|
Post by Komori on Oct 22, 2012 20:16:57 GMT -5
Re: the caring about people going to Hell thing, at some point you really do have to accept that it's their choice and you can't do anything about it that wouldn't just hurt your case any further. Well, there is the passage in the Bible about planting a seed, and then allowing God to help it grow. Yes, at some point there's only so much that a single person can do to persuade another single person, and pushing the point just makes things worse. I'm not much of a confrontational person anyway, so I think a lot of what can be done is just leading by example. That is, if you look like you've got your act together and people can see an inner force behind what you do, then you can persuade others to want to get to know the God that you have gotten to know. Of course, I'm pretty rubbish at that in practice. >.> But I know it's definitely a proven method, because I know some people who just shine with that inner light, and others gravitate to them without them ever having to have those awkward "I'd like to talk to you about Jesus" talks that I don't believe work as often as people would like to think. XD
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Oct 22, 2012 20:52:01 GMT -5
My first question has been answered mostly to my satisfaction -- thank you Komori, Hunty and Crystal. I thought, however, that there existed denominations which say that, by intentionally doing something that you know is a sin, you're dooming both yourself and humanity. Do all those denominations just not matter?
My second paragraph was sort of a specific version of a more general confusion of mine. I often hear (professed?) Christians saying things like "I'm a Christian, but I'm not against homosexuality/I'm pro-choice/I don't go off preaching about it/I believe in natural selection/I disagree with parts x, y and z in the Bible/I think Jesus's resurrection was metaphorical, not literal." Whenever I hear these statements, it sounds like someone saying "I'm a vegan, but I enjoy steak and eggs for breakfast every morning." You can find Bible verses against most, if not all of these things, and I was under the impression that Christians considered the Bible to be fairly important -- have I had it wrong this whole time? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know.
Komori has said, if I understand correctly, that the main step in being a Christian is accepting Jesus as one's Lord and saviour, and trying to cut down on sinning. But if you know that, say, eating shellfish/being gay is a sin, and you not only intentionally continue to do it, but encourage other Christians to do the same (or at least, fail to discourage them), it seems to me like that doesn't really count as trying. I get the impression that you're still supposed to care about homosexuals, shrimp enthusiasts and other sinners as much as you care about anyone, but that's not exactly the same as saying "Woohoo, gay crustacivores!" To call oneself a Christian, but accept certain sins for convenience's sake, seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too, am I wrong?
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Oct 22, 2012 21:18:24 GMT -5
Addressing Cow:
The think is, the bible is a huge book from a long time ago with a lot of different authors in a language that most Christians can't actually read. There are a lot of things that seem like contradictions, a lot of translations that are kinda questionable. Also a precedent for using metaphorical language and parables, which makes a literal interpretation hard or (arguably) impossible. You have to make peace with it on your own terms.
Some people, like me, can not come to terms with it. I can not agree with it's laws about rape and it's treatment of women. I cannot accept that two men or women loving each other and acting upon that love is bad. I do not choose to believe in a God who would have those laws. Some people come to terms in a different way. They love and believe in God, which is the most important part of their religion, and they just have to do the best they can and trust that it's good enough. They're humans, after all, not robots. I don't think it must be all or nothing.
You'll see some Christians describe their experience with religion as their "walk with Christ", which I like both because "And he walks with me" was the hymn that my Grandmother wanted at her funeral, and because it implies a journey and a dialogue. I don't think anyone goes into any religion (or even non-religious philosophy) knowing 100% how to handle every problem that comes along and how to reconcile everything against their life experience.
Also I feel like getting upset about other people for eating unclean animals when they're not 'of the book' is like getting mad at other people for having cake when you're on a diet.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 22, 2012 22:37:00 GMT -5
Komori has said, if I understand correctly, that the main step in being a Christian is accepting Jesus as one's Lord and saviour, and trying to cut down on sinning. But if you know that, say, eating shellfish/being gay is a sin, and you not only intentionally continue to do it, but encourage other Christians to do the same (or at least, fail to discourage them), it seems to me like that doesn't really count as trying. I get the impression that you're still supposed to care about homosexuals, shrimp enthusiasts and other sinners as much as you care about anyone, but that's not exactly the same as saying "Woohoo, gay crustacivores!" To call oneself a Christian, but accept certain sins for convenience's sake, seems like trying to have your cake and eat it too, am I wrong? Yup, as a Christian you try and cut down on the sinning, out of the gratitude in your heart for being forgiven for all these horrible things that you know you do. Now, you're absolutely correct, it's wrong to encourage sins in other Christians. In fact, the Bible tells us we're supposed to be pretty darn strict confronting sins in fellow Christians. The idea is, you're a Christian, you're supposed to know better, and it's totally not okay to go about in your old sinful life. Not that I'm saying it's ever really okay to sin, even for non-Christians. But it has to be in that person's heart to stop sinning. It's not my mom that convinces me to not sin, or my friends, or my church: it's my love and gratitude for my own personal savior that keeps me from sinning (again, humans are fallible, and I fail quite often). It's a personal relationship with Christ that helps people to stop sinning, not angry protests and picket signs. And keep in mind, Jesus had lunches with prostitutes and corrupt tax collectors. He didn't admonish them for their ways, He showed them love and kindness and friendship. He had instructions for His followers, yes, but people had to want to become His followers first. And the Bible is quite a bit more complex than just taking verses out willy nilly and reading them literally. Like Teow said, there are lots of parables, figurative language, symbolism, and overarching themes that start in the Old Testamant and weave their way through the New. It's how you wind up with so many denominations with different rules who interpret the Bible differently. And then 1 Corinthians 2:14 even says that people who are not in the Holy Spirit will regard God's word as folly. That is, it's not just reading a book full of words that anyone comes to an understanding of Christ: it's also prayer and the help of the Holy Spirit.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 23, 2012 0:59:38 GMT -5
My second paragraph was sort of a specific version of a more general confusion of mine. I often hear (professed?) Christians saying things like "I'm a Christian, but I'm not against homosexuality/I'm pro-choice/I don't go off preaching about it/I believe in natural selection/I disagree with parts x, y and z in the Bible/I think Jesus's resurrection was metaphorical, not literal." Whenever I hear these statements, it sounds like someone saying "I'm a vegan, but I enjoy steak and eggs for breakfast every morning." You can find Bible verses against most, if not all of these things, and I was under the impression that Christians considered the Bible to be fairly important -- have I had it wrong this whole time? I'm not being facetious, I really want to know. To answer you honestly... I really don't know. I don't think any of us do. Like Teow said, we do the best we can in our walk with the Lord, and trust that He knows better than we do, and that's all we can really do. What you described as making more sense is a fairly common stance among fundamentalist Christian denominations - Baptist, Southern Baptist, Catholics, wherein the Bible is considered the highest authority. And honestly, it's a good place to be. There are many worse things in life than the all-consuming faith that characterizes those churches. I have rarely felt more at peace with myself than when my faith was that black-and-white, and maybe that's the reason why most converts I know convert into denominations like that, and not to being Lutheran or Methodist or any of the more liberal sects. The most common argument I hear for differing interpretations of the Bible is that it was written for people in another age, and that we should interpret it based on modern times, instead of trying to live like first century Israelites. Jury's mostly out on that. Another common one is that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and not the literal one, and so it's come through the filters of a ton of very biased writers and translators. That's also sort of up to you. The key is simply to do a lot of your own study, to pray a lot, and to make peace with your God. Finally; as for why we go to all this trouble for a religion when not caring and not believing would just so much easier... There is something to God that I've never been able to describe to someone who doesn't already know exactly what I'm talking about. In Him is peace of mind, lightness of spirit, faith, purpose, a deep and enduring joy... these are all gifts that faith grants you, and also probably why converts are always so enthusiastic about telling people about their new faith. Komori phrased it quite well when she said that some people shine with an inner light. It's not to say you can't be perfectly happy without believing in God, or that you can't be perfectly unhappy as a believer (also you can totally be a complete jerk) but it's a different kind of happiness. I don't know. You kind of have to see it. (I just finished a LOTR marathon, so I'm a little maudlin at the moment. "Master Frodooooo!" "Oh, Sam! " )
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Nov 1, 2012 10:01:51 GMT -5
What you described as making more sense is a fairly common stance among fundamentalist Christian denominations - Baptist, Southern Baptist, Catholics, wherein the Bible is considered the highest authority. And honestly, it's a good place to be. There are many worse things in life than the all-consuming faith that characterizes those churches. I have rarely felt more at peace with myself than when my faith was that black-and-white, and maybe that's the reason why most converts I know convert into denominations like that, and not to being Lutheran or Methodist or any of the more liberal sects. It's interesting that you mention fundamentalist churches which proscribe doctrines in absolute, black-and-white terms. Because my experience has been a little bit different from yours. I grew up in a church that laid down hard-and-fast rules about doctrines. It was a rather obscure church, hardly anyone I know now has heard of them, but as a kid, to me, they were my whole "world" in the sense that they were the only church I was hearing doctrines from. And I suppose at first it was rather easy to simply nod my head and repeat back what they said.
But even as a child, I sometimes felt a bit uneasy. Because my mother, who was going to the same church and has always been something of a spiritual guide for me, did not always agree to the church's prescriptive doctrines to the letter.
For example, the church strongly advised its members not to read any Christian books, that is, books published by Christians of other denominations (i.e. the entirety of Christian literature, other than pamphlets published by this small church). The church believed that the only source of instruction should come purely from the bible, preferably, the King James Version. My mother felt like she had so much more to understand and explore about Christianity, and the KJV bible is actually rather hard to read as a new convert. So she went off and bought loads of Christian books and read them, and loved it, and grew in her walk.
But that meant also that she had some opinions which were not the same as the doctrines spelled out for us in this particular church.
The church ruled for complete and utter abstinence from alcohol. My mother sometimes sipped a glass of wine after dinner. The church believed that the British royal family was descended from the house of David. My mother was a bit skeptical of that. And the church believed that all other Christian denominations were doomed to perish in hell, because they did not have exactly the same doctrines as we did, and therefore "were not believing the same Jesus".
Ultimately my mother decided to leave this church and find another, because she felt dry, like she had stopped growing in her spiritual walk. I was still quite young, only about 14? And when she told me that we were leaving this church, I broke down and cried. Hard. Because, though I had my reservations and was troubled, I had believed what they told me, that to abandon this church was tantamount to abandoning the Christian faith altogether. Even though their doctrines bothered me I didn't want to leave because I was scared of leaving God.
But I am so very glad that we got out of it, and found a (relatively) more liberal church. I know this is rather an extreme case, and it was a rather extreme church. There were many things that were not quite right with it, especially their propensity to stick to their guns whenever someone brought up a doctrinal issue and their eagerness to expel dissenters from the church. But they didn't do everything wrong, they held scripture in very high regard (though many of their official interpretations were, in my mind, off) and I believe my mother and I were saved in that church. Even so, I don't feel at ease with churches that take a very strictly black-and-white approach to doctrines, insisting that their way is the only way to interpret scripture. Particularly churches that are so bold as to claim that other denominations are not saved, or that Christians with different opinions are not of the same body of Christ. Because the church of one's local neighbourhood in the 21st century is but a tiny sample of the glory of the church on earth. When I study history I like to think that I have something in common with the Christians of the past and present, in far-flung places and closer to home. I like to think that even if we may not agree to the letter about every issue, we share the same love of Christ, the same redemption and the same salvation. I do not feel that it is necessary to have every question of faith answered in absolutely certain terms. I believe that salvation comes through God's grace and mercy, not through one's adherence to a particular set of viewpoints from a particular sect (with the exception of accepting the doctrine of salvation through Christ's sacrifice, because Christ is central). And while maintaining good doctrines is important, openness to considering other interpretations is beneficial to the church. So what about those Christians who are pro-abortion? Will God not let you into heaven, because you held a political view that the majority of Christians in your period of time didn't hold? A cursory glance of history will show that there were Christians on both sides of the Slavery debate. So were only the "winners" of the debate following Christ? TL;DR: Highly dogmatic sects make me feel more uneasy about their grasp of the truth, not less. I want to end with a quote from a study by bible scholar Daniel B. Wallace: "...the quest for certainty is not the same as a quest for truth. There is a subtle but important distinction between the two. Truth is objective reality; certainty is the level of subjective apprehension of something perceived to be true. But in the recognition that truth is objective reality, it is easy to confuse the fact of this reality with how one knows what it is. Frequently the most black-and-white, dogmatic method of arriving at truth is perceived to be truth itself. Indeed, people with deep religious convictions are very often quite certain about an untruth. For example, cultists often hold to their positions quite dogmatically and with a fideistic fervor that shames evangelicals; first-year Greek students want to speak of the aorist tense as meaning “once-and-for-all” action; and almost everyone wants simple answers to the complex questions of life. At bottom this quest for certainty, though often masquerading as a legitimate epistemological inquiry, is really a presuppositional stance, rooted in a psychological insecurity."
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Nov 1, 2012 15:22:25 GMT -5
That's perfectly fair. I definitely don't think I was referring to that kind of dogmatism when I said what I did, and actually left my church a couple months ago because I disagreed with their doctrine. xD I find myself disagreeing with nothing that you said or implied in that post, and if I could point up and say "What she said!" I would.
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Nov 1, 2012 22:22:37 GMT -5
That's all okay, I know you weren't really speaking for churches that were that excessively dogmatic. Heh, I guess I saw that part where you said that there are worse things than being in a community which has very black-and-white views, and saw it as an opportunity to say well... bad things do sometimes happen out of that. But we all live and learn, and I don't think I'd be the same if I'd never have had that kind of an experience.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 20:27:58 GMT -5
Hey, I just wanted to ask a question to everyone who believes in souls (because I can't find an answer for myself).
What do you think of "split personalities"? Granted, I don't know much about them, so knowing about the subject might be better. But do you think it's multiple souls in one body, something else, or both?
(I'm sorry if this is too touchy)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2013 21:18:17 GMT -5
I don't know if this is a religious question, necessarily, but...anyway! That is indeed a mental disorder, and it's currently called "dissociative identity disorder"! I don't believe it has much to do with souls so much as a combination of chemical imbalances in the brain, genetics, and trauma. But that in itself is kind of debatable. There's a lot of heated debate over what merits a diagnosis, too. ^^;
|
|
|
Post by Breakingchains on Feb 26, 2013 21:45:01 GMT -5
I also believe in souls, but the natural explanation on that one makes the most sense to me.
As I understand it (and someone correct me if I'm generalizing too much) the usual theory is that in response to a severe trauma in childhood, the mind locks it away by inventing another person to take on the memories and resulting pain. If the event is assigned to personality #2, that means personality #1 is free to continue functioning without clear (or any) memories of what happened. These personalities can apparently be re-integrated with each other with treatment, producing a single, whole self. This leads me to think they're not souls--just separate partitions on the hard drive of you, so to speak.
On the other hand? Some experts argue that multiple personalities don't even exist. There are some cases that could be simple psychotic episodes, or people looking for a book deal. (Or worse, shrinks looking for a book deal and--sometimes unwittingly--digging up fake "memories" in their patients.) Many other experts claim it does exist and that they've treated these cases. There's a lot of debate.
|
|
|
Post by Huntress on Feb 27, 2013 6:37:18 GMT -5
I see them as mostly unrelated, I guess. As in, there's the one soul (although I'm not discounting the idea of multiple souls in a body, I've just never given it enough thought to develop a viewpoint on it x'D) and then there's the explanation Breakingchains gave. Like, the soul is the electricity that runs the system, but the personalities are separate OSes installed on the same machine.
|
|
|
Post by Coaster on May 22, 2013 22:32:49 GMT -5
There's an activity that was brought up in small group tonight and I thought I'd share it here, if this is the right place. It was discussed in the context of discipleship, so feel free to use that or anything you want as a focus, but the task was to compile a list of at least 15 things that are indicative of / necessary for a spiritually fulfilled life in that respect. Afterward (but before you post), read the spoiler tag below. Narrow that list down to only 3 absolute essentials and post them (in spoilers, if you want to carry over the same reaction) along with some reasons, what you cut out and why, etc.--general reactions, basically. It was quite interesting to struggle to come up with that many and then struggle just as much trying to narrow it down that far, but it can really help to find out what's really important to you. EDIT: 30 is probably too much to ask, considering that's the amount we had to come up with in groups of 5. ._.,
|
|
|
Post by Kozma on Feb 10, 2014 5:24:22 GMT -5
*sigh* I would like to revive this thread because, well, I'm going through a bit of a crisis at the moment - a crisis in my faith. You see, last week there was this big debate between creationist Ken Ham and Bill Nye the science guy over whether creationism was an acceptable science or not. I have been hearing many things on the Internet since this debate - most of the things I've been hearing are rather troubling. I was raised and schooled in an environment where six-day creationism was taught as truth. Over the past week, I've heard so many statements, many of them in response to that debate, stating that creationism is absolutely wrong and that the book of Genesis should not be taken literally. I have been flooded with evidence that supports old-earth theories and opposes new-earth ones. I'm not trying to be close-minded here; maybe the earth is a hundred million years old; maybe God didn't create the universe in six days; maybe the creationist theories I have been taught are wrong. I know that I can have beliefs that turn out to be false; I know I can be wrong sometimes. The problem is that a portion of the Bible may be inaccurate. If one portion of the Bible is inaccurate, it's quite possible that everything else in the Bible is inaccurate too. Who can say that the whole Word of God is without error if one portion of it can be proven false? There is just so much I could say about what's been going through my mind about all this but to avoid a huge textwall I'm just going to wrap up here and see if this discussion can be revived. There is just so much to this personal crisis and I just can't see evolution fitting in with my faith in Jesus. It all just doesn't add up.
|
|
|
Post by Bianca <3 on Feb 10, 2014 11:51:05 GMT -5
KozmaI was raised Catholic, but I'm also a biology major. I went to a Catholic school where I was taught that the Bible is a mixture of myth, legends, and facts, which does in fact make it difficult to directly translate. I know some faiths take the Bible verbatim, but I was never raised that way. This is how I think of it (and it's not exactly the Catholic way, but is my way of thinking): God created the universe. And that's basically it. He set the rules (the laws of physics) and then set the events into motion. And based on these physics that He created, planets and animals and creatures were able to evolve. And at some point, H put souls into the mix (nowadays I often wonder if other creatures, besides humans, have souls, but that is just food for thought). Basically, I think the Genesis creation story is not a literal representation. Days can be interpreted as millions of years. It can still have all been done my the hand of God, but in a less literal translation of the Bible. Again, this is how I view it. I think everyone has to come to their own interpretations. I sometimes pray to God about the thoeries I have; I feel like He enjoys everyone's attempts at problem-solving.
|
|