important in some social circles to be "seen" in church -- and then lost
> > those "cultural" members when being "seen" in church stopped being quite
> > so important, in those same social circles.
>
> > While the "religious" members continued to go to church, throughout.
>
> I'm inclined to think that being religious and showing up in church are
> not subsets of each other. My father is one of those Lutherans who never
> goes to church. He knows a deacon from days when he used to work on his
> farm as a boy and thinks the man is cruel and hypocritical and he can't
> get past that to find value in the whole organized religion stuff. Yet
> he's a spiritual man who considers himself Lutheran. The "religion" is
> passed through "cultural" mechanisms. (Judging by the emails he
> promulgates to me he tends to be pretty mainstream Republican Christian
> Defensive.)
This has happened in Europe too, on a *grand* scale, and perhaps for much
the same reason. (BTW on "the whole organized religion stuff", see my
sig. Adapted from the old Will Rogers line, of course.)
> > You might be too sensitive/touchy on this point to hear this, Wendy, but
> > I actually don't care very much whether or not "cultural" members are
> > called "members".
>
> It sounds like you are saying he isn't a real Lutheran because he doesn't
> attend Church. Is that what you MEANT to say? (I got the part where
> you're saying I'm not a real member of my Church, despite having spent 20
> hours this week on Church activities with other members of the
> congregation, including participating in the Confirmation Class training.)
Well, perhaps you *are* too sensitive/touchy on this point to hear it
clearly, because I am trying to tell you that *I don't want to tell you*
that you're not a member of the church you're a member of!
I'm not trying to say that you're not a member of the church you're a
member of!
Your church says you're a member of it? Fine -- I'm satisfied about that
(as if my opinion mattered, which is also part of what I'm trying to say
-- it's your church's opinion that matters concerning your membership,
not my opinion). I'm not trying to say that you're not a "real" member
of it. If your church says you are, then you are, as far as I'm
concerned.
Are we clear about this, now? :-)
Now, I wouldn't know your father from Adam. I don't know what
memberships *he* has, what beliefs *he* has, anything about him beyond
what you've said in these few posts in this here thread. And I don't
intend to be goaded into pretending that I know him, when I don't. :-)
Is he a "real Lutheran"? Well, what would other Lutherans say? I'm not
a Lutheran, so I'm no judge of what a "real Lutheran" would look like.
If that's a question that needs an answer, I'd go to them to get one.
And his status/condition is none of my business, anyway. Just as yours
is none of my business.
As I said ...
> > For internal purposes within the denomination, I have
> > no problem with the denomination allowing them to function as members ...
> > just as you do, within yours. Shucks, I feel, it does no harm, and might
> > do them some good. (And might do the "religious" members some good, too,
> > if they can take advantage of the opportunity to show some humility and
> > tolerance.)
>
> > And I wouldn't want to see them pressured to "up their (spiritual) ante"
> > ... I wouldn't want to see "religious" members leaning on them to become
> > more "religious", more like *them*. I'd rather see these people set a
> > good example ... show something attractive enough to persuade the
> > "cultural" members to want to go further.
>
> > Which I think is very close to what you have said you would prefer.
>
> I'd prefer if you acknowledged that Church members come in all flavors of
> beliefs and they get to be a member of whatever religion they say they
> are. Sort of like how someone who spends all day painting canvasses gets
> to be called an artist even if she's really really BAD at painting. Even
> if she paints with better painters I can't imagine anyone of them
> declaring she isn't a real painter because she isn't as good as they are.
Well, if she works only in paint, then she's not a sculptor even if she
says she is.
If she works only in oils, she's not a watercolorist even if she says she
is.
Likewise, if all of her oil paintings are cubist, she's not an
impressionist even if she says she is. If they are all landscapes, she's
not a portraitist even if she says she is.
It's like the punch line of the old joke: "Calling a tail a leg doesn't
make it one."
Wendy, it is certainly true that a person should be free to choose the
religion they want to belong to. (And note my own phrase ... not "be",
but "belong to".)
And it's also certainly true that no Christian church (as far as I know)
requires its members to periodically sit down and take written exams on
"What I Believe", with the prospect of getting kicked out if their
answers don't toe the party line precisely. Of course that doesn't
happen anywhere, absent truly cataclysmic problems in a church.
But that doesn't also mean that a person is free to invent a religion and
then call it "Christianity" (or "Islam", or "Judaism", or "Buddhism" ...
or any other religion that has a history of beliefs and practices), just
because she likes the name.
Which is what *you* seem to be saying, from *my* point of view. :-)
> > As I noted earlier, Christianity has always considered doctrine/belief to
> > be roughly on a par with behavior, in terms of importance. But not all
> > religions do.
>
> And I say it has made behavior more important in almost every single way
> throughout the ages. Did anyone really think people converted under
> torture? I doubt it. I think they were just content with letting people
> believe whatever they happened to believe as long as they didn't tell
> anyone. (And that tradition is necessary because not everyone believed
> the same things.) It's certainly a Puritan tradition!
Like I said, churches have always tolerated a certain amount of
diversity, even a certain amount of heresy, so long as it didn't threaten
the official doctrines of that church.
But the content of *belief* is much more important in Christianity than,
say, in Judaism. This is why we Christians have official creeds; this is
why liturgical churches use those creeds in their worship services; this
is why we Christians go on about the nature of God and the nature of
Christ and what it means to be "saved" and so forth. Believe me, that
stuff bewilders the Jews. I've heard them shake their heads and wonder
aloud what in blue blazes we're on about, with that stuff.
Why do we think belief is so important? Because, for Christians, the
reason why we do things is at least as important as what things we do.
> Suddenly I'm remembering Homer Simpson praying, "Oh Jeebus, save
> me!" When push comes to shove Homer is the most Christian star of a TV
> show I can think of. He doesn't know the rules (or the names!) and
> doesn't pay a whit of attention in Church each week (where he goes with
> earbuds in so he can listen to the game) but when push comes to shove he's
> quite thoroughly Christian. Just a bad one.
Good example. Let's go with it. Is Homer he a Christian because of what
he does, or because of what he believes?
Would anyone get a hint that he's a Christian by his behavior? (Seen on a
church notice board: "If being a Christian was a crime, is there enough
evidence to convict you?")
Or does it come down to Who He Trusted To Save Him, when push comes to
shove? (Hint: this "trust" is a belief.)
> > Just as Christians should set our standards for membership in our
> > group(s), not non-Christians (outsiders).
(Please note that I corrected my typo here, by adding "non-" where
appropriate. (Durned spellcheckers ... ))
> Ah, see, maybe that's the problem. And it brings us accidently back on
> topic, too: I go to a Congregational Church. Maybe I think I'm Christian
> because my version is good enough for the standards for membership in my
> group.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winnah! Step right up and claim
your prize!
Yes, that's exactly it! (From my perspective)
Now, those Fundies who don't call you Christian (note it's not me saying
it, it's those Fundies) probably think that your "group's" standards are
not high enough. Or are pointed in the wrong direction. Or are just
plain wrong. Or whatever. They would probably say, if asked, "Hell no,
we wouldn't accept you in our church with the beliefs you say you have.
You would need a heap of teaching and a heap of changing before we would
accept you as a member."
My own problem with them is not that they have standards for membership
in their group; my problem is that *they* think that their group consists
of the only group of Christians.
So I have a similar problem with *them* that I have with *you*. :-) You
say, "I can believe whatever I want and still be a Christian." They say,
"You must believe what we believe, in order to be a Christian." In each
case, the standard is "what you want", "what they believe".
As if you -- or they -- had invented Christianity. :-)
IMHO, Christianity is bigger than them ... and it's bigger than you. :-)
(And it's *much* bigger than me.)
So you don't get to say who gets to be a Christian. And they don't. And
I don't. (Who does? Churches, IMHO.)
But you also don't get to decide on your own which beliefs are
"Christian", and they don't, and I don't. Because Christianity was
around for a long time without us, and is going to continue to be around
for a long time without us. It's what it is, and our calling something
"Christian" isn't going to make it so.
> I happened to be discussing the Divinity of Christ with my minister this
> week. We were reading the verse where Christ says what lessons were most
> important: love God and love others as you love yourself. I said I
> thought they were part of the same thing: love God and love the God in
> everyone. She said that was a fairly common intepretation.
>
> I went on to talk about how I couldn't find the place where Jesus says to
> WORSHIP him. He says to follow his teachings. He says to worship
> God. He says to be kind to each other. He says he is the annointed one
> that Isaiah spoke about... and he clearly thought he had a better path
> through to the worship of God than his antecedants had... but the path
> seemed through respecting the dignity of the most down-trodden, by raising
> everyone up onto the same par. Over and over again I see him saying he's
> the son of God, but so are we all and we can redeem ourselves by acting
> like him, i.e., respecting the God in everyone.
Just as an aside, Jesus didn't command anyone to worship him. But each
time someone realized who He was, he or she fell to the ground. IOW,
people did worship Jesus from time to time. And when they did, He did
not rebuke them.
Unlike the apostles, when people ventured to worship *them*. Look for
example in Acts 14:8-18. Paul & Barnabas were acclaimed as gods by
locals, when Paul healed a cripple. Did the apostles accept this? No,
they scrambled to stop them!
Why? Because (according to the apostles) it is dangerous for mortals to
accept such worship. In Acts 12:20-23, Herod gave a speech, was acclaimed
as a god ... and "because he did not give God the glory" he was struck
down on the spot, eventually dying.
If Jesus were simply a mortal like the rest of us, then -- by the
standards of the author of Acts -- He ought to have rebuked people who
fell down and worshipped him. But He didn't.
The rest is left as an exercise for the student.
Hint: Not everything is laid out in formal rules. Some things are meant
to be explained, by those who have been taught explanations.
> Anyway, she is probably scrambling right now to find me some authority to
> back up Christ's Divinity. I'll look at it. But she didn't throw me out
> of the Church of bar me from instructing the children because I have
> questions of faith.
And I'm not surprised, and I'm not moved to criticize. Between the need
to rely on volunteers, and the fact that the Western seminaries
themselves don't make these things crystal clear any more ... it's going
to happen, and a realistic pastor is going to accept with it and work
with it.
A good and willing attitude is more important -- especially when
instructing children -- than a precise knowledge of each jot and tittle
of doctrine. And a willingness to forgive and forbear.
Is it your sig that says, "Children won't care what you know til they
know you care"? That's true, of course, very true.
> > What I have said, and what I believe that I can rightly say, is, "Those
> > beliefs are not Christian beliefs: they do not belong to the set of
> > beliefs historically held as important by the Christian community."
>
> I think you're missing the distinction between official doctrines and
> personal beliefs. Or making the common usenet error of thinking that
> everyone believes the same way you do - at least in your own
> congregation. I doubt it's true. (But I don't doubt that most people
> would have the sense to keep their doubts to themselves.)
Wendy, I think *you've* been supposing that I'm one of the Fundies.
With any luck, by now you've seen better. :-)
> >> > In that context, it seems much safer to examine official doctrines and
> >> > practices against some "standard" set of Christian doctrines and
> >> > practices. Even though many members of such groups might be less-than-
> >> > thrilled to be denied the status of belonging to "a Christian church".
> >>
> >> I don't see ANYTHING safe about this at all.
>
> > So long as the NCCC is not shrieking, "You're all a bunch of pagans, and
> > you're going to go to hell!", I don't see a danger. It's certainly safer
> > to make this distinction in this impersonal "official" setting than in
> > the face-to-face setting you and others have described.
>
> Okay. NCCC gets to say who it's members are. But the midwestern farmer
> of Germanic stock who says he's a Lutheran (but never does anything
> about it) still gets to call himself a Christian. (I'm just imagining my
> father falling over in a faint if anyone suggested he wasn't!)
*shrug* I'm not going to go out of his way to interrogate him. Not my
job.
Now, if he starts spouting clearly aberrant stuff *and saying that it's
Lutheran teaching*, then the local Lutheran ministers might take a dim
view.
But that's their look-out, not mine.
And what he "is", isn't that important IMHO. Whom he trusts, what he
trusts Him to do for him, and how he shows that he trusts Him ... is more
important (IMHO, for what little that's worth).
<the rest of the rhetorical stuff, snipped>
Banty
says...
>
>On 20 Oct 2003 20:47:59 -0400, in article <3f94...@nap.mtholyoke.edu>,
>no-...@mtholyoke.edu said...
>> Dana Netherton wrote:
>>
>> > So it's a point where people do differ ... and the position that you
>> > might consider to be a "hard line" position -- "membership is granted by
>> > the group, it is not simply up for grabs by anyone who claims it" -- is
>> > one that is not held *only* by Christians.
>>
>> I still say I get to choose. <snip>
>
>> I say that I get to choose what religion I am. I eat ethnically Jewish
>> food, my family has a Ben and a Sam in it, I gave my boys each a bris just
>> to keep their options open, but I have never worshipped in a Temple and
>> have spent my entire life worshipping with Christians. I'd feel like a
>> fraud as a Jew - no, not a fraud, I'd feel like a Christian disguised as a
>> Jew.
>>
>> I'm the only one who can make this choice. I am enrolled as a member in a
>> cross-denominational Christian church. Voila. The answer emerges. But I
>> bet Israel would take me if I chose to go.
>
>Wendy,
>
>I just noticed how you're framing the statement: "what religion I am".
>
>I (and perhaps Marion, and ?perhaps? Banty) would be more inclined to
>say, "what religion I belong to".
Banty neither belongs to, nor "is", a religion :-)
>
>If "religion" is simply a matter of "identity", life-style, etc, then
>perhaps it could be something that a person can choose without checking
>in with other people.
>
>But if "religion" is something we "belong to", then we can't become a
>member of that religion unless somebody already in the religion is
>willing to let us in. Which means that it's not utterly, totally, and
>solely up to us.
>
>Now, I'm going to repeat something I said in another post earlier today.
>Wendy, I'm not here to declare whether or not you're a Christian.
>Shucks, if you're a member-in-good-standing of a conventional Christian
>denomination, then that is hard to dispute, isn't it?
>
>What I *am* here to say is that it's not just up to the person to declare
>whether he or she is a Christian "because I say so", any more than a
>person can simply declare that he or she is an American "because I say
>so".
>
>And, as Hillary rightly pointed out, the only way you'd be accepted as an
>Israeli citizen under the Law of Return would be if you stopped calling
>yourself a Christian.
>
>Because the rabbis won't take just anyone-who-says-she's-a-Jew; they have
>their rules too, and all the self-affirming positive-thinking statements
>in the world won't change their minds about those rules.
It seems a case of what, in a pre-USENET forum devoted to language and word
usage I particpated in, was called "humpty". After this passage from Lewis
Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" (starting with Mr. Dumpty):
_________
"And only one for birthday presents, you know, There's glory for you!"
"I don't know what you mean by `glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't--till I tell
you. I meant "there's a nice
knock-down argument for you!"
"But `glory' doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it
to mean--neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--that's
all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty
Dumpty began again. "They've
a temper, some of them--particularly verbs, they're the
proudest--adjectives you can do anything
with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the whole lot!
Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that means ?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty Dumpty, looking very
much pleased. "I meant
by "impenetrability' that we've had enough of that subject, and it would
be just as well if you'd
mention what you meant to do next, as I suppose you don't intend to stop
here all the rest of your
life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful
tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I
always pay it extra."
Wendy
> Wendy <no-...@mtholyoke.edu> wrote:
> *I'm the only one who can make this choice. I am enrolled as a member in a
> *cross-denominational Christian church. Voila. The answer emerges. But I
> *bet Israel would take me if I chose to go.
> I don't believe so.
> Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970*
> Addition of sections 4A and 4B
> 1. In the Law of Return, 5710-1950**, the following sections shall
> be inserted after section 4:"Rights of members of family
> [snipped item 4A as irrelevant to this discussion - h.]
> 4B. For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a
> Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member
> of another religion."
> You, Wendy, are apparently a member of another religion (and I hope you do
> not take offense at my pointing it out. I am not trying to be snarky) so I
> don't think the law of return includes you.
Ah, I had wondered. I haven't had Zionist urges since reading Exodus by
Leon Uris as a teenager, so never checked! Thanks.
Wendy
Wendy
> It seems a case of what, in a pre-USENET forum devoted to language and word
> usage I particpated in, was called "humpty". After this passage from Lewis
> Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" (starting with Mr. Dumpty):
> _________
<snipped>
> "When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I
> always pay it extra."
What a great quote! Thanks for posting that. I'd never heard of a
"humpty" before. It sounds like something that could be useful with my
middle-school-aged daughter who uses the word "okay" to mean, as near as I
can tell, "I heard you, sort of, and I'll say whatever it takes to make
you stop bugging me but this shouldn't be in any way construed to mean
I'll actually do what you're asking." (I wonder if she pays it extra?)
Wendy, not to go off-topic to parenting or anything...
Wendy
>> Suddenly I'm remembering Homer Simpson praying, "Oh Jeebus, save
>> me!" When push comes to shove Homer is the most Christian star of a TV
>> show I can think of. He doesn't know the rules (or the names!) and
>> doesn't pay a whit of attention in Church each week (where he goes with
>> earbuds in so he can listen to the game) but when push comes to shove he's
>> quite thoroughly Christian. Just a bad one.
> Good example. Let's go with it. Is Homer he a Christian because of what
> he does, or because of what he believes?
Because of who he is. :-) Seriously, he knows nothing about the Divinity
of Christ beyond a bumper sticker he vaguely remembers saying, "Jeebus
Saves". It's the only deity passed down to him in his consciousness. If
no one in a foxhole is an athiest, then what exactly ARE they?
> Would anyone get a hint that he's a Christian by his behavior? (Seen on a
> church notice board: "If being a Christian was a crime, is there enough
> evidence to convict you?")
Great quote! But no, no one would convict Homer based on his
behavior. But his inner life is Christian, i.e., the things he feels
guilty for doing come from Christian morality.
> Or does it come down to Who He Trusted To Save Him, when push comes to
> shove? (Hint: this "trust" is a belief.)
Okay, here's where my Unitarian-Universalist training comes in: I don't
think an unexamined belief counts for much. I think I'm a better
Christian as someone actively working to follow Christ's teachings
without believing He (and I had to go back and capitalize that) is a
Divine Being.
But we're going in circles and there's a HUGE thunderstorm bearing down on
me. A more superstitious person would say it's God telling me to get
offline already. :-)
Wendy
Dana Netherton
Banty_...@newsguy.com said...
<snip>
> >Wendy,
> >
> >I just noticed how you're framing the statement: "what religion I am".
> >
> >I (and perhaps Marion, and ?perhaps? Banty) would be more inclined to
> >say, "what religion I belong to".
>
> Banty neither belongs to, nor "is", a religion :-)
Thanks for the correction, Banty. My apologies, if I seemed to put words
in your mouth. :-)
You went on to say ...
<rest of great quote, snipped>
While it might seem that Wendy and I are "arguing semantics", I feel that
I'm actually seeing Wendy's position in Humpty Dumpty's approach, here
... to paraphrase, "A person is a 'Christian' if she says she is, and
saying so is enough to make it so."
And I feel that I'm countering this position with the "Oh come on now"
response that it would trigger in a "sensible" person, illustrated here
by Alice. :-)
At one point at least Wendy seemed to feel that I was one of those
Fundamentalists who wants to see her fall into Hell if she won't See The
Error Of Her Ways, and repent and join their cult -- oops -- church.
I don't feel I am, and I hope I've shown her by now that I'm not. :-)
Dana Netherton
n...@mtholyoke.edu said...
> Dana Netherton wrote:
> >> Suddenly I'm remembering Homer Simpson praying, "Oh Jeebus, save
> >> me!" When push comes to shove Homer is the most Christian star of a TV
> >> show I can think of. He doesn't know the rules (or the names!) and
> >> doesn't pay a whit of attention in Church each week (where he goes with
> >> earbuds in so he can listen to the game) but when push comes to shove he's
> >> quite thoroughly Christian. Just a bad one.
>
> > Good example. Let's go with it. Is Homer he a Christian because of what
> > he does, or because of what he believes?
>
> Because of who he is. :-) Seriously, he knows nothing about the Divinity
> of Christ beyond a bumper sticker he vaguely remembers saying, "Jeebus
> Saves". It's the only deity passed down to him in his consciousness. If
> no one in a foxhole is an athiest, then what exactly ARE they?
Then what they are, exactly, is a "theist". They might appeal to God, or
to a god, or to gods, and they might not necessarily have any personal
knowledge of the person they're appealing to. That's the lowest common
denominator.
From there, specific people might move up the scale as they know more
clearly the person they're appealing to.
So Homer appeals to God, and does so by invoking the name of Jesus.
Why do I say he appealed to God? Well, he didn't ask Moses to save him,
or Elijah, or some other prophet. He didn't ask Oral Roberts to save him,
or Billy Graham, or some other preacher. I doubt he thought any of them
could save him. But he *did* call on Jesus -- so his actions show he
thought that Jesus might be able to save him.
Which puts Jesus in a niche above all those other religious men. Now,
did Homer think that Jesus was a "higher" man than those others, but just
a man? Or maybe a demi-god, but not a full god? Or just plain God?
By Occam's Razor (given a choice, choose the simplest solution), and also
by Homer's simplicity (is he likely to make things complicated at a
moment like that?), I'd say that (in that moment) Homer just plain
thought that Jesus was God, and therefore was worth appealing to, and
therefore he did (appeal to Him).
So his faith, however inarticulate, prompted his behavior ... which gave
you the evidence you offered to make your point. :-)
> > Would anyone get a hint that he's a Christian by his behavior? (Seen on a
> > church notice board: "If being a Christian was a crime, is there enough
> > evidence to convict you?")
>
> Great quote! But no, no one would convict Homer based on his
> behavior. But his inner life is Christian, i.e., the things he feels
> guilty for doing come from Christian morality.
Hmm. Would you say that that is what makes a person a Christian? The
things he feels guilty for doing?
> > Or does it come down to Who He Trusted To Save Him, when push comes to
> > shove? (Hint: this "trust" is a belief.)
>
> Okay, here's where my Unitarian-Universalist training comes in: I don't
> think an unexamined belief counts for much.
Then Homer's belief doesn't count for much? Because !boy! is *it*
unexamined!
Gee, I thought you were just saying how much you thought of him! :-)
> I think I'm a better
> Christian as someone actively working to follow Christ's teachings
> without believing He (and I had to go back and capitalize that) is a
> Divine Being.
(Hey, I believe He is, and *I* usually have to go back and capitalize the
pronouns. :-) )
Perhaps paralleling a similar concept in the Jewish Seder, Orthodox
Christianity teaches that there are three kinds of people who approach
God.
One kind of people approach Him as slaves, out of fear (fear of being
punished).
Another kind of people approach Him as paid servants, out of faith
(faith in future reward).
And the third kind approach Him as members of the family, out of love
(love for Him).
While it is "best" to approach Him out of love, He will not despise or
rebuff those who approach Him out of fear, those who don't know Him
better.
Therefore the priest invites the people to come up to receive communion
by saying, "Approach with the fear of God, with faith, and with love."
Approach, all of you, not just the "best".
> But we're going in circles and there's a HUGE thunderstorm bearing down on
> me. A more superstitious person would say it's God telling me to get
> offline already. :-)
Best wishes on dodging the thunderstorm. :-)
Bottom line: I'm not interested in telling anybody whether or not they're
"a Christian". My opinion about that doesn't matter, and I hear too many
mutually contradictory opinions about the criteria to come to a settled
view on the matter.
(You want some stern criteria? You should hear some Orthodox Christians
as they rant about *all* Western Christians, from the Fundies right
through to the Roman Catholics! Uh, on second thought, you shouldn't. I
shouldn't. Though they should (hear themselves sometime).)
But I am interested when someone says that "such and so beliefs are
Christian". I think there are criteria that can and do rule out some
beliefs as "Christian", even if those beliefs are held by Christians.
Dana Netherton
<dokapvk6f28q6ad8r...@4ax.com>, gmbe...@mindspring.com
said...
> x-no-archive:yes
> Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> >And our use of icons reinforces this (our churches are decorated with
> >icons as richly as we can afford), since the icons present key events in
> >ways that help knowledgeable parents to teach key points of doctrine to
> >their children while they're there during services.
>
> taking notes) that you are coming from the perspective of a Roman
> Catholic (??)
Hi, Rosalie,
Actually, I'm describing Eastern Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism. In
Europe, our historic "roots" churches are in Greece, the southern Balkans
(Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria), Russia, Ukraine ... and also in the Middle
East (Syria, Lebanon, Israel, "Palestine", Egypt ... and Iraq). We were
in Turkey from the days of St Paul until the early 1920s, when nearly all
Orthodox Christians were shipped to Greece (and most Muslims in Greece
were shipped to Turkey) in a round of "ethnic cleansing" that was not
merely permitted but *ordered* by the post-WWI Great Powers: Britain and
France.
We use images, but only painted images, not carved ones (only paintings,
not statues). We don't accept the jurisdiction of the Pope in Rome, and
there are a number of other differences that I don't need to go into
here.
So to Protestants, we tend to look like Catholics.
While to Catholics who don't already know us, we tend to look like
Protestants in fancy dress (because of our "take" on the Pope and on
certain Catholic teachings).
Meanwhile, one of our 20th century writers called Protestants and
Catholics "two sides of the same coin" ... debating each other over "yes"
and "no" positions on topics that we think aren't worth debating in the
first place! (Such as "free will vs predestination", and "scripture vs
tradition") A phrase that has been picked up widely by Orthodox
Christians when we talk about the West. :-)
So I'm not surprised that you might have thought you were looking at
something Catholic. :-)
> - not all churches are decorated with stained glass
> windows and the more Protestant ones don't have icons at all. That
> was one of the problems my Catholic friend had with a Congregational
> New England church - it didn't look like or feel like a church to her.
> Particularly because it did not have the figure of Christ on the cross
> at the altar. (i.e. it was a plain cross) <snip to end>
Yes, I know. (I grew up in a Baptist church.) Since Wendy was ascribing
doctrinal diversity in The Old Days to illiteracy, I was showing that
some *very* old churches had (and still have) other ways (non-literary
ways) of tackling the teaching of "sound" doctrine.
I'm aware that the more iconoclastic Protestant churches depend very
heavily on the written Bible and other written materials to learn and
teach their faith.
If Protestants had to face Turkish/Communist-style persecution, which
included a ban on printing Christian materials, whether Bibles or
materials for Christian education, then IMHO they'd have a hard time
transmitting their faith *accurately* beyond the next generation.
IMHO, Wendy's instinct was right: it's very hard to make oral tradition
work well on a large scale.
dragonlady
Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> Meanwhile, one of our 20th century writers called Protestants and
> Catholics "two sides of the same coin" ... debating each other over "yes"
> and "no" positions on topics that we think aren't worth debating in the
> first place! (Such as "free will vs predestination", and "scripture vs
> tradition") A phrase that has been picked up widely by Orthodox
> Christians when we talk about the West. :-)
>
> So I'm not surprised that you might have thought you were looking at
> something Catholic. :-)
Personally, I think the more interesting debate -- and one where, iirc,
Orthodox and Roman Catholic are on the same side, opposite Lutherans and
their descendants, is whether or not ordination creates ontological
change. That and apostolic succession and whether priests are necessary
at all and -- well, *I* find those debates interesting, anyway. (The
differences between churches that have priests and those that have
ministers are, imho, profound.)
w
Banty
says...
>
>On 21 Oct 2003 09:36:12 -0400, in article <3f95...@nap.mtholyoke.edu>,
>n...@mtholyoke.edu said...
>> Dana Netherton wrote:
>> >> Suddenly I'm remembering Homer Simpson praying, "Oh Jeebus, save
>> >> me!" When push comes to shove Homer is the most Christian star of a TV
>> >> show I can think of. He doesn't know the rules (or the names!) and
>> >> doesn't pay a whit of attention in Church each week (where he goes with
>> >> earbuds in so he can listen to the game) but when push comes to shove he's
>> >> quite thoroughly Christian. Just a bad one.
>>
>> > Good example. Let's go with it. Is Homer he a Christian because of what
>> > he does, or because of what he believes?
>>
>> Because of who he is. :-) Seriously, he knows nothing about the Divinity
>> of Christ beyond a bumper sticker he vaguely remembers saying, "Jeebus
>> Saves". It's the only deity passed down to him in his consciousness. If
>> no one in a foxhole is an athiest, then what exactly ARE they?
>
>Then what they are, exactly, is a "theist". They might appeal to God, or
>to a god, or to gods, and they might not necessarily have any personal
>knowledge of the person they're appealing to. That's the lowest common
>denominator.
Not necessarily even that. Else the men who cry out in their last moments to
their mothers are ancestor-worshippers, and, in one cinematic example, that who
cried out for his boyhood sled would be an animist.
They certainly aren't necessarily Christians. Or deists at all.
Banty
dragonlady
Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
<<long post with history of Orthodox church>>
Thanks for posting this, Dana -- Orthodoxy is one branch of Christianity
with which I am NOT well acquainted, and I always appreciate reading an
"insiders" description.
> So you don't get to say who gets to be a Christian. And they don't. And
> I don't. (Who does? Churches, IMHO.)
I always figured the only one who got to decide was God. And with that
in mind, I choose to not challenge anyone's self description.
It's when the Churches start deciding who is and isn't a "real
Christian" that they start burning people at the stake! (And, lest
anyone think this is only the Catholic church, Calvin had folks executed
for heresy, too.)
dragonlady
Banty <Banty_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
> >themselves. However, since there are so many variations within
> >Christianity, without having more information they do NOT communicate
> >all that much. Even if you stick to only those folks who believe in the
> >unique divinity of Jesus, the differences between Catholics and Seventh
> >Day Adventists and Quakers and Mennonites and . . . well, it's a huge
> >variety. If it is important for me to know exactly what type of
> >Christian, or the specifics of their belief, I'll ask further questions
> >to determine exactly what they DO mean.
>
> Can you give examples of Christian movements which do not recognize the
> divinity
> of Jesus? Because if someone describes themselves as 'Christian' meaning
> just
> 'hey I'm a good person too', that I do not recognize.
>
> Banty
>
I know individual Christians who do not believe in the divinity of
Jesus, and there are several movements where they do not teach that
Jesus was God (but a unique creation of God) and others that emphasise
the humanity of Jesus over any presumed divinity.
Those who *I* know who call themselves Christians without believing in
the divinity of Jesus believe that he was a significant prophet (the
most significant) and that they are following the religion that he
taught: the religion OF Jesus rather than the religion ABOUT Jesus.
They aren't just using Christian to mean "moral" -- personally, I HATE
it when people do that, as though the only way to be a moral person is
to be Christain! -- they take the bulk of their inspiration from the
teachings of Jesus.
dragonlady
Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:15:25 GMT, in article <mehouck-
> 36E301.071...@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net
> said...
> >
> > As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
> > themselves. <snip to end>
>
> dragonlady,
>
> You made a couple of points here, and rather than jumble them into one
> response I'm going to separate them out.
>
> On this point, well, this is obviously something where people's mileage
> varies. :-)
>
> However it's not a Fundamental Principle of Religion.
I only spoke of Christianity, deliberately.
However, even on the broader principle of identity, I am willing to use
whatever label a person attaches to themself.
There is a delightful story in "Does God Have A Big Toe", a collection
of midrash (teaching stories about stories in the Bible) in which Adam
has a problem deciding how to name the animals. He tries a couple of
things (giving them all the same name so he won't have to remember so
much, numbering them, but he loses track of what number he's on) until
one of tha animals suggests he ask the ANIMALS what they want to be
called.
That's sort of my position with everything, not just religion; if a
person identifies as "fill in the blank" -- I will accept that label for
them. Someone would rather be called Indian than Native American? --
fine, that's what I'll call them. Someone identifies as Mexican, even
though it has been generations since their family lived in Mexico and
they seem to not be particularly culturally Mexican? -- fine, that's
what I'll call them.
Individual churches certainly will insist on certain standards for
membership, but even there I'm not going to argue with a person. I
remember meeting a woman a few years back whose child was just entering
public school, and she asked me when the release days for religious
instruction began. I pointed out that it had been years since schools
did that. She wanted to know how her kids were going to get their
Catholic Catechism (CCD?) if it wasn't through the public school release
days -- I suggested she ask at her parish. She told me she didn't
belong to one -- the last time she'd been to mass seemed to have been
her wedding. I think her parents had arranged for her kids to be
baptised. Still, she identified as Catholic, and I wouldn't argue that
she is NOT Catholic. (Not a particularly observant one, but it is how
she identified, and I figure, who am I to tell her she's wrong?) (I
did, however, suggest that if her children's religious instruction was
important to her, she might consider joining the local parish and
actually attending mass with her kids . . .)
>
> Shucks, as soon as membership in a group begins to accumulate privileges,
> you're going to get a rush of people eager to claim membership. Is it
> truly so self-evident that they should be able to claim it, simply by
> saying so?
Membership in a specific church or synagogue or whatever? Absolutely
not. They each have their own membership requirements. Even us UU's
have SOME standards! (Though none of them doctrinal.)
However, if they want to claim the label of "Christian" or whatever, I
am willing to accept that at face value.
Clisby
Tracy Cramer wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2003 14:51:48 GMT, agree...@cs.comnospam (AGreen1209) wrote:
>
>
>>Well, almost anything is normal in a Baptist church, because there are so many
>>kinds of Baptists - Southern, Primitive, American, Missionary, to name a very
>>few. And then there are the independent Baptists.
>>
>>Amanda
>>a member of the Southern variety of Baptist :-)
>
>
>
> I was raised Lutheran in PA (IOW fairly conservative). When I worked in a print
> shop in NC years ago, we did printed matter for a Souther Baptist church. On one
> of the items, there was a reference to "speaking in tongues." I was completely
> amazed at the idea of a church service where people did this and other things,
> such as yelling out "amen." Totally different from the church I went to as a
> kid.
>
>
Totally different from any church I attended while growing up, too - but
it's not unheard of in so-called conservative denominatinos. There are
(or at least have been) charismatic Episcopal churches, for example.
Clisby
Clisby
I'm not sure what you mean by the "divinity" of Jesus. Jehovah's
Witnesses do not believe in the trinity, but IIRC they believe Jesus was
more than just a human (specifically, he was the son of Jehovah.)
Clisby
H Schinske
>Totally different from any church I attended while growing up, too - but
>it's not unheard of in so-called conservative denominations. There are
>(or at least have been) charismatic Episcopal churches, for example.
Yup, I went to a service at one once, not knowing that was what they did. It
was *very* peculiar hearing people call out during the service. I ended up
leaving in the middle of Communion because I couldn't stand it any more, people
kept *looking* at me because I wasn't waving my hands in the air or anything
:-) Or maybe it was just because it was a small place and I was new, but I
*felt* as if it was because I was doing the wrong thing.
--Helen
Banty
dragonlady says...
>
>In article <MPG.19fde52f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 14:15:25 GMT, in article <mehouck-
>> 36E301.071...@news.SF.sbcglobal.net>, meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net
>> said...
>
>> >
>> > As far as I'm concerned, a person is a Christian if they so identify
>> > themselves. <snip to end>
>>
>> dragonlady,
>>
>> You made a couple of points here, and rather than jumble them into one
>> response I'm going to separate them out.
>>
>> On this point, well, this is obviously something where people's mileage
>> varies. :-)
>>
>> However it's not a Fundamental Principle of Religion.
>
>I only spoke of Christianity, deliberately.
>
>However, even on the broader principle of identity, I am willing to use
>whatever label a person attaches to themself.
>
>There is a delightful story in "Does God Have A Big Toe", a collection
>of midrash (teaching stories about stories in the Bible) in which Adam
>has a problem deciding how to name the animals. He tries a couple of
>things (giving them all the same name so he won't have to remember so
>much, numbering them, but he loses track of what number he's on) until
>one of tha animals suggests he ask the ANIMALS what they want to be
>called.
What, then, would Adam needed to have called a zebra?! (Thinking of another
thread...) Or, once crickets had named themselves, I'd hate to hear them
discussed in detail ::::owwww my ears:::: :-)
I'm afraid I don't find this convincing - indeed I never comletely signed on to
this idea of Ultimate Right of Self-Identification. A General Right of
Self-Identification, sure, within limits. Like, it has to make sense and
communicate something.
This penchant for semantic folly is the sort of thing that has made fine
material for social satirists past and present. On
"self-identification", this time from a contemporary satirist - Scott
Adams in "Dilbert" in 1998:
Ratbert and Dogbert - three frames.
Frame 1: Ratbert: "From now on, I prefer that you not refer to my genus
by the derogatory word "rat."
Frame 2: Ratbert continues: "The correct word is 'rattus'. It is the
right of any group to define its own name. You must respect that."
Frame 3: Dogbert: "Don't call me a dog anymore. From now on, my correct
name is "Smarter-than-a-stupid-rattus'."
Banty
Jon Ericson
> It seems a case of what, in a pre-USENET forum devoted to language
> and word usage I particpated in, was called "humpty". After this
> passage from Lewis Carrol's "Through the Looking Glass" (starting
> with Mr. Dumpty):
>
> _________
> "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean
> different things."
>
> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master--
> that's all."
Drat. You beat me to it. :)
Having put some thought into the question of who is a Christian this
past week, I think I've come up with a meaning that I'm comfortable
with. When Peter stepped out of the boat to follow Jesus walking on
the water he was looking at Jesus. He feared that Jesus was a ghost,
but he stepped onto the water anyway. So Peter was walking on the
water toward Jesus and he saw the wind. Distracted, he started to
sink and cried out to the Lord to save him. When everyone was back in
the boat and the wind died down, they started to worship Jesus.
> "That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a
> thoughtful tone.
>
> "When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty,
> "I always pay it extra."
Metaphorically, the Church is like Peter out on the water. We are
looking at Jesus, who seems like a ghost sometimes. The wind is
whipping around us and there is a strong temptation to look down at
the waves. As long as those things don't obscure our view of Christ,
we are ok. But when we get distracted by the wind we start to sink
and Jesus has to put out his hand to save us. In the end we worship
him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."
To some extent, doctrine is just a distraction, like whether or not
you have stained glass in church or how much hierarchy is acceptable.
A person might dedicate their life to these questions, and never
actually see Christ. But other times our beliefs come between us and
our view of Christ. For instance, if you think that Jesus was a
pretty good teacher, but not really God or divine, than, in my
opinion, you've made him a ghost--a dead man who speaks to us from the
distant past.
Why would anyone step out of the boat, onto the water to follow a
ghost?
Jon
--
But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for
yourselves this day whom you will serve . . . But as for me and my
household, we will serve the LORD.
-- Joshua 24:15 (NIV)
Jon Ericson
Sounds very similar to one I went to once. Fortunately I went with
friends who had been there before. It seemed to be very powerful for
the folks who were prepared for it. I'm very grateful that I can go
somewhere else.
Dana Netherton
D9AFDD.094...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
meh...@REMOVEpacbell.net said...
> In article <MPG.19fe92e1e...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> Dana Netherton <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
> <<long post with history of Orthodox church>>
>
> Thanks for posting this, Dana -- Orthodoxy is one branch of Christianity
> with which I am NOT well acquainted, and I always appreciate reading an
> "insiders" description.
My pleasure, meh :-)
> > So you don't get to say who gets to be a Christian. And they don't. And
> > I don't. (Who does? Churches, IMHO.)
>
> I always figured the only one who got to decide was God. And with that
> in mind, I choose to not challenge anyone's self description.
Oh, what God decides is "who gets saved" (at the Last Judgement).
Different from "who's a Christian". Not identical sets of people at all
... a real, live, Venn diagram.
Mind you, there are some folks who do think that the sets *are*
identical: "You won't be saved if you're not a Christian", meaning, if-
and-only-if you're a Christian, meaning "a Christian like me".
But that's not where I come from. (And it's also not where Orthodox
Christianity comes from.) The breadth of God's mercy is wider than
anything I can imagine, so it's very likely that He will accept people
that quasi-Pharisees like me would think are a no-brainer "uh-uh".
> It's when the Churches start deciding who is and isn't a "real
> Christian" that they start burning people at the stake! (And, lest
> anyone think this is only the Catholic church, Calvin had folks executed
> for heresy, too.)
Well, actually, it's when the Churches started getting afraid that some
of their members were dangerously subversive that they started condemning
people for heresy. And since political allegiance/loyalty was often felt
to be connected with religious allegiance/loyalty, in pre-20th-century
Europe, when "subversion" was in the air the secular rulers were happy to
burn these subversives.
And the Churches condemned people who they thought were, or ought to be,
"their" people. Churches didn't burn Jews or Moslems *for heresy* ...
even they could see that that made no sense.
(When the Spaniards burned Jews, they burned Jews who had supposedly
converted to Christianity to avoid being expelled from Spain in 1492.
Not all converted whole-heartedly, and quite a few continued to observe
Jewish tradition under a veneer of Christian observance. If discovered,
though, they were treated as subversives within the Church -- and were
often burned.)
Who did the Churches think ought to be "their" people? In practice, this
was usually handled territorially (everyone within a specific territory).
In early modern Europe, princes and secular rulers usually demanded that
everyone in their realm belong to the same Church (usually with the
official exception of Jews, based on very old precedent). When the ruler
was Catholic, then Protestants were in trouble because the ruler held
that they "ought to be" Catholics, so there. When the ruler was
Protestant, you could get turnabout-is-fair-play. (As you noted, meh.)
There were certainly centuries when the Churches tolerated quiet heretics
... usually centuries when "subversion" was not felt to be a danger worth
getting exercised about. Heresy per se did not always result in an auto
de fe. (The Spanish ritual for burning heretics, a so-called "act of
faith", yuck.)
But today such demands by state rulers are utterly absent from Western
Europe (and Western European-culture nations such as Australia and New
Zealand), and of course they are prohibited by constitutional law here in
the US. So, though the prospect of such demands certainly does get the
old adrenalin flowing in those of us who were raised on stories of "the
martyrs of the Reformation", in practice the stake is a very unlikely
destination.
What is more likely -- what has been reported here in m.k. from time to
time, for example by parents who live in relatively isolated areas in the
U.S., is social pressure that affects the non-conforming family's ability
to function within the local society (and that can have Bad Effects on
the children who are growing up there).
In the places where people exert this pressure, it seems there's a
mostly-unspoken assumption/belief that everyone in that area "should"
belong to the same Church -- or same style-of-Church. There might be
more than one congregation in the local area, but they might all be the
sort of quote-non-denominational-unquote congregations that "don't work
well with others" (which is why they refuse to belong to a multi-
congregation denomination), and that are all fiercely "evangelical" and
"fundamentalist".
In that setting, being a conventionally orthodox ELCA Lutheran or Roman
Catholic is no protection ... these folks would feel that such people are
just as bad as as "heretics". Ditto Jews, or members of any other
explicitly non-Christian religion.
I think this is the same attitude that is getting members of Christian
congregations beaten up in some parts of Moslem Pakistan and Indonesia,
and that is getting Christians and Moslems beaten up in some parts of
Hindu India ... all without the backing of the secular authorities.
*This* attitude has nothing to do with conventional notions of "heresy."
It has everything to do with a more ambitious demand, for complete
religious uniformity.
And with these people, here in America, the label "Christian" is not
enough and will never be enough. Truly, a person would have to be "their
kind of Christian" to be accepted.
Especially among these hard-line Protestant groups, whose history can be
traced back through a succession of schisms and defections and walking-
out of older groups that Just Weren't Good Enough for them and their
forebears.
So -- if the goal is to find protective coloration for folks who must
live amidst these people -- ISTM that a debate about one's "right" to
claim the name "Christian" is not likely to be of much use.
I'm very sorry to say.
Penny Gaines
<1g35ct8.1bqrmv2156lbg8N%mari...@mindspring.com>:
>>Mostly Christianity
>> grows in small pockets that diverge frequently and exist because they
>> are passed down cultural means with doctrine changing all along.
>
> Protestantism, maybe- certainly not true for the Catholic and Orthodox
> branches of Christianity.
I think that might be more true in the US then in Europe. In England,
even quite small villages have got churches that are centuries old.
But then, we've got the infrastructure.
--
Penny Gaines
Penny Gaines
<MPG.19ff50f96...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>:
> Oh, what God decides is "who gets saved" (at the Last Judgement).
> Different from "who's a Christian". Not identical sets of people at all
> ... a real, live, Venn diagram.
>
> Mind you, there are some folks who do think that the sets are
> identical: "You won't be saved if you're not a Christian", meaning, if-
> and-only-if you're a Christian, meaning "a Christian like me".
>
> But that's not where I come from. (And it's also not where Orthodox
> Christianity comes from.) The breadth of God's mercy is wider than
> anything I can imagine, so it's very likely that He will accept people
> that quasi-Pharisees like me would think are a no-brainer "uh-uh".
So does Orthodox Christianity teach that you can reject Jesus (as opposed
to not knowing about him) and still get to heaven? Or have I misunderstood?
--
Penny Gaines