|
29464. judithathome - 6/23/2009 10:31:54 PM I am not at all clear why you think that Christians who get married are not married for the same reasons you married your husband - respect, love, etc. - as opposed to because they were forced into it by God, "some book," or what have you
I never said anyone who does things differently than I do them is not married, did I? I merely explained why "I" am married...does that automatically imply all others are WRONG?
You have to at least admit than many Christians are fighting for the defense of marriage act because they feel it should be only THEIR way...I was explaining that I don't feel that way about my beliefs or lack thereof.
And if you think these abstinance people....saving oneself for marriage only...aren't obeying some rule book, then I fear it is you who have the problem understaning Christianity, my friend.
I don't have to aoplogize for nor defend Stalin...anymoreso than YOU have to apoligize for or defend the Crusades. So let's drop those smug little attitudes, why don't we?
29465. arkymalarky - 6/23/2009 10:54:15 PM Hey Pelty!
Unfortunately racism is alive and well in at least some churches in the South and probably elsewhere. They're not overt, but a Baptist preacher near here was let go because he was having black kids from the community at his kids and youth programs, and it's not uncommon in churches I've seen. Where I teach isn't like that, which is one reason I like it there so much. The main two churches there have very diverse youth groups, but that's not common around here. Of course people congregate where they commune, so I'm not referring to the community segregation of lots of churches, but to practicing segregation policies. The worst I ever knew was a former classmate whose church told her when she got married her black friends couldn't be in the wedding. They could only come as guests. Of course she didn't stay at that church, but she had no idea it was like that until that point because the issue had never come up. I quit my local church and I suspect but don't know that they're like that. I thought about going to the black church up the road from it, but that would just be using them to try to gig my white neighbors. Like I told my MIL, I've found that my faith is more solid when I stay out of church. 29466. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 3:23:06 AM Pelty,
I think you misread me. I am quite aware of the fact that I disdain a small minority of politicized Christians. That is at the root of my post. There is a vicious minority of self-identified Christians who have usurped the name as if they are the only Christians in the world and all Christians think and feel as they do. They have made it difficult for less politically and socially rabid Christians to receive an open welcome from non-theists or theists of other faiths.
I liken it to the Rush Limbaughs and Anne Coulters of the world giving Republicans a bad name.
Part of my irritation --- a very small part --- is the passing into memory of denominational identifiers. Nobody much says anymore "I'm a Lutheran" or "I'm a Methodist" and those distinctions really aren't useless.
I think the habit of dropping those identifiers has been triggered by the far-right Evangelical movement's attempt to own the word "Christian."
It results in stupidities like claiming that Catholics aren't Christians. 29467. pelty - 6/24/2009 2:49:36 PM J@H
"I never said anyone who does things differently than I do them is not married, did I?"
Not sure where you got this. re-read what I wrote, please.
"You have to at least admit than many Christians are fighting for the defense of marriage act because they feel it should be only THEIR way...I was explaining that I don't feel that way about my beliefs or lack thereof."
I do admit this, yes. My take, though I know it will not win many fans here, is that Christians should worry more about introducing people to Jesus, who is capable of changing hearts on social matters (not to mention some other pretty important stuff!), than trying to force it on people.
"And if you think these abstinance people....saving oneself for marriage only...aren't obeying some rule book, then I fear it is you who have the problem understaning Christianity, my friend."
I did not say that there was no "rulebook," but you brought it up in regards to marriage and there is no injunction stating that one HAS to get married. As for abstinence, for those who identify themselves as Christians, this is what is required, but the choice is made by people as a response of obedience and gratitude to the one they believe saved them. Abstinence should not be enforced on those who are not Christians, though I do think it is a good idea to promote it alongside other forms of contraception as a) it is pretty effective and b) can help one to avoid diseases that can accompany promiscuous sexual behavior.
"I don't have to aoplogize for nor defend Stalin...anymoreso than YOU have to apoligize for or defend the Crusades. So let's drop those smug little attitudes, why don't we?"
YOU are the one who brought up how you dislike Christianity, or those who profess it, because of the bad things done in its name, not me. I simply made the point that of all your arguments, this is one of the weakest as crimes of a far greater magnitude (statistically speaking) have been done under the banner of Atheism. 29468. pelty - 6/24/2009 2:52:48 PM Arky,
Thank you for your post and, sadly, I stand corrected. Racism clearly remains an issue, though I still would affirm that it is a minority (no pun intended) position within theologically-conservative churches. 29469. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:05:28 PM I did not say that there was no "rulebook," but you brought it up in regards to marriage and there is no injunction stating that one HAS to get married.
Well, it's pretty much implied...if one is to have sex and thus procreate. Sex is saved for after one is married, according to your faith...so it's either get married or do without sex, right? Where am I misreading anything?
YOU are the one who brought up how you dislike Christianity, or those who profess it, because of the bad things done in its name, not me.
I did not start this discussion...YOU responded to MsNo's statement. I admit I don't like what has been done in the name of religion...I agree with her...but you seem to be more exercised over me chiming in to the discussion.
I can fix that easily enough...but here's a hint: don't tell people they just don't understand Christianity and the Bible if you don't know facts about their lives. I wasn't BORN an atheist, any more than I was born a Christian. But I was baptized and taught the faith and went to church and studied the Bible, just like I assume you did. I simply came to different conclusions than you.
as crimes of a far greater magnitude (statistically speaking) have been done under the banner of Atheism.
I'm not sure if you have all those facts straight...but whatever. I am talking about religion...overall. That is larger in scope than just the Christian sects.
And this is a joke...where can I obtain one of those atheist banners? I didn't know we had a flag....
29470. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:15:12 PM Last Saturday I got a massage at a spa. My girlfriend who was getting one for her 40th was in the same room as I was while I was getting mine. Her masseur was a tall guy with pink hair.
Midway during the massages, he brought up going to yoga. He suggested she start taking yoga as a way to relax her muscles. Because she didn't answer in the affirmative fast enough he said, 'Unless of course you're one of those crazy Christians who thinks that yoga is eeeevil!" and proceeded to laugh.
Sometimes atheists don't need to knock on doors to make their opinions heard. 29471. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:17:03 PM Judith,
What church ruined your childhood? Now correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the 50s more conservative overall than today? 29472. Jenerator - 6/24/2009 3:24:39 PM My mom was a child in the 50s too, and back then girls were not allowed to wear pants. That was the socially accepted norm. The Church didn't create that norm.
29473. pelty - 6/24/2009 3:25:07 PM Ms. No,
"Part of my irritation --- a very small part --- is the passing into memory of denominational identifiers. Nobody much says anymore "I'm a Lutheran" or "I'm a Methodist" and those distinctions really aren't useless.
I think the habit of dropping those identifiers has been triggered by the far-right Evangelical movement's attempt to own the word 'Christian.'"
I agree that the denominational distinctions are not useless as there frequently are found in them theological differences that can be of some importance, and you may even be right that Evangelicalism has co-opted the word Christian. At the heart of the matter, though, is the question of definition: What is a Christian? Is a Christian someone who holds to an orthodox position on issues of Christology (bodily death and resurrection of Jesus, atonement of sin) and biblical authority, a more "liberal" Christianity (in which Christological and authoritative questions are less important than focusing on social issues), a mix of these, none of these? I think the Evangelicalism of the 80s-90s probably wanted to nail down an orthodox definition of Christianity as a response to a blurring of the lines. Those who identified themselves with this perspective found a political/social voice and attempted to use it to craft a political form of Christian morality which was always going to be unsuccessful. That said, I DO think they have the right to voice their concerns on social issues with which they disagree since they live in a society that gives them that right. If they can persuade the public that theirs is the correct perspective on a social issue, then that is just the way it goes in a democratic-republican system. One could argue that this is what happened in the 90s and, if this is the case, it is a legitimate activity within the US political system, but the Christians missed the problem that can arise from the identification of Christianity, and thus Christ, with politics. People become opposed to the gospel message, which is supposedly central to the orthodox Christians mentioned above, because they identify it with those who, in the people's minds, seek to limit their freedoms.
More recently, I think we are seeing public Evangelicals possess a form of Christianity that incorporates a more balanced approach, maintaining the orthodox doctrines while embracing certain social issues that previously gained little public attention from this faction - environmental issues come to mind specifically. 29474. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:38:33 PM My mom was a child in the 50s too, and back then girls were not allowed to wear pants. That was the socially accepted norm. The Church didn't create that norm.
Where on earth did THAT come from? Yes, the 50s were a more conservative time and no, the church didn't create the norm of young girls not wearing pants to school.
I was turned off by the Church of Christ...a very specific one. And the church DID create the norm for that congregation and that norm included no musical instruments, no girl/boy swimming, no dancing, no this and no that...no socializing on church grounds, even.
29475. judithathome - 6/24/2009 3:42:02 PM It also included threats of burning in hell if you sinned...very precise and voiced very often. 29476. pelty - 6/24/2009 3:44:58 PM "Well, it's pretty much implied...if one is to have sex and thus procreate. Sex is saved for after one is married, according to your faith...so it's either get married or do without sex, right? Where am I misreading anything?"
You are not misreading anything, but this assumes that a) one wishes to get married at all and B) one wishes to have sex at all. As I also said, Christians who choose to abstain from sex prior to marriage do so, ultimately, out of obedience and gratitude to the God who they believe saved them. Do they believe that this is his will because of what they read in a book? Yes, but their response to the book is born out of a relationship with and love for their Savior. If that relationship was not there, then I would venture a guess that the book would not hold them back from doing whatever they wish. I simply mean to suggest that it is more complicated than your rather simplistic "rulebook model."
"I did not start this discussion...YOU responded to MsNo's statement. I admit I don't like what has been done in the name of religion...I agree with her...but you seem to be more exercised over me chiming in to the discussion."
I am not at all exercised, believe me. Happy to have you chime in. However, you wrote,
"I think organized religions have been the cause of some of the worst things that have happened in this world...but maybe by that I mean some of the people involved in organized religions."
Nothing that I can recollect had been said about this aspect until you included it. My response is simply that it is a rather unsubstantive position to hold if one applies it to all religions, including the religion of No Religion.
"but here's a hint: don't tell people they just don't understand Christianity and the Bible if you don't know facts about their lives. I wasn't BORN an atheist, any more than I was born a Christian. But I was baptized and taught the faith and went to church and studied the Bible, just like I assume you did. I simply came to different conclusions than you."
I do not think I ever said anything about your knowledge of Christianity, did I? If so, I did not mean to as I know nothing about your background (well, now I guess I know a little bit about it...).
Ironically, I think Wal-Mart sells Atheist banners! ;-) 29477. judithathome - 6/24/2009 5:17:19 PM I'll have to check that one out...I have a feeling all the people who have the fish symbols on their cars (a majority of those in the parking lot at my local WalMart seems to have them) might protest if this were so. ;-)
Just so you know, I don't have one of the fish with legs on MY car...heh. 29478. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 5:36:49 PM Jen,
How do you know he was an atheist and not just a non-crazy Christian?
My cousin is a devout Southern Baptist and even she will say "I'm not one of those nutty Christians who thinks going to Disneyland will send you to Hell." 29479. judithathome - 6/24/2009 5:58:51 PM I'm sure Jen got that idea from the tracts he handed out and after he forced her to submit to his will...ya know, refusing to give her the seaweed rub unless she agreed to join his "church". 29480. arkymalarky - 6/24/2009 7:01:30 PM I'm sure you've said before, Pelty, but where are you from? Judith and I live in TX and AR respectively, and unfortunately that's relevant to some of what's been discussed about churches.
Another thing that really bugs me unrelated to judgment or prosletyzing, as someone who has quit going to church but would take it up if I had options, is that they've become such big social and fund-raising organizations and people won't just leave you alone and let you go to services. I'm busy and antisocial. I don't go to church to add a demanding group of people to my list of those who try to make me feel obligated whenever they decide they want to have some kind of event. Smaller rural churches, which are my main option, are the worst. It's fine for people who consider that a big part of their membership, but they ought to quit asking or prodding after you've said no a few times. 29481. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 7:22:00 PM Pelty,
At the heart of the matter, though, is the question of definition: What is a Christian?
Except that there isn't any question about that. A Christian is any person who believes Jesus Christ is the Messiah. All of the other questions --- was he born of a virgin, was he man or God or both and how much, does the Host really become His flesh or is it symbolic --- are questions to be asked and determined within the different Christian denominations.
I think the Evangelicalism of the 80s-90s probably wanted to nail down an orthodox definition of Christianity as a response to a blurring of the lines.
I think it's vital to look at how the neo-Conservative political movement bound itself to the Evangelicals during that time. This was when the GOP first really began its message of exclusion --- if you don't think just like us then you aren't really a Republican. That message carried over into the rhetoric of the Evangelical Church only you have to substitute "Christian" for "Republican." The GOP got a grassroots organization and the Church got a style of rhetoric. Whether anyone in the ruling powers of either organization was Machievellian enough to orchestrate this we'll probably never know. I think it was part planning and part serendipity and at first the advantages for both Church and Party seemed boundless.
However, it ends up being a cautionary tale about the dangers of entwining Church and State.
As you stated:
...the Christians missed the problem that can arise from the identification of Christianity, and thus Christ, with politics. People become opposed to the gospel message, which is supposedly central to the orthodox Christians mentioned above, because they identify it with those who, in the people's minds, seek to limit their freedoms.
1988 marked the last time California was a Red state in a presidential election. I think people forget that California had always been a Red state with the possible exception of Barry Goldwater's run. As the GOP became more focused on polarizing social issues --- rather than economic issues --- it turned off a lot of voters.
Just so, you pointed out the politicizing of the Evangelical message likely turned a lot of people off of Christ.
cont. 29482. Ms. No - 6/24/2009 7:26:29 PM cont. to pelty
I DO think they have the right to voice their concerns on social issues with which they disagree since they live in a society that gives them that right.
I agree. I may not like what someone has to say but I believe in a person's inherent right to express his opinion.
This next I have a bit of difficulty with:
If they can persuade the public that theirs is the correct perspective on a social issue, then that is just the way it goes in a democratic-republican system.
We have a representative democracy so that the majority doesn't disenfranchise the minority. The separation of Church and State protects both from the other.
Everybody is all about "majority rules" until they aren't members of the majority. Majority did not rule on issues of slavery, child labor, miscegenation and civil rights. Those things were determined by the courts and enforced on the population because sometimes the majority is just wrong --- as they quickly came to accept when they failed to overthrow the government for making them allow blacks and whites to marry. 29483. pelty - 6/24/2009 7:27:49 PM "I'm sure you've said before, Pelty, but where are you from? Judith and I live in TX and AR respectively, and unfortunately that's relevant to some of what's been discussed about churches."
I live in the Northeast and have attended churches either in this area or in the Midwest. I have not had the pleasure (or lack thereof, in some cases) of attending church in the South.
|
