Oh Dear~Aphrodite Questions Christianity, Specifically the Resurrection, Etc.

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

So, I'm a born again Christian, newly. But I've always had problems with a hardcore literal interpretation of the bible when it diverged from known natural phenomena of life. I also am skeptical because for a few? decades after Jesus' crucifixion, nothing was evidently written down as a testament, making it obvious that verbal stories and scattered scribblings, from the hands of mere mortals, should at the most be rejected as a word-for-word literal tome form the lips of God, and at the least be used warily, with a discerning mind.

To learn more about Jesus, I embarked on an 11-week bible study called, "Jesus, the One and Only" with Beth Moore. I like her. She's an ENFJ and very into scripture and teaching; she can bring out nuances, sometimes even just hinged on the root of a word, and tie them in with our own psychological situations very well, which is why I really like her studies.

I could enjoy Jesus' history and words, and even works (though I agreed with my left brain that I wouldn't look too closely at raising the dead, and we could keep tripping along the bumpy Jerusalem road) as we went along week after week. But I knew it was coming. That moment where I would be confronted with the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the Messiah. For some reason I could accommodate the holy conception as coming from God (though I secretly think Mary was a victim of incest, if I were to be completely honest), and the beautiful, selfless life (my fav part) of Jesus. But for some reason, I cannot suspend my ability to disbelieve anymore, when it comes to Jesus' literal resurrection on the third day, walking around and 'appearing' to people for 40 days, then finally ascending in heaven, per Luke's account.




Can I be a Christian, believe Jesus was a special person who exemplified the notion of Coram Deo, was persecuted for his special, ironical belief in God and man's hatred, and ascended into heaven the same way we all will when we die?

Or does one have to believe in it all literally, hook, line, and sinker to be a Christian?



Love to All,

~A

Religious people are religious because they refuse to let rational thinking into certain areas of their worldview. The basic assumptions--God exists, God exists in a human-like form with emotions and likes/dislikes, God is acting in the world and cares about what happens to a little tiny planet in the middle of nowhere--are never seriously questioned. Evidence isn't really examined carefully, emotions suddenly become indicators of what exists ("I feel God now"), and illogical arguments are accepted. AFTER THAT POINT, religious thinking can be extremely logical and nuanced, and theology is a testament to that.

If you start letting logic into your religious paradigm, and start respecting scientific method and findings, then I think it's only a matter of time before you either decide your beliefs are nonsense, or, that you decide to block out skepticism and legit challenges to your beliefs and just have faith because life is easier that way.

 

[Beorn]

Religious people are religious because they refuse to let rational thinking into certain areas of their worldview. The basic assumptions--God exists, God exists in a human-like form with emotions and likes/dislikes, God is acting in the world and cares about what happens to a little tiny planet in the middle of nowhere--are never seriously questioned. Evidence isn't really examined carefully, emotions suddenly become indicators of what exists ("I feel God now"), and illogical arguments are accepted. AFTER THAT POINT, religious thinking can be extremely logical and nuanced, and theology is a testament to that.

If you start letting logic into your religious paradigm, and start respecting scientific method and findings, then I think it's only a matter of time before you either decide your beliefs are nonsense, or, that you decide to block out skepticism and legit challenges to your beliefs and just have faith because life is easier that way.

Both atheists and theists build their entire rationale for beliefs on unprovable assumptions. There is no basic difference between the two on that point.

I mean, do you ever seriously question whether reason is an appropriate way to gain knowledge?

 

[Mole]

So, I'm a born again Christian, newly. But I've always had problems with a hardcore literal interpretation of the bible when it diverged from known natural phenomena of life. I also am skeptical because for a few? decades after Jesus' crucifixion, nothing was evidently written down as a testament, making it obvious that verbal stories and scattered scribblings, from the hands of mere mortals, should at the most be rejected as a word-for-word literal tome form the lips of God, and at the least be used warily, with a discerning mind.

To learn more about Jesus, I embarked on an 11-week bible study called, "Jesus, the One and Only" with Beth Moore. I like her. She's an ENFJ and very into scripture and teaching; she can bring out nuances, sometimes even just hinged on the root of a word, and tie them in with our own psychological situations very well, which is why I really like her studies.

I could enjoy Jesus' history and words, and even works (though I agreed with my left brain that I wouldn't look too closely at raising the dead, and we could keep tripping along the bumpy Jerusalem road) as we went along week after week. But I knew it was coming. That moment where I would be confronted with the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the Messiah. For some reason I could accommodate the holy conception as coming from God (though I secretly think Mary was a victim of incest, if I were to be completely honest), and the beautiful, selfless life (my fav part) of Jesus. But for some reason, I cannot suspend my ability to disbelieve anymore, when it comes to Jesus' literal resurrection on the third day, walking around and 'appearing' to people for 40 days, then finally ascending in heaven, per Luke's account.

Can I be a Christian, believe Jesus was a special person who exemplified the notion of Coram Deo, was persecuted for his special, ironical belief in God and man's hatred, and ascended into heaven the same way we all will when we die?

Or does one have to believe in it all literally, hook, line, and sinker to be a Christian?

Love to All,~A

The literal interpretation of the bible is a relatively recent phenomenon. And the literal interpretation began with the invention of the printing press in 1440 and the printing of the first book, the bible.

Since then in developed countries we have univeral literacy so a literal interpretation seems natural.

However for most of the history of christianity the bible was read aloud. And so the bible was part of the spoken culture and not part of a literate culture.

And being part of the spoken culture the bible lent itself to poetic interpretations, metaphorical interpretations, cultural interpretations, and theological interpretations. In the spoken culture a literal interpretation would seem foreign and unnatural.

And as we are now moving from a literate culture to an electronic culture, the literal interpretation of the bible once again seems to be foreign and unnatural.

 

[tinker683]

For now, I'm still calling myself a Christian because I can really think of no other monotheism that is an apt description of what I believe as much as Christianity. I just don't buy into the whole substitution, redemption, and salvation part of it. I think we are all going to 'heaven' and that we create our own hell on earth via our physical imperfections, in various forms. Only by focusing on, and feeding, our soul, which is what makes us, and all living things alive, do we stay close to God and his will.

I further think prophets/messiahs must come from time to time throughout history to remind man that God is love, and the ultimate meaning of life.

I have to agree with Beorn then...whatever you may call yourself, you're not an orthodox Christian then, as you've just gutted the core tenants of the religion.

That being said, and for whatever its worth, I wish more people held a similar view that you do

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Religious people are religious because they refuse to let rational thinking into certain areas of their worldview. The basic assumptions--God exists, God exists in a human-like form with emotions and likes/dislikes, God is acting in the world and cares about what happens to a little tiny planet in the middle of nowhere--are never seriously questioned. Evidence isn't really examined carefully, emotions suddenly become indicators of what exists ("I feel God now"), and illogical arguments are accepted. AFTER THAT POINT, religious thinking can be extremely logical and nuanced, and theology is a testament to that.

If you start letting logic into your religious paradigm, and start respecting scientific method and findings, then I think it's only a matter of time before you either decide your beliefs are nonsense, or, that you decide to block out skepticism and legit challenges to your beliefs and just have faith because life is easier that way.

I'm not able to respond to you adequately here because I am not at a point yet where I am able, for whatever reason. I think it can be both?I get what you are saying, I think, in that religion is ALL irrational? But, to be a true believer, one must believe. And for that individual, their belief to them seems rational, even if to outsiders it is irrational.

To help me understand this better I looked to Jung's definition of irrational and found this:

Jung wrote in Psychological Types: “I conceive reason as an attitude whose principle it is to conform thought, feeling, and action to objective values. Objective values are established by the everyday experience of external facts on the one hand, and of inner, psychological facts on the other. Such experiences, however, could not represent objective “values” if they were valued as such by the subject, for that would already amount to an act of reason. The rational attitude which permits us to declare objective values as valid at all is not the work of the individual subject, but the product of human history.” Reason is collectively and historically conditioned and refers to accepted standards of truth.

Jung defined irrational “not as denoting something contrary to reason, but something beyond reason, something therefore, not grounded on reason."

For example, faith has been defined as The evidence of things not seen, implying that in our own subjective minds, we do use reason, but it's faith beyond other's reason, perhaps, but yet still reasonable to us.

When the explanation becomes “so complicated that it passes our powers of comprehension” and can’t be explained rationally, Jung stated that the contradictions it presents to logic arise from the projection of our psychological viewpoint onto irrational processes. These “existential factors” are objective ones which ultimately exceed explanation. The way out of the contradiction is an individual, subjective one. It has nothing to do with accepted values or standards in the way we are conditioned to think. The subjective factor which gives rise to the projection dictates that it must be viewed in terms of individual values. Since they’re relative to prescribed ones, they have validity only for that individual. This is the way to understanding individual conflict.

And/but, since man has collectively believe in a higher power(s) [see bolded first sentence], it is apt to also say that it is reasonable to believe in God, because history is more full of believers than unbelievers.

So whether you look at it individually or collectively, it is reasonable to believe in God, though it is irrational.

The literal interpretation of the bible is a relatively recent phenomenon. And the literal interpretation began with the invention of the printing press in 1440 and the printing of the first book, the bible.

Since then in developed countries we have univeral literacy so a literal interpretation seems natural.

However for most of the history of christianity the bible was read aloud. And so the bible was part of the spoken culture and not part of a literate culture.

And being part of the spoken culture the bible lent itself to poetic interpretations, metaphorical interpretations and theological interpretations. In the spoken culture a literal interpretation would seem foreign and unnatural.

And as we are now moving from a literate culture to an electronic culture, the literal interpretation of the bible once again seems to be foreign and unnatural.

Thank you, Victor! That is awesome to know. I cringe to tell my fellow bible study women about my change, but it will be nice to be armed with some facts when I do.

I have to agree with Beorn then...whatever you may call yourself, you're not an orthodox Christian then, as you've just gutted the core tenants of the religion.

That being said, and for whatever its worth, I wish more people held a similar view that you do

Yeah. I don't really care to be an orthodox Christian, or anything for that matter. I just want to figure out what I believe, and where I fit.

 

[tinker683]

Yeah. I don't really care to be an orthodox Christian, or anything for that matter. I just want to figure out what I believe, and where I fit.

I understand.

Question for you: What do you think makes a Christian, a Christian? What's your criteria?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I understand.

Question for you: What do you think makes a Christian, a Christian? What's your criteria?

I don't know.


That is part of what I hope to determine from this thread.

 

[Jonny]

Both atheists and theists build their entire rationale for beliefs on unprovable assumptions. There is no basic difference between the two on that point.

I mean, do you ever seriously question whether reason is an appropriate way to gain knowledge?

What does this even mean? Please tell me how an atheist builds his entire rationale for beliefs on unprovable assumptions... What "entire rational" are you talking about? I'm an atheist. I believe that god doesn't exist. Done. I have no entire rationale built upon that belief. It does not bleed into other areas of my life. If I were to meet a god, I would cease to be an atheist. That means if I were presented with evidence that contradicted my belief that god is a crock of cock sucking horseshit, then I'd gladly change my belief. Many theists are presented with evidence that their beliefs are inaccurate, and yet they continue to hold those beliefs, and create stupid ass, convoluted nonsense to try to reconcile their stupidity. Likewise, many theists don't, and to them I tip my hat.

As to your question of reason... it would depend upon your definition of appropriate in this context. Appropriate for what? Furthermore, how do you define knowledge? For me, the extent to which an idea about the world affords a person with the ability to make accurate predictions about causes and effects marks the degree to which that idea represents accurate knowledge. Can we know anything for sure? Likely not, save for, perhaps, a priori truths. Those too are only true insofar as our basic ability to reason is valid. But then, there is no way to separate ourselves from the use of reason. Any analysis of the various methods through which one might acquire knowledge would, I think, utilize reason, thus making any attempt to objectively analyze the use of reason futile. I'm open to suggestions. How would you suggest we "question" the use of reason?

 

[sprinkles]

GREATER POOP: Are you really serious or what?
MAL-2: Sometimes I take humor seriously. Sometimes I take seriousness humorously. Either way it is irrelevant.

GP: Maybe you are just crazy.
M2: Indeed! But do not reject these teaching as false because I am crazy. The reason that I am crazy is because they are true.

GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

GP: Why do you deal with so many negatives?
M2: To dissolve them.
GP: Will you develop that point?
M2: No.

GP: Is there an essential meaning behind POEE?
M2: There is a Zen Story about a student who asked a Master to explain the meaning of Buddhism. The Master's reply was "Three pounds of flax."
GP: Is that the answer to my question?
M2: No, of course not. That is just illustrative. The answer to your question is FIVE TONS OF FLAX!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So I'm diggin on Christian Deism http://christiandeism.com/archives/

and Bahai.

I want to like Christian Deism more because I am currently learning about Jesus and love Jesus.

But I suspect that Bahai is really a better fit for what I believe, and have always believed--that there have been many messengers of God, and that we could all be messengers of God if we were enlightened enough. I also like that Bahai is about world peace and love. http://www.bahai.org/

What do y'all think?

 

[tinker683]

So I'm diggin on Christian Deism http://christiandeism.com/archives/

and Bahai.

I want to like Christian Deism more because I am currently learning about Jesus and love Jesus.

But I suspect that Bahai is really a better fit for what I believe, and have always believed--that there have been many messengers of God, and that we could all be messengers of God if we were enlightened enough. I also like that Bahai is about world peace and love. http://www.bahai.org/

What do y'all think?

Both sound interesting, even though they're both going against biblical and traditional thought. Christian Deism sounds like a contradiction to me though.

Question: Do you feel either one of these possible ideas could be true because you genuinely feel they could be true or because you want them to be true?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Both sound interesting, even though they're both going against biblical and traditional thought. Christian Deism sounds like a contradiction to me though.

Question: Do you feel either one of these possible ideas could be true because you genuinely feel they could be true or because you want them to be true?

It would be easier to be a full-fledged Christian. I avoided my thoughts regarding Jesus' miracles and resurrection, etc., as long as I could, so I could believe and identify with a good religion. So if I wanted something to be true, it would be that.

I have long had whisperings that Jesus was just another messenger of God, not necessary something Divine, or to be worshiped, in himself, but as a bridge to our Great Almighty. Jews feel this way about Moses, Muslims about Muhammad, Buddhists about Buddha, etc.

I learned that depending upon one's culture, that is the religion one is most likely to get. And it's these separate religions that end up causing wars. The overlying principle or Deity above all of this is God. If people could just accept that God is the unifying factor, and accept prophets or messengers as God's chosen few, we'd be on our way to a unified religion, and a more cohesive world.

Christian Deists just adhere to Jesus' teachings because he was simple and great, and because they largely came from North American religion, which was Christianity. I have decided I'm not really a Christian Deist myself because I'm sure other messengers said things as great as Jesus, and were righteous and holy and that the Holy Spirit spoke through them. The holy spirit has spoken through me, and possibly through you. But not to the extent of those whose entire being is all about living coram Deo and being chosen by God to be a prophet.

I see Jesus as a friend, mentor, extension of God--perhaps even a demi-God, and even (today) as co-wife....He is God, but not God. Therefore I am conflicted about the trinity....I think the trinity is really infinity--that God can and does exist in anyone in any way at any time, but I still believe in the trinity even though it is not a deist concept. Deists tend to believe that there is not trinity, but unity (unitarianism), in one God. I see God in different levels, yet not diminished in such a capacity. Like the trinity concept, but more infinite.

And Bahai I surfed about at work last night.....I like the newest prophet's words, Bahá’u’lláh, an Iranian man from the 1800s, but I dislike that he made a religion out of his message, just like Christians made a relgion out of Jesus' teachings. I think it's probably the closest religion, besides deism, that I believe in (at least that I am aware of as yet), but I wouldn't want to focus on this one prophet's words. I would rather study all the past prophets and messengers of God, in all the various works, so that I might know to the fullest extent possible the insight granted to humans from God. Plus my own reflection of course, which actually I prefer. Christian Deists, I read, do not usually worship in a church or group, preferring to reflect on their own. I think this is not necessarily a good idea; I think man should pray every day and worship with others weekly, but I get the gist of what they are saying.

So far I am some sort of Prophet Deist who believes in the infinite duality of God the Father and Holy spirit, in a transcendent and immanent form.

 

[_eric_]

If you think Jesus is just a prophet, messenger, 'extension,' or anything other than God Himself, then you are claiming Him to be a liar every time He said He is God. That is what the Jews crucified Him for, the blasphemy of claiming to be God. These ideas you have here do not line up with scripture at all. Be wary of any personal revelation that goes against scripture, like these 'whisperings' you are hearing telling you this; if personal revelation goes against scripture then it is not of God and should therefore be shut out.

Just for a quick example from a simple Google search, since I don't have anything already bookmarked that is specifically relevant:

"'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'" (John 10:30-33).

http://www.bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jes...id-jesus-christ-claim-to-be-god-11567468.html

As for this 'unified religion' you want, you'd do well to stay far away from anything of the sort.

http://raymondjclements.wordpress.c...-one-world-religion-harlot-babylon-rev-17-18/

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

If you think Jesus is just a prophet, messenger, 'extension,' or anything other than God Himself, then you are claiming Him to be a liar every time He said He is God. That is what the Jews crucified Him for, the blasphemy of claiming to be God. These ideas you have here do not line up with scripture at all. Be wary of any personal revelation that goes against scripture, like these 'whisperings' you are hearing telling you this; if personal revelation goes against scripture then it is not of God and should therefore be shut out.

Just for a quick example from a simple Google search, since I don't have anything already bookmarked that is specifically relevant:

"'I and the Father are one.' Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, 'I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?' 'We are not stoning you for any of these,' replied the Jews, 'but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God'" (John 10:30-33).

http://www.bugman123.com/Bible/JesusIsGod.html
http://www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html
http://www.crosswalk.com/who-is-jes...id-jesus-christ-claim-to-be-god-11567468.html

As for this 'unified religion' you want, you'd do well to stay far away from anything of the sort.

http://raymondjclements.wordpress.c...-one-world-religion-harlot-babylon-rev-17-18/

I'm not very confident of the historical accuracy of the bible, to be frank. I think we can believe it, but not necessary take it very literally.

But just because Jesus might have said he was God, doesn't mean he was. Zealots were being crucified right and left for claiming the same thing, almost daily.

You still have the problem, to my mind, of the 'miracles' and the resurrection and how when he walked around on earth for 40 days, people didn't really recognize him as Jesus. Why? Because other men were masquerading as Jesus to perpetuate the rumor, so that it could become myth. No matter what a tampered-with historical document written by his followers wrote decades after he lived says, there is just a point where you have to allow reason room to work. From there you can jump into faith.

The fact is, that we want to adhere to Christianity because it is written into our culture....our families, our upbringing, our communities. To turn from it means to turn away from part of our roots, a very important part, and it is not surprising people would rather suspend their ability to disbelieve than to have to come up with another spiritual paradigm or worldview.

Same with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, etc. Christians who feel that Jesus is the 'One and Only' are in good company with the rest of the worlds religions who believe in a messiah.

I like prophets, messengers, messiahs, and think they have a lot to teach us. I just don't think we should worship them, or allow them to take the place of our God.

 

[Lark]

Something I was thinking about this thread the other day, you could be impressed by Christ without being a Christian, I know Jews and Muslims who think that he was a great man or prophetic person without believing anything which could be remotely considered Christian, ie virgin birth, his mother being conceived without sin, his resurrection and assumption into heaven, there is even a secular novelisation of Jesus' life and ministry, well, there's many really but I was thinking of Kingdom of the Wicked because I was reading it recently and havent finished it.

By no means do I think that anyone has to believe everything which has been written about Jesus, so long as they take his teachings themselves, what he said, the example of what he did, like feeding people, healing the sick, bringing hope to everyone he met and putting religious teaching at service of man instead of allowing it to become a detestable burden, and what he was, an example of human being, he got a lot packed into a short life, cut of in its prime by some real assholes who subjected him to brutal torture and a worse death.

 

[RaptorWizard]

Christianity has been stupified so it can be followed by the stupid multitudes.

There are many truths we cannot discover within what Christ revealed alone.

The true answers as to the nature of creation are going to be found along our own journeys and the directions we take.

God the shephard points the sheep the safe way.

We must however make our own path if we truly wish to reach greatness.

We humans are capable of greatness!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Something I was thinking about this thread the other day, you could be impressed by Christ without being a Christian, I know Jews and Muslims who think that he was a great man or prophetic person without believing anything which could be remotely considered Christian, ie virgin birth, his mother being conceived without sin, his resurrection and assumption into heaven, there is even a secular novelisation of Jesus' life and ministry, well, there's many really but I was thinking of Kingdom of the Wicked because I was reading it recently and havent finished it.

By no means do I think that anyone has to believe everything which has been written about Jesus, so long as they take his teachings themselves, what he said, the example of what he did, like feeding people, healing the sick, bringing hope to everyone he met and putting religious teaching at service of man instead of allowing it to become a detestable burden, and what he was, an example of human being, he got a lot packed into a short life, cut of in its prime by some real assholes who subjected him to brutal torture and a worse death.

But he knew this going in. He lived in this time, from his childhood on, he wandered among all kinds of people, whether he was in 'his Father's house' or living amongst the destitute in the wilderness, he knew what the culture was at the time, and he knew that Roman torture for zealots was the norm. But I've no doubt he was truly in tune with God, more than most of us will ever know. I think they tied in together though. I think that he wasn't going to stop spreading the word of God as he saw it (thank God ), but he also knew he was likely going to be tortured for it. Bible study makes it sound like Jesus had some Divine psychic ability because from his first recorded words (except the time when he was a boy and found worshiping/discussing 'in his Father's house), around the age of 30, he 'prophesied' that he was going to die, or at least intimated it. But by that time, it wouldn't have taken much for him to realize this, given his beliefs and the environment at the time. Paul and many other disciples, and indeed thousands of Christians who followed, have willingly undergone imprisonment and torture for their God, and Jesus was no different.

So the Romans were real assholes, but they were not acting out of character. Jesus knew what he was getting himself into, but he did it anyway in his love, and zeal, for God; and possibly other, more egocentric reasons we will never know.

Christianity has been stupified so it can be followed by the stupid multitudes.

There are many truths we cannot discover within what Christ revealed alone.

The true answers as to the nature of creation are going to be found along our own journeys and the directions we take.

God the shephard points the sheep the safe way.

We must however make our own path if we truly wish to reach greatness.

We humans are capable of greatness!

Only God is Great. Only God is Good.

If we are great it is by His grace. But we are not even good yet, so we have a long way to go.

 

[Ivy]

I have a pretty complicated relationship with Christianity, but I do love me some Jesus. I don't know if that stuff is literally true or not. Since that time there have been translations, additions, subtractions. But I don't really feel like I need to know. To me, being focused on the literal details of whether something happened exactly as it is written in the bible misses the point. I connect with those stories whether they happened or not, whether the red words in the bible were actually spoken by Jesus as written. The underlying truths have meaning that literal events could never have. I realize this is an unorthodox approach to Christianity, but I've been fortunate enough to find a couple of religious traditions where doubt and unorthodox approaches are welcomed. (Those traditions are Quakerism and the Episcopal church, the American wing of the Anglican communion.)

Finding a specific congregation where doubt is welcome and you're not shamed for voicing unorthodox ideas has been a Godsend (so to speak). Neither my husband nor I connected with the first Episcopal church we started going to, the one where we were married. It was very corporate- the priest who married us was warm and we connected with her, but the priest who baptised us kept introducing himself to us when we would stay for coffee hour- this happened about 4 or 5 times, and I kept saying "yes, Steve, I know you- you baptised us, remember?" but he never remembered us.) Then about ten years ago, the three churches in my county spawned a mission church and we were among the founding members. The vicar is an Episcopal priest with a Quaker background, and I finally know what it's like to have a trusted clergy member who I can lean on in times of need and who helps me find ways to use my talents to further the church's mission. We have connected there despite our doubts and unusual ideas.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^That all sounds interesting, [MENTION=2]Ivy[/MENTION]. I like me some Jesus too. I like quakers too, because the ones I know are so liberally conservative?

I just can't get into becoming part of a church family. I feel myself recoiling with 'the peace' part of service, and think it goes on waaaayyyy too long. I cannot see those people being my friends, much less my family.

 

[Ivy]

That's how we felt at the big church where we were married. I didn't feel like the rest of the people there were like us in any way besides where we spent (some of) our Sunday mornings. It wasn't toxic or anything, just stiff. But we've loved being part of the congregation we're a part of now. We don't connect with every single person, but everyone is kind and it's not at all stiff. And we have made some actual friends there. I definitely feel like the leadership and congregation would be there for us if we needed them- I have never felt that from a church family before. The church I grew up going to was pretty toxic- they ended up drumming my parents out for a variety of stupid reasons that all basically came down to bullying. So I've always been a little church-skittish. Being a part of a real congregation has been pretty healing.