Inclusive Christianity?

[Anja]

Well, yes, I think that's what I've done as well.

It becomes a living faith - faith in action.

substitute talks about the power of the written word. You know, it occurs to me how little people actually think about the written word. And I can see why. Perhaps many say they live by the Bible and have some metaphorical idea in their heads. So many say one thing and do another with no apparent conflict.

There is another forum I belong to where people are continuously saying, "I'll pray for you." And what I see on the board from some of the same folks is arguing and sometimes spite. What a disconnect there there seems to be!

I don't know how this fits but is fresh in my mind: I had a series of infections which wouldn't heal. My Dr. had been raised in Nigeria by Christian missionaries and she was puzzled as to my diagnosis. Finally she decided on diabetes.

One day during an office call she said, "I keep you in my prayers." I thought "How nice of her!" Shortly after that my thought was alarm. Boundaries? Lack of confidence in her practice? Didn't feel comfortable to me and I found a new doctor. This week I got the news that I have never had diabetes.

How the heck do we bring our faith with us into our daily lives without causing confusion and mistaken judgements upon it by others?

I think to tread silently.

Maybe some who proclaim their faith the loudest are convincing themselves?

Random thoughts here.

I do find listening to others to be helpful.

 

[Totenkindly]

"Thou shalt not kill" means (unless I/we think someone is bad.) But if someone is suffering and trying to die then we shouldn't kill him. That's how I see that commandment playing out in a Christian nation.

So let me clarify:
- Don't kill.
- Unless someone breaks a particular law.
- No euthanasia or enabling self-termination.

Is that right?

I once saw a cartoon of God which gave me pause. He was crying over a battlefield and saying, "What part of 'Thou shalt not kill don't you get?'"

Which causes a wonderful conundrum if the whole point of Jesus coming to earth was to have him be killed by others as a sacrifice, as per God's plan. Don't ask me what to make of that.

In a rush to modernize ancient teachings, many of them excellent, and define does and don'ts while trying to be inclusive it is nearly impossible to define one's self as a Christian anymore. That's my perspective.

I would agree that defining a Christian nowadays by some list of external standards is very difficult.

I'm not here to convince or to be convinced. Just here to lsten to all you folks who have so generously shared the way you handle the many inconsistencies.

I understand the approach but it makes it hard to generously share when I can't figure out what we are looking for.

My comings and goings aren't an effort to sit in evaluation of what has been said but more an effort to think carefully about each post and say something worthwhile, or not, depending on how well I understand what each one is saying.

Very NF facilitating.

Operating on a "consensus" approach rather than "idea challenging" one.

Wow. Is this a classical example of the T/F thing? Interesting. Anyone want to dissect what they see?

Pretty classic to me.

You do seem pretty FP to me. Like a butterfly that dances out of reach any time someone tries to pin you down and get some clarity on your specific thoughts. You seem very effusive. You want to avoid conflict that might occur in the evaluation of ideas, especially if the situation seems very muddy.

Meanwhile, this is turn makes it hard for TP to respond. I know I keep looking for an indication of your motivation, direction, overall goal, and I can't find it in order to react to it. I also am trying to test and evaluate the ideas to see which holds up better and thus is a "better model" for the scenario, but I'm not getting any particular ideas to test.

I was just reading Type Talk (Kroeger and Thuesen) this morning and found this gem:

Thinkers defined conflict as "any discussion, conversation, or debate where win/lose is the only perceivable possible outcome."

Feelers defined conflict as "when we have four sets of opinions/feelings, ideas/experiences, and we're trying to reach consensus."

 

[nolla]

Pretty classic to me.

You do seem pretty FP to me. Like a butterfly that dances out of reach any time someone tries to pin you down and get some clarity on your specific thoughts. You seem very effusive. You want to avoid conflict that might occur in the evaluation of ideas, especially if the situation seems very muddy.

Meanwhile, this is turn makes it hard for TP to respond. I know I keep looking for an indication of your motivation, direction, overall goal, and I can't find it in order to react to it. I also am trying to test and evaluate the ideas to see which holds up better and thus is a "better model" for the scenario, but I'm not getting any particular ideas to test.

Then, what am I? I have set of beliefs in my mind (they are open for change, but still they have consistency), and I think I expressed them as well as I can, but what I believe is hardly similar to Anja's view or the way she expresses them, and very similar to what substitute has said.

Well, anyways, something that came up in my mind while reading your post, Anja. If you have similar attitude to mine, in the way that you believe your faith is something like an attitude of living, then does it matter to you if people live good lives while believing something else than you do? I tend to be practical in these matters, and I never think about if I go to heaven or not, since I have long ago decided that this is something beyond my understanding. But, what I care about is that people should know what is good and what is not, and they should do what is good. This is actually the only thing that matters to me. I don't like people who treat others badly, use them, play with their feelings, or are otherwise so self-centered that they care only about themselves with no consideration to other peoples feelings.

 

[Totenkindly]

Then, what am I? I have set of beliefs in my mind (they are open for change, but still they have consistency), and I think I expressed them as well as I can, but what I believe is hardly similar to Anja's view or the way she expresses them, and very similar to what substitute has said.

I don't know you well enough to comment intelligently on what you might be. I'll say that I've met lots of different types of INFPs, though. There's a small but substantial subgroup that will push for connection, then suddenly seem to get antsy and just disappear into the mist without explanation and seem to withhold a lot about their personal life (i.e., they're very self-protective)... and pop in and out in a cycle like that. But I've met other INFPs who are more open and willing to just put their ideas out there, without seeming fearful about it.

There's a spectrum across each type. I'd probably look at specific function analysis for an individual, to get more clues.

 

[Anja]

I'm confused and speechless.

My specific thought is that it is impossible for me to be a Christian as I see it defined/ being practiced in present society. I thought I had been clear on that.

I hope that there aren't too many here who thought that I was amusing myself at your expense in wanting to hear how you dealt with that conflict between what the Bible says and what Christians actually do.

If I didn't do enough self-disclosing to be a satisfactory conversationalist I'l try again.

 

[nolla]

I'm confused and speechless.

Why?

My specific thought is that it is impossible for me to be a Christian as I see it defined/ being practiced in present society. I thought I had been clear on that.

How would you like the world to be? You have been clear on what your problem is, but you haven't provided much more. You know, some meat around the bones.

Oh, I was thinking here that maybe the problem you have accepting the way church is has to do with it being so popular. You see, it has been the mission to spread the word, and the word has spread, it has spread so much that I bet many of the apostles would be surprised. The thing is, if Christianity is not inclusive, it is exclusive. You can't get it both ways. I don't know what is the amount of "by the book" strictness that you wish for, but the more strict the rules, the less there will be people. Then, if you want to spread the word, you will need to make people go to church. I could even say that at the moment there are more really religious people than thousand years ago. They were probably thinking more about getting food on the table than pondering about heaven and angels. Religion for them was just to not feel so weak and vulnerable. There was someone to help them, even if they couldn't see him. So, now that the amount of church going citizens is going down (at least here), maybe the quality is going up, don't you think?

 

[Anja]

I hope that is true nolla.

I think every religion needs by definition to be exclusive. And when an attempt is made to make it all-inclusive it gets watered down.

Maybe that's one of the reasons I choose not to participate in it.

At any rate I do believe that every person who wants to work on their spirituality needs to do so in a way that is comfortable for them. And I think I am most comfortable with those who feel the same.

The new church has become more focussed on the positive aspects of Christianity but the "believe and be baptised or else the loving God who created you will burn you in hell forever" element is undeniably there and no amount of focus on positives or trying to put it into historical perspective can erase it to my thought.

You'd asked a question earlier that I didn't have time to answer. What would I like the world to be?

I don't think much about that anymore as I've realzed that there is no way I can make change in some of the smallest things. There is a woman on another forum who signs her posts with something to the effect that we need to be the change we want to see in the world and I think that makes sense.

So I work on myself which is all I can manage to change. What do I want? I want joy in the gifts, to be helpful and constructive, to live with comfort in my own skin, harmony, to be accepting of what I cannot change. That's what I concentrate on. If change comes from that for others in my life that's a wonderful thing, and if not, I will have the benefit of the changes I've made for myself.

Your question about confusion was that in reading of other's confusion I couldn't find a solution to their confusion and became confused. Hee. It IS and Eff/Tee thing. But so much more pronounced here than it would probably be in day-to-day social exchange.

 

[nolla]

I think every religion needs by definition to be exclusive. And when an attempt is made to make it all-inclusive it gets watered down.

I agree. The thing is that the way bible is interpreted is "go and make everyone Christian" while it could be "go and make sure everyone has the choice to become Christian".

The perfect solution for both of us would be a society that is in every level atheistic except for churches. There wouldn't be people who pretend to believe in something because their parents do, and the churches would have real believers in them. We should forbid babtisism of children and make clear cut between church and government. Here church still has the right to collect taxes since Lutheranism is the "official" church. They have been thinking that this should change.

The new church has become more focussed on the positive aspects of Christianity but the "believe and be baptised or else the loving God who created you will burn you in hell forever" element is undeniably there and no amount of focus on positives or trying to put it into historical perspective can erase it to my thought.

Well, yeah... I feel a bit sick every time I hear that...

...but it's ok, since you still have this attitude:

So I work on myself which is all I can manage to change. What do I want? I want joy in the gifts, to be helpful and constructive, to live with comfort in my own skin, harmony, to be accepting of what I cannot change. That's what I concentrate on.

You probably concentrate more on yourself and less on preaching other people about what they should do. After all, I think that however we put it, the point in religion is to do it right yourself, and not run around disapproving people. If only all the fundamentalists understood that.

 

[substitute]

Well, yeah... I feel a bit sick every time I hear that...

Me too. But Anja, if it's any consolation, I felt the same way from being brainwashed by fundamentalist style religion as a kid, but I managed to break free of it. There was a time when I thought I never would be able to, that it'd always have a hold on me. I wouldn't have thought back then that I'd be where I am now, laughing about it all

I don't agree however, with the idea that not defining a religion as exclusive automatically means it gets watered down or weakened, necessarily. Perhaps you could define more clearly what you mean by 'inclusive'?

The closest I could come to that way of thinking would be that each religion defines itself as ONE WAY among many equally valid ways, but that any one of those ways will only really work properly if you stick to it, commit to it and don't start messing around with it. Like a diet in a way - if you keep switching diets then you'll never lose weight, but if you stick to just one - most any one - the weight will drop eventually.

After all, I think that however we put it, the point in religion is to do it right yourself, and not run around disapproving people. If only all the fundamentalists understood that.

Word. FTW.

 

[Anja]

Hah! You understand me! (How odd.)

You know, My dad died after living a very highly prinicpled life and I watched over him for the last four days of his life.

He was a pillar in the church all his life. And he rarely spoke of his feelings. But I could see that he was frightened. I spent time in that way of not saying what "it" is, since he didn't, comforting and reassuring him that he had been a good man and lived a good life.

And more than his death itself, I mourn that such a good man had to go to his death questioning whether he had been good enough. No. He didn't say it, but I "saw" it.

I'm wondering if Christianity doesn't put that burden on believers.

I believe in daily self-checks to make sure I'm living up to my own standards and I want to go to my death with assurance that I have taken this gift of life and done the absolute best that I have been able. I was sad that he hadn't been able to do that and it was a gift to me to realize something that is important to me. If I measure myself by someone else's standards that will be a set-up for failure and self-doubt.

 

[Anja]

Oh hello, substitute. Glad you're back. Perhaps we'll work some on that sense of accord.

Okay. I'll tackle it again. The watered down part? The new "let's just ignore that politically incorrect stuff that's in the Bible." We'll change the interpretation. We'll put it into historical perspective, whatever. It's a dishonest dance from my perspective and therefor un-Christian. I keep thinking I've said this several times. . .

I should add that I do understand the historical significance of the Old Testament and am thinking more in terms of the New Testament when I speak.

It seems that true adherence to ANY doctrine requires faithful obligation to the letter of the law. Otherwise we're fudging. Even if our motives are pure. This is not a popular modern view. Situational ethics, I believe it's called.

In that way, as you note, strict adherence to a set of tenets is necessary to be a practicing and sincere whatever. And, as such, needs to be exclusive. And very, very difficult to do within today's society. I guess that's where the nutsos come in. . . And hardly anyone wants to be considered that!

Can one be a sorta Christian? Then there's that pesky matter of hell again.

______________________________________________________________________

I wonder if this is more difficult matter for you to see as you have been born into the age of political correctness and didn't have to experience the wrenching shift required to impose it, with good intention I believe, on people who were raised differently.

But then, if you have been among the fundamentalists you have met a challenge, indeed. The social atmosphere is different today and many obvious truths, from my perception, are not spoken of for fear of one being accused of being judgemental. And again, it seems to me that discernment of good and bad is a necessity in Christian religion.

You know, conversing with you staunch thinkers is definitely a stretch for me!

 

[substitute]

Well, with all due respect, the societies I live in (plural) are not the USA and are very different from the USA, like chalk and cheese, so you can't really safely theorize as to what 'age' I was born into or what I'd find easier or whatever... no offence, but...

Those tenets, I agree, need to be adhered to. However, if that's going to be the case, then they need to be clear, simple, unambiguous and proven to achieve positive results if followed correctly. But because people are all so very diverse and different, it's just not practicable to impose too much rule following because otherwise it reaches a point where you're just trying to turn everyone into clones. Whenever I see the Jehovah's Witnesses walking around the block, I can see they stand out a mile because they all look the damn same. They talk the same, act the same, there's no individuality there because they're all taught that this incredibly comprehensive set of rules must govern every aspect of their lives.

This is why I guess I can see 'watering down' as a positive thing, if what you're doing is extracting the core essential meaning of something and distilling it into something that's universally applicable, allowing, encouraging and fostering the individual strengths and best parts of every individual to shine through rather than confusing the hell out of everyone so that only the occasional mastermind manages to tease anything useful or practicable out of it that allows him to still remain true to himself. But I wouldn't call that watering down - more like the opposite: distillation.

As for 'can one be a Christian if...?' it's a loaded question that assumes that Christianity is ALL ABOUT the other stuff surrounding or tacked onto Christ's teachings. It's not, IMO. Taking what nolla said before, I'd answer that if what you've got left when you distill the central teachings of Christ out of the current multi-sectal mess, doesn't 'look' like Christianity any more, then it's that mess that should have the rights to the logo taken away, not the true Christianity invalidated by its non-resemblance to its corrupted form!

 

[nolla]

And more than his death itself, I mourn that such a good man had to go to his death questioning whether he had been good enough. No. He didn't say it, but I "saw" it.

I'm wondering if Christianity doesn't put that burden on believers.

Yeah, I'm sure it does. You can never really be sure if you are as good as god wants you to be. How can you forgive yourself the mistakes you've done and move forward?

I should add that I do understand the historical significance of the Old Testament and am thinking more in terms of the New Testament when I speak.

This is confusing to me. You are very clear about not "cutting slack" with the new testament, but can make compromises with the old?

I don't agree however, with the idea that not defining a religion as exclusive automatically means it gets watered down or weakened, necessarily. Perhaps you could define more clearly what you mean by 'inclusive'?

Yes, I guess there could be religions that are very inclusive... like the way you put it earlier, the "eastern style Christianity", but if we are talking about Christianity that takes everything by the bible as literally as possible, then it is very hard to see how it could be both popular and by the book.

 

[nolla]

But I wouldn't call that watering down - more like the opposite: distillation.

I like this metaphor.

 

[Totenkindly]

You know, My dad died after living a very highly prinicpled life and I watched over him for the last four days of his life.

He was a pillar in the church all his life. And he rarely spoke of his feelings. But I could see that he was frightened. I spent time in that way of not saying what "it" is, since he didn't, comforting and reassuring him that he had been a good man and lived a good life.

And more than his death itself, I mourn that such a good man had to go to his death questioning whether he had been good enough. No. He didn't say it, but I "saw" it.

I'm wondering if Christianity doesn't put that burden on believers.

I'm sorry, hon. That's hard.
(At least, that's what I imagine.)

And you're right, I think the fear is there. How can it not be, if there's such a desire to conform to do the right things as the expression of faith?

I never had a father who was there for me, but I see how I parent my own children and how I feel towards them. How I delight in them no matter whether they do good or bad... and as a parent I engage them so that I can model good behavior for them, and so that they know I noticed them and love them and treasure their individuality, and enjoy being with them. I know their hearts are good because I know THEM; and even when they really are having trouble doing the right thing, I never come to the point of wanting to not be involved with them, it's not even a question to me.

I never want them to have to sit around at the end of THEIR lives and wonder if I had been proud of them. This fear of God, that he might decide we're not worthy although we've been trying to please him our whole lives... that just seems so off to me. It's not a matter of my performance, it can't be. All I can see is that God would value me, regardless of my screwups and my successes, and would leave the light on for me when the end came.

I believe in daily self-checks to make sure I'm living up to my own standards and I want to go to my death with assurance that I have taken this gift of life and done the absolute best that I have been able. I was sad that he hadn't been able to do that and it was a gift to me to realize something that is important to me. If I measure myself by someone else's standards that will be a set-up for failure and self-doubt.

I'm sorry that he felt so unsure at the end of his life, but I'm glad that you were there to model God's love for him. I hope it made a difference to him.

The watered down part? The new "let's just ignore that politically incorrect stuff that's in the Bible." We'll change the interpretation. We'll put it into historical perspective, whatever. It's a dishonest dance from my perspective and therefor un-Christian. I keep thinking I've said this several times. . .

That's probably what's so hard. It sounds like you consider your original interpretation -- the one you were taught -- to be the standard and thus the rest are deviations. So of course you end up in this conundrum. You frame any other view you hear in context of the version you were taught to be "authentic."

Have you ever considered that the way you were taught things and read them might be a less correct interpretation? Or that it's only one interpretation among many valid ones?

But then, if you have been among the fundamentalists you have met a challenge, indeed. The social atmosphere is different today and many obvious truths, from my perception, are not spoken of for fear of one being accused of being judgemental. And again, it seems to me that discernment of good and bad is a necessity in Christian religion.

Actually, discernment of good and bad (or even just good versus best) is necessary in any discussion of ethics and morality, let alone religion. Otherwise none of it matters.

Personally, I dislike fundamentalism AND political correctness about equally. Neither are flexible and adaptable; both are prideful to me in their insistence that their way is correct, and both attempt to dominate the discussion through wielding of power, rather than allowing people to dialog and come to their own conclusions.

 

[EJCC]

The watered down part? The new "let's just ignore that politically incorrect stuff that's in the Bible." We'll change the interpretation. We'll put it into historical perspective, whatever. It's a dishonest dance from my perspective and therefor un-Christian. I keep thinking I've said this several times. . .

There is no way to participate in a religion as old as Christianity without "watering it down". Many people advocate following the bible word-for-word, but often that's very difficult in modern society (e.g. never wearing more than one kind of fabric - Leviticus 19:19). The bible was written for a certain time, and Jesus' metaphors were made to appeal to his society. The world has changed since then; therefore, so must our practice of the Christian faith.

Of course, I'm incredibly easygoing about religion. I agree with the person mentioned in the OP, who says that we all believe in the same god. Well, at least, I mostly do... I think religious extremists who believe that God wants them to kill people don't believe in the God of peace that I believe in, and Buddhists obviously don't believe in the same God (but then again, I don't believe that Buddhism and Christianity are mutually exclusive).

I also feel that the afterlife will be whatever you think it will be. I do NOT believe in eternal damnation, because I believe in redemption. I believe that anyone can go to heaven if they lead a good life. Then again, my beliefs on that are very mild because I'm young enough that I haven't really had to worry about death yet. Or at least, I haven't wanted to.

Final thoughts: 1) Most of my religious beliefs can be explained by the fact that I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian, and socially liberal, and 2) I believe that religious beliefs are personal and not something to convince each other of. I am not an evangelical, and I never will be.

 

[substitute]

There is no way to participate in a religion as old as Christianity without "watering it down". Many people advocate following the bible word-for-word, but often that's very difficult in modern society (e.g. never wearing more than one kind of fabric - Leviticus 19:19). The bible was written for a certain time, and Jesus' metaphors were made to appeal to his society. The world has changed since then; therefore, so must our practice of the Christian faith.

Exactly. I'd like to see the fundamentalists start kicking all the cripples out of their church and all the menstruating women... lol

Of course, I'm incredibly easygoing about religion. I agree with the person mentioned in the OP, who says that we all believe in the same god. Well, at least, I mostly do...

See Jennifer? Not all Te people are evil

Final thoughts: 1) Most of my religious beliefs can be explained by the fact that I'm an Anglican/Episcopalian, and socially liberal, and 2) I believe that religious beliefs are personal and not something to convince each other of. I am not an evangelical, and I never will be.

Oh, more that we have in common

 

[Sniffles]

Wow this is certainly one discussion. There's much I can say about this.

I'll start by stating that I agree with Thomas Merton's stance:

"If I affirm myself as a Catholic merely by denying all that is Muslim, Jewish, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., in the end I will find that there is not much left for me to affirm as a Catholic: and certainly no breath of the Spirit with which to affirm it."

That is not to say that all religions are true, or even equally true. But it doesn't mean Christianity, being the true faith, is exclusive from the truth contained in other traditions. All truth and wisdom comes from God and was implanted into the hearts of man via natural law.

Pope Benedict XVI meditates upon this wonderfully in his Introduction to Christianity concerning the early relationship between the faith and Greek philosophy.

 

[Sniffles]

There is no way to participate in a religion as old as Christianity without "watering it down". Many people advocate following the bible word-for-word, but often that's very difficult in modern society (e.g. never wearing more than one kind of fabric - Leviticus 19:19). The bible was written for a certain time, and Jesus' metaphors were made to appeal to his society. The world has changed since then; therefore, so must our practice of the Christian faith.

Christianity is built upon eternal truth. As Chesterton once noted, it's like a water spring: constant but always fresh.

I wont address the rest of your post.

 

[nolla]

I agree with the person mentioned in the OP, who says that we all believe in the same god. Well, at least, I mostly do... I think religious extremists who believe that God wants them to kill people don't believe in the God of peace that I believe in, and Buddhists obviously don't believe in the same God (but then again, I don't believe that Buddhism and Christianity are mutually exclusive).

I tend to think that way too. If we consider all the religions in the world, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that each of them has their origin in god or truth, but due to misunderstandings, interpretations and even conscious manipulation they all have been changed by people? The way I find out what are the right pieces is to think what is right and what is wrong. I don't see this to be too subjective way to find out, since it is for my personal use anyways, and I guess people are about on the same level here.

Things that god does in the old testament are actually evil or at least over-reacting and very much incompatible with Jesus' way. There are few possible reasons for this: 1) God grows older and stops being such a brat; 2) Jesus wasn't god's son after all, he had his own agenda; 3) The interpretation that is written in bible is wrong. I don't see how "perfect" god could age, but I could accept that Jesus was just a guy with important teaching. They wrote the testaments a lot later than the actual events took place, so it could be that they got it wrong. By thinking like this I will eventually get into a place that doesn't go any further with eyes on Christianity anymore. Now I compare it to the other religions and see how much they correlate. There are patterns. They might seem too simple for to be religions, but they are there and I don't need an epic fairytale religion. If we think what Jennifer and substitute wrote about Christianity that is in this life, we can easily see that the hell that follows from not taking the right path can be seen as karma, and the path itself is close to tao.

I don't want to go too deeply into this subject because I know I don't know yet as much as I should. But, the way I see it, all religions are originated from very wise men and they used the metaphors available to them in order to express their thoughts. This kind of thinking is atheism in a way, but so that it doesn't take the importance of religion away. That is because I believe there is way, and I just have to decode it from different sources that are talking about the same thing in different languages.