Merry Christmas, PPR Denizens!

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udul9BeZkJ8[/youtube]

Dang, I had a big bag of liberal bashing links to give Inuyasha for Christmas, but he doesn't seem to be around.

I'm sure that he already has all of those and more in his list of favorite sites.

Last edited by ArrantPariah on 24 Dec 2012, 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Happy Bah Humbug to you.

I agree with almost everything the scuzzy guy who needs a shave and shampoo said, although I find him rather crude. I much prefer watching (muted) the chiseled jaw, cleancut CUTE one. I guess it's just my natural instincts.

But the ultimatum aspect of Christianity - not appealing. Why do they have so much luck selling that? People believe the threat of hell? WHY do people so easily believe the threat of hell? I think the answer might be that life on earth is not so heavenly for a lot of people, and they like believing it's better than somewhere else, that they haven't hit rock bottom yet, and there's also a promise of something better. Christianity seems to sell among people either coerced into it or who are already poor or in need of something, not having such a great life without it, or afraid of something.

Which makes me feel a need to examine why I swallowed it for a while.

Apparently it is Christmas tomorrow; so wishing a happy holiday to all, Christians, Buddhists, atheists agnostics and all.

Well... The people who want to "scare the hell out of you" aren't so much in vogue or common anymore like they were out in the country back when I was a kid. I think a more mature view of hell is of a place of eternal separation from God and all the good He can provide those who remain in His presence. I do think that hell demands acknowledgement from Christians and their pastors, but the chief point that should drive home is that hell is not a place where we want people to end up for eternity.

Trying to sell outsiders on hell is a tough sell and not all that successful these days. It doesn't work, I think, because people don't want to be threatened. Western culture has shifted towards a way of thinking that rejects anything that seems threatening. We don't like being told we are bad people or undeserving of God's grace, and we don't like to think of God as being someone who would relegate anyone to eternal torment.

A better sell for probably most people is showing them the emptiness of their lives without God, focus rather on the benefit of reconciliation with God (not just fire insurance), and proceed to support each other in our mutual spiritual growth.


And why not? Jesus calls believers to humble themselves. Who is more humble than those who have nothing? It's easier to believe when you are most aware of your true needs, both physically and spiritually. It is difficult for people who are independently wealthy or even just comfortable in life to sense any needs they have below the surface and to come to accept that they need God in their lives. It's not impossible for people who live comfortably to know God, but having a "backup plan" makes it easy to trust something other than God for your needs.

I don't really see the coercion. Lots of things are coercive but we deal with them. Like compulsory school attendance, for one. Plain old law and order is coercive. Making your children adhere to healthy cultural norms is coercive. The way I see it, I know what Christ teaches and I want to keep my children everywhere I possibly can so that they will come to know what I know and who I know. Religion is part of how members of families relate to each other. It's a common ground and a common bond. It only makes sense that I teach my children the way I was taught. And, of course, I actually do believe this stuff. I feel I'd be the worst parent on the planet if I didn't care enough about my children enough to try to give them the same benefits of my faith that I already have. So...yeah...my children WILL be in church every time the doors are open, and I don't care if they hate it or get tired of it (been there, done that myself, so I know what it's like). They go to a religious school, and I daresay the quality of academics and instruction is competitive with the ritzy private school across the road and certainly superior to area public schools--I know, because I used to work in one of the public schools here. I also used to work for the aforementioned private school, so I know we're sending our kids to a school that excels in technology, teaching styles, and overall curriculum. The religious training is just icing on the cake for us. My point is that religion is the purview of the parents raising the children. I don't know if that makes it coercion, but if it does, then that's just the nature of the beast of parenting. The same has to be said about every decision a parent makes on a child's behalf.

Coercion as I understand it in a religious context refers to those mature enough to make their own decisions and are nearly forced into a situation. Forced conversion comes to mind, and I've never seen that in any church I've ever attended.

As far as coercing the young goes, the thing is that I can teach my children and have them in church every time the doors are open. What I cannot do is make them accept what I or anyone else in the church teaches. Before they can be accepted publicly as Christians, they have to demonstrate that they understand what believing in Jesus means and are willing to accept the consequences of faith. I have no guarantee that will ever happen for my children. If they end up becoming agnostics or atheists or choose another religion or adopt a lifestyle I don't agree with, I'll still love them. The best I can hope for is that while they remain under my care I've done everything I can to steer them in the best direction to make the right decisions. Beyond that, it's all in God's hands.


Perhaps you just went to the wrong kind of church.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1kXhvVqQuY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yN4Uu0OlmTg[/youtube]

AngelRho makes a very good point. When you have everything why would you want to rely on God for needs? You never really appreciate something until it's gone. That has been my life story, I actually just bought a car. I biked to and from work for at least 1 year! You could imagine the amount of appreciation I have towards my car (Now that I have one!) That is the nature of humbling. It teaches you to appreciate the things that you do have.

Best Regards,

Jake

It amazes me how many people who are Christian themselves equate wanting a relationship to God to requiring one be a Christian. There are other paths, you know. That's all I have to say on the subject.

Last edited by BlueAbyss on 25 Dec 2012, 6:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You don't miss your bicycle?

Frankly, public organised religion - all organised, public religion, and especially when it wheedles its way into government and politics - can take a very long walk off a very short pier.

No, I don't miss it. I'm glad I had it at the time and still have it. My mountain bike is a very useful tool.
Having a car is a luxury, not a privilege and I learned that lesson personally having my first car tottalled under my own ignorance.

I spent nearly a year and countless miles bicycling thinking about what I done and how I should've made a wiser decision.
That experience (Biking to and from work in the frigid weather) was humbling. It taught me that I didn't need a car.

Once I made a down payment on my car-and drove it- I appreciated it even more. I no longer have to bike in the cold!
I wouldn't not have experienced the level of appreciation had I not biked for so long.

Humbling is that.


Best Regards,

Jake
Best Regards,

Jake

One frequent criticism of Christianity that I've seen is the importance of certainty to its adherents. The thing is, though:
1. Do we have one chance (lifetime) to get it right, or do we have options?
2. Either way, how do we know?

If you don't or can't know whether you only have one shot to get it right, then that means you must get it right the first time around.

Suppose you believe, as Christians do, you only get one shot, and then suppose you find out you're wrong. So you either cut a deal in the afterlife or you get the wheel rolling again. So if you believe the wrong thing and it isn't the end of the road at the end of this life, then you suffer no great loss. You get to try again.

But suppose you believe there are many paths. What if there is only one path and you only get one shot? Well, then you lose and all the good you worked for in life comes to nothing.

When you consider the vast uncertainty of the hereafter, there is a great need for certainty and comfort. That kind of certainty exists for the Christian.

As far as requiring someone to be a Christian goes, that argument is largely going to depend on what or who you define as being Christian. I don't really look at denomination/doctrine/dogma in-depth as the definition. I prefer to focus on the basics. Does one believe that Jesus is the promised Messiah, God's son, who lived among men, offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, and rose from the grave, thereby showing Himself as the only being powerful enough to atone for the sins of all humanity and thus bring humanity into reconciliation with God? Does one believe that by thus believing he must confess his sins before God and live a life according to God's will? And does one believe in making one's faith in Jesus public? I say, and I don't care what denomination/branch/sect/whatever of Christianity you say you are, or even if you ever identify with an organized church, you're a Christian. By that definition you can still worship God (with few limits, such as don't worship other gods) any way you want as your conscience directs you and still be considered a Christian. As faith in Jesus is a requirement for reconciliation with God, then yes, Christianity as per this working definition is a requirement for salvation and a relationship with God.

Christianity is about faith, not which church you belong to.

And having said that, I also have to say that some do believe that being a Christian is defined by what church you belong to. Some denominations believe they and they alone are going to Heaven. I think people like that are Christian in name only because they are trusting in the wrong things to save them. I tend to be more of a sola fide Christian (as many non-Catholics tend to be), and thus I tend to think of churches that don't teach that concept as being pseudo-Christian. If your working definition of Christianity or Christian has to do with a background experience growing up in a church that practices false teachings, then perhaps your experience is too narrow to make a fair judgment.

I mean, I'm not saying that's the case with you necessarily because I don't know you that well. I just know from my experience that I've tended to be isolated to the denomination I grew up in. If it's not broke, don't fix it, right? My exposure to other denoms and non-denoms has been extremely limited, but I've never been hugely offended by Presbyterians or Methodists. I've been attracted to the Assemblies of God most recently, which is a milder form of pentecostalism. However, I'm on staff at a Southern Baptist church and have a need to stay where I can best provide for my family until I can get a better break elsewhere, which at the moment just isn't happening. From what I hear, paying music gigs at pentecostal churches are harder to come by than baptist churches.