First Weekend of March 2010, Christian Experiment?

[Beorn]

In any case, most of the board isn't really anti-christian at all, but they are against large organized religions and strict dogma that causes harm.

That's like saying I don't hate bananas, but I hate all fruit. For 2000 years in various forms Christianity has always been an organized religion. Its only in the past 50 years or so that people have begun to see christianity as part of a religion buffet where they can pick and choose the beliefs they like and don't like from various religions. I find such a view of religion as incredibly self-centered.

When Christianity is reduced to part of a buffet of beliefs it ceases to be Christianity. Christianity in all of its major manifestations within protestantism, Roman Catholicism, and Eastern Orthodoxy has put an immense requirement on its followers that they die to themselves and live only for Christ. Thus in the grand scheme of things there is no middle ground. One is either christian or anti-christ. You either hate the christian God or you love him.

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

That's like saying I don't hate bananas, but I hate all fruit.

. . . .

One is either christian or anti-christ. You either hate the christian God or you love him.

Beefeater, this second post of yours, though well-intentioned, is off-topic. If we do create an actual BelieverCentral group, I assume we can start a thread about smorgasbord religion which could address this issue?

I'd even go so far as to create several different threads centering on the interaction and intersection of our basic faith and other specific worldviews: Christianity and Eastern Philosophy, Christianity and Rationality, Christianity and Existentialism.

I'd also suggest a less heady and more practical ministry thread and a prayer request thread as well.

Does this sound good everybody? And how does one go about making a group in the first place?

 

[Mycroft]

I'd even go so far as to create several different threads centering on the interaction and intersection of our basic faith and other specific worldviews: Christianity and Eastern Philosophy, Christianity and Rationality, Christianity and Existentialism.

Don't forget to include Christians Who Don't Believe Christ Existed, Christians Who Think Maybe Christ Existed But Don't Recognize Him as the Son of God, and Christians Who Worship Satan threads, too.

 

[Jeffster]

I'd also suggest a less heady and more practical ministry thread and a prayer request thread as well.

Here ya go... :hi:

 

[Lark]

There are members of the board who are against christianity, though they are rare in number.

The majority are moreso against ORGANIZED RELIGION, which christianity is just technically part of.

We have a large number of christians and agnostics on the board who don't mind the concept of christianity at all, they just go GRRRR at the political structure of such.

I have no issues with the idea of christianity, and think it has some very good points. However, I take that with a grain of salt; it has some truly abhorrent points as well, which are strictly enforced by evangelists, fundamentalists, and the vatican.

Such is not the fault of the religion as a whole, but the fault of individual power bases. Those that use a little common sense to translate whot they see into something that makes real sense, I have no issue with.

In any case, most of the board isn't really anti-christian at all, but they are against large organized religions and strict dogma that causes harm.

Why do the objectors to organised religion not object to organised law or organised economy or organised government?

Its never made much sense to me and tends toward convincing me there's more than a little ignorance of the organic institutions in society necessary for the transmission of knowledge between generations so that we arent constantly reinventing the wheel.

Its fair enough to suggest that with each new epoch and original insights that the traditional practices deserve to be scrutinised and oppressive practices from earlier times dispensed with but that's different from indicting tradition per se.

In reality we all owe some debt to traditions which would make us flinch or which we would, probably rightly, hold reprehensible. A simple one would be remembering that Aristotle, Plato, Epictetus, Epicurous and others were all able to spend time creating such brilliant philosophy because they were put at ease by a slave owning economy.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

why not create a weekly gathering of believers right here on Typology Central? Each weekend, someone can post a link to a Biblical passage, as well as write a few short paragraphs to express their interpretation of it or otherwise encourage discussion. The rest of us (including skeptics and those of other faiths who'd like to join in) can voice our opinions as well.

I'm game for this.

And if any other Christians here are interested in doing something like this, I ask you to please answer me one more question: what is it that has disheartened you most about modern Christianity, and what may be Christianity's greatest strength or chance for the future?

I have two issues which are really two parts of the same problem.

1. Most of Christianity is so traditional that it has become mostly irrelevant to the modern world.

2. Most of the attempted remedies are at least as bad as the initial problem, i.e. liberals tend to throw out most Biblical teaching, while conservatives are trying to legislate Christianity! (And some faiths seem to do both.)

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

Here ya go... :hi:

Well, if we created a new thread within the context of a group, couldn't the thread be private instead of public? A private prayer request thread would seem to make more sense.

Why do the objectors to organised religion not object to organised law or organised economy or organised government?

Lark, you're off-topic. (But as a matter of consistency, I am against big government and economic planning, in addition to rigid church hierarchy. I also think arbitration may be the most efficient way to resolve disputes at the level of civil law, but not criminal law. If you want to continue on this line of thought, please start another thread or PM me.)

 

[Jeffster]

Well, if we created a new thread within the context of a group, couldn't the thread be private instead of public? A private prayer request thread would seem to make more sense.

Do you mean in the "social groups" section? Because you can't make private threads in the main section of the forum, besides the private temperament forums.

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

Keep up the good thoughts everyone! Maybe we'll actually find a way to improve the Body of Christ somehow! (All in good faith of course.)

As for my thoughts:

1. The most disheartening thing about Christianity today is how artificially big, dysfunctional, and unloving it has become. Denominationalism has created dogmatism, clerical abuse of power, and inter-Christian conflict that distracts believers from helping our communities while simultaneously making us the laughing stock of the secular world. Compared to the intimate house churches of the first-century Christians, the outward structure of our modern faith is unrecognizable.

2. Society is always changing, and at least in America, it has seemed particularly malleable since 9/11. If this openness to change is just as true for groups within a society as it is for the society itself, now may very well be the time to finish what Martin Luther started: a return to faith based not in buildings or titles, but in relationships and love.

 

[ChildoftheProphets]

Do you mean in the "social groups" section? Because you can't make private threads in the main section of the forum, besides the private temperament forums.

I'm really not sure. I've only been here a week. How do all the different groups work? What are the privacy settings? How are they moderated?

All this would factor in I suppose . . . .

 

[Ginkgo]

Why do the objectors to organised religion not object to organised law or organised economy or organised government?

For the same reason that most people oppose theocracy.

Organized law, economy, and government are concerned with matter and societal structure. They follow a common suite of adaptability and practicality, where is organized religion is generally regressive and impractical / void of reason. Maybe I'm just pitting liberal government against conservative religion. Rest assured that religion and government are dissimilar, and thankfully so... Unless you know something that I don't.

 

[Sniffles]

Rest assured that religion and government are dissimilar, and thankfully so... Unless you know something that I don't.

Yeah, namely that all theories and forms of government are based upon a certain religious understanding and presumptions.

 

[Lark]

For the same reason that most people oppose theocracy.

Organized law, economy, and government are concerned with matter and societal structure. They follow a common suite of adaptability and practicality, where is organized religion is generally regressive and impractical / void of reason. Maybe I'm just pitting liberal government against conservative religion. Rest assured that religion and government are dissimilar, and thankfully so... Unless you know something that I don't.

Yeah theocracy is to organised religion what tyranny or dictatorship is to democracy.

Organised religin has been adaptable and practical if its been anything, otherwise it would not have endured at all, its consistency has allowed it to avoid many of the fads and frenzies which have threatened and in some instances voided government and law. Nazism, Communism, Capitalism? Not organised religions doing.

That is a pitting of the liberal good in government and secular law against the reactionary bad as organised religion, paper tigers and straw men.

 

[Ginkgo]

Yeah, namely that all theories and forms of government are based upon a certain religious understanding and presumptions.

Really?? Democracy, Socialism, and Communism were all based off of religious understanding and presumptions? Well, there's Democracy - rule of the people. Of course, it's easy to see how popular sovereignty could be influenced by divine inheritance of some sort. However, divine authority, whether it be by the people or the ruler, doesn't necessarily have to be indited by organized religion. You've made the distinction, I see. It's an important distinction because Deism has never been used to persecute a minority, while Christianity and Islam have.

 

[Lark]

Yeah, namely that all theories and forms of government are based upon a certain religious understanding and presumptions.

That's right, democratic centralism in leninism is similar to some of the pre-reformation church hierarchism which Erasmus and Moore were campaigning against before Luther and Calvin decided complete splintering and schism were the way to go.

Democracy was practiced among dissenters, quakers, meeting houses and congregationalists long before it became a political idea, William of Ockham proposed ideas for the democratisation of the Church which paralleled those of council communists and the left opposition in the USSR and elsewhere.

 

[Lark]

Really?? Democracy, Socialism, and Communism were all based off of religious understanding and presumptions? Well, there's Democracy - rule of the people. Of course, it's easy to see how popular sovereignty could be influenced by divine inheritance of some sort. However, divine authority, whether it be by the people or the ruler, doesn't necessarily have to be indited by organized religion. You've made the distinction, I see. It's an important distinction because Deism has never been used to persecute a minority, while Christianity and Islam have.

Any faith wedded to temporal power an athority is likely to be used to persecute a minority, Deism included, the cult of reason during the French revolution desecrated churches, killed or brutalised priests and believers.

Fundamentally the notional equality at the heart of all those credos is a derivative of Christian belief, the idea of individual sovereignty and hence popular sovereignty and universal sufferage owes much to the debates during the reformation about individual conscience and faith versus works and fidelity to tradition and papal authority.

 

[Lark]

Well, if we created a new thread within the context of a group, couldn't the thread be private instead of public? A private prayer request thread would seem to make more sense.



Lark, you're off-topic. (But as a matter of consistency, I am against big government and economic planning, in addition to rigid church hierarchy. I also think arbitration may be the most efficient way to resolve disputes at the level of civil law, but not criminal law. If you want to continue on this line of thought, please start another thread or PM me.)

Didnt see this so sorry for the posts I made afterward, my point was about organised versus unorganised religion as much as other institutions.

I dont really get this idea of unorganised religion, what is it? Spontaneous religion? Is it about spirituality versus religion or the idea that animating spirit or a personal relationship with Christ or God is somehow sacrificed in favour of codified, structured religion?

I dont tend to see there as being a dichotomy there, although the best accounts deling with this are written by Maslow, I think it was his book about peak experiences, there is a need to strike a balance, there needs to be some structure or tradition to permit the transmission of knowledge across generations, on the other hand it shouldnt become more important or fail to facilitate the sort of important personal revelations of the "founders" or "first".

 

[ajblaise]

Yeah, namely that all theories and forms of government are based upon a certain religious understanding and presumptions.

All there were was religious understanding and presumption, they dominated most everywhere.

Having Democracy grow out of that is like a rose growing from concrete. It might take a while, but every now and then it will.

 

[Ginkgo]

Any faith wedded to temporal power an athority is likely to be used to persecute a minority, Deism included, the cult of reason during the French revolution desecrated churches, killed or brutalised priests and believers.

All faiths are wedded to temporal power as long as those who practice them occupy a temporal plane of existence. Both faith and governmental ideologies are bound to be used as tools of brutality and prejudice as long as there are zealots who <attempt to> adhere to them, regardless of ideological intent. This is why is important to observe a faith/ideology that is not rooted in brutality by the document(s) that preserve it. Last I checked, the Bible is a pretty graphic and primitive document.

Practitioners can chant "love one another" until the rapture comes, but that doesn't change the fact that the "messiah" threatened to kill innocent children by the sins of their parents in Rev. 2:22. Abiding by such a tradition contradicts any notion of individual conscience.

 

[Sniffles]

It's an important distinction because Deism has never been used to persecute a minority, while Christianity and Islam have.

You could say Deism has been used by a fanatical minority to persecute the majority. Think of the Jacobins during the Reign of Terror.