Ship of Fools: Do you ever feel like you're the only person who...

Thread: Do you ever feel like you're the only person who... Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024241

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

... believes in God?

And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

And if you could get them to confess, they would admit that their use of God and church language has nothing to do with an actual being that exists, but is a large-scale metaphor for something else, like secular virtues (being a nice person and a good citizen) or cherished community symbols (like the church mission or the Bible)?

I'm something of a Bible junkie, and that passion is grounded in my belief that there really is a God, and there really is a Jesus who was raised from the dead and is alive today, and reading the Bible is the most important way of getting to know his character, because their existence is fundamental to the "real world".

Yet, I'm the only one I know who digs and asks "serious" questions about it. People come to church, they pray, they mull over a handful of verses, they engage in the group ceremonies, and then they go home and obsess over the minutiae of politics or sports or celebrity gossip like it's the most important thing in the world. I don't understand that, and probably will never understand.

But the "idolatries" exhibited by churchgoers would make perfect sense if it was revealed that God-language is just a metaphor for a good life, and no one (but me) actually believes in God...

(NOTE: My perspective is one of a Baptist in a center-left church in the Southern USA...)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

I'm something of a Bible junkie, and that passion is grounded in my belief that there really is a God, and there really is a Jesus who was raised from the dead and is alive today, and reading the Bible is the most important way of getting to know his character, because their existence is fundamental to the "real world".

Passions can change ...

I used to be something of a bible junkie too. Not any more. I still believe in God - but I'm hanging on to that belief by my finger tips.

Also - is there such a thing as a "Baptist in a center-left church in the Southern USA"? I thought they were all incredibly right wing! [Biased]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

A rare breed indeed, I'm sure!

Re the OP: my answer is 'no'; if anything it's the contrary - that I sometimes feel that I'm the only one with doubts and struggles in my faith...but I would guess that has in part to do with the type of church I attend and its churchmanship [Biased]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Re the OP: my answer is 'no'; if anything it's the contrary - that I sometimes feel that I'm the only one with doubts and struggles in my faith...

Exactly what I was about to post. Every now and then I have these moments where I suddenly think "oh my god, these people actually genuinely believe all this stuff!"

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
... believes in God?

And if you could get them to confess, they would admit that their use of God and church language has nothing to do with an actual being that exists, but is a large-scale metaphor for something else, like secular virtues (being a nice person and a good citizen) or cherished community symbols (like the church mission or the Bible)?

(NOTE: My perspective is one of a Baptist in a center-left church in the Southern USA...)

Sounds like the C of E in Southern UK to me.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Every now and then I have these moments where I suddenly think "oh my god, these people actually genuinely believe all this stuff!"

I plead guilty to being one of those people.

I used to have long discussions on another site with an atheist who often came out with comments like: "Ah, but you know, of course, that there is no God" or "This or that bishop knows, of course, that he is just making it up..."

To be honest, I found this extremely irritating and presumptuous (especially considering that his alternative view of reality stretched my credulity to the limit - and beyond). People like this may strongly disagree with us, but they should at least have the decency to allow us to be genuinely 'deluded', if they think our view of reality is mistaken, rather than pretend that we are all just putting on an act.

Certainly I have all sorts of struggles with aspects of the Christian faith, but I certainly do not regard God as merely an inspiring idea, a comforting construct, or a meaningful metaphor. He is experientially real through the Holy Spirit. Every day. I don't mean to say this with any smugness or conceit. It's just a fact, and I would be a liar to deny it.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Also - is there such a thing as a "Baptist in a center-left church in the Southern USA"? I thought they were all incredibly right wing!

It's complicated. Being Baptist actually stands for "soul liberty", that is, the freedom of the individual to worship as he/she chooses.

As a result, the "official theology of Baptists" is not unlike the "official beliefs of Americans" on any topic - you get a spectrum of opinion, and whoever speaks the loudest and most forcefully creates the appearance of representing the whole.

Part of the deal with individual freedom is the freedom to believe that "other people need to be controlled by me and people who think like me", and for the most part, the Southern Baptist Convention has moved in that direction for the cause of suppressing liberalism.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
A rare breed indeed, I'm sure!

Re the OP: my answer is 'no'; if anything it's the contrary - that I sometimes feel that I'm the only one with doubts and struggles in my faith...but I would guess that has in part to do with the type of church I attend and its churchmanship

I agree with what you're saying, oddly enough. However, I often suspect that what I have "faith" in is not the faith of my neighbors in the pews.

I don't have a problem believing in a God who created the world and is involved in it. I do however, have a problem believing in the de facto "god" of the cozy & comfortable modern church.

Based on their actions, the church would have us believe that the whole purpose of creating this incredible universe was solely for providing a place for well-dressed families to perform rituals and socialize.

Further, what they consider being "into church" involves either (a) giving more and more money to similarly-cozy missions, or (b) speculating into pantheons of Christian "mythology" about angels and demons and what it's like in heaven and all that. (Neither of these appears to be what the early church thought it was doing in the first two generations.)

While death is a nasty and unpleasant thing, if the Gospels and Acts are to be taken seriously, shouldn't someone be martyred every now and then for their faith?

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

The goal of my faith, FWIW, is (and this is trite but no less true for that) 'to know Christ and make Him known'. I fail dismally at both aspects of this goal but it remains. All else is froth and dressing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

As someone in public ministry, I get to hear a lot about what others believe because they tell me.

I feel the opposite of the OP - that many people seem to believe a lot more than me.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
While death is a nasty and unpleasant thing, if the Gospels and Acts are to be taken seriously, shouldn't someone be martyred every now and then for their faith?

Becoming a martyr is not entirely in your own hands. It also requires there to be someone who actually wants to kill you because of your faith, and those are in short supply in the West these days.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I generally assume a basic belief in a 'real' God in anyone who claims to be a Christian till I know otherwise. And like leo sometimes I realize how impoverished my own faith is compared to others. But OTOTH (!), I'm also surprized by the people who have a much less conventional or dogmatic faith than I would've thought they had.

I think it's easy to feel like the 'only' one in certain circumstances (a church council meeting, arguing a vision in a group of nay-sayers etc). But so much is left unsaid, is unknown, about what every Christian (or believer) thinks, it's hard to know for sure how unusual or unique our own position is.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

One of the positions required for "soul liberty" is that one then has to allow others to believe whatever it is that they believe.

I offer Slacktivist's discussion of this idea, since he is better qualified than I am.

The only person who is qualified to tell you what you believe or want to believe is you, no matter what desnomination or group you subscribe to.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
... believes in God?

And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

Stereotyping my response (nothing human is totally bipolar, not even gender)--

My conservative Christian friends use the word "God" every sentence or two and if they say they'll pray for you they mean it and likely stop everything to pray with you right now! Doubts are not expressed out loud.

My mainline friends shy away from any discussion about God, if God is mentioned (at coffee after church, or at a party) they say "we all have our own beliefs" and change the topic to the current movies in the local theater. Some say things like "we really don't know much about Jesus or what he taught or even if he was a real historical person," others really do deeply believe but think religion is a private topic like sex with your spouse is private, terribly impolite to mention in public. Prayer about a specific problem together right now? Cringe!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Sign me up for "quite the opposite". I find myself wondering if I'm the only one who hasn't got a clue whether God is real, whether Christianity is true, but merely cherishes the hope.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:

The only person who is qualified to tell you what you believe or want to believe is you, no matter what desnomination or group you subscribe to.

The only problem with this is when we want to belong to a denomination or movement but we don't go along with the teachings or doctrines of the group. This is likely to become more and more common because we live in a pick-and-mix world, but it doesn't seem entirely satisfactory. What actually holds the group together?

It seems as though churches need to project a sense of certainty in order to inspire anyone to come through the door at all, yet at the same time they need to allow some sort of leeway if they're going to have any point of contact with wider postmodern culture. It must be a tough thing to pull off.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

I have nt come across the expression 'soul freedom' before and like it ! The ideas behind it are not new and they maatter to me. The phrase sould freedom is great -better than non-denominational, non-crdal and what have you.

Also #soul free' occurs to me.

My beliefs fluctuate as does my 'sense' of them, of their truth.

I am not quite sure what it really means 'to believe.'

Is it a matter of saying (to self) I subscribe to such and such ? Or must it be felt within almost viscerally. Or as Quakers say 'a matter of convincement'. I ask this as some Christians, give the impression that credal statements are facts. Rather than idea, thoughts, hopes - beliefs

Or is it faking until I make it ?

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Re the OP: my answer is 'no'; if anything it's the contrary - that I sometimes feel that I'm the only one with doubts and struggles in my faith...
Exactly what I was about to post. Every now and then I have these moments where I suddenly think "oh my god, these people actually genuinely believe all this stuff!"

Ditto.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The goal of my faith, FWIW, is (and this is trite but no less true for that) 'to know Christ and make Him known'. I fail dismally at both aspects of this goal but it remains. All else is froth and dressing.

My faith has become very simple indeed. "Love God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength. Love your neighbour as yourself." That's it. All the rest is, as you say, froth and dressing. When I manage to achieve this aim, I'll start to think about what comes next. But until then.....

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by BWSmith:
And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

All those Christians are pretending to believe in God just for you? How nice of them. Don't you feel special?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
While death is a nasty and unpleasant thing, if the Gospels and Acts are to be taken seriously, shouldn't someone be martyred every now and then for their faith?
Becoming a martyr is not entirely in your own hands. It also requires there to be someone who actually wants to kill you because of your faith, and those are in short supply in the West these days.

Indeed - but there's a plenteous supply elsewhere; the fact that Western countries get more upset about gay rights than religious freedom is one of the real disgraces of modern society.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Also - is there such a thing as a "Baptist in a center-left church in the Southern USA"? I thought they were all incredibly right wing!
It's complicated. Being Baptist actually stands for "soul liberty", that is, the freedom of the individual to worship as he/she chooses.

As a result, the "official theology of Baptists" is not unlike the "official beliefs of Americans" on any topic - you get a spectrum of opinion, and whoever speaks the loudest and most forcefully creates the appearance of representing the whole.

Part of the deal with individual freedom is the freedom to believe that "other people need to be controlled by me and people who think like me", and for the most part, the Southern Baptist Convention has moved in that direction for the cause of suppressing liberalism.

I'm sure this will upset someone but does that mean that the Southern Baptist Convention is profoundly un-Baptist and un-American in character?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I'm not with the OP position, but I sometimes wonder how, believing what they say they believe, they nevertheless carry on with lives that seem almost indistinguishable from those of their secular neighbors. Not bad people, but seemingly very immature and with weird priorities. Like soccer games and buying a mini-van and having a running feud with person X at church over nothing in particular. And Christian charity means sending a shoebox to Africa. And absolute terror when an inconvenient person asks them if they would befriend an immigrant (for example), or put up a traveler for the night, or run someone in to the hospital and hold their hand while they wait for the doctor.

But I think maybe I used to be one of these people...

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And Christian charity means sending a shoebox to Africa.

<tangent>

Oh the looks I got when I suggested we forget about the toothbrushes, gloves, toys and pencils and leave the shoes in.

</tangent>

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'm not with the OP position, but I sometimes wonder how, believing what they say they believe, they nevertheless carry on with lives that seem almost indistinguishable from those of their secular neighbors. Not bad people, but seemingly very immature and with weird priorities. Like soccer games and buying a mini-van and having a running feud with person X at church over nothing in particular. And Christian charity means sending a shoebox to Africa. And absolute terror when an inconvenient person asks them if they would befriend an immigrant (for example), or put up a traveler for the night, or run someone in to the hospital and hold their hand while they wait for the doctor.

Since when do all "secular" people have such values?

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
Since when do all "secular" people have such values?

It's strange to think that the best one can say about the values of certain church folk is that "secular" people are just as bad.

After all, secular people do not have the advantage of a direct line to God's will for them; they lack the incentive of believing in eternal reward. With handicaps like that, what can one expect? [Biased]

It seems to me that the premise of the OP is that church folk, considering where they are coming from and what they claim to believe, have a significant head start on everyone else and should be expected to act accordingly.

[ 21. December 2012, 00:40: Message edited by: roybart ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
Being Baptist actually stands for "soul liberty", that is, the freedom of the individual to worship as he/she chooses...

"other people need to be controlled by me and people who think like me", and for the most part, the Southern Baptist Convention has moved in that direction for the cause of suppressing liberalism.
I'm sure this will upset someone but does that mean that the Southern Baptist Convention is profoundly un-Baptist and un-American in character?

I have read articles saying SBC is profoundly un-Baptist because of their insistence on a long list of specific points of belief. I haven't heard SBC, specifically, labeled "unAmerican" but the Dominionist movement they seem to be more or less part of -- God wants USA to be a Christian country meaning Protestant conservative Christian -- yes that gets labeled profoundly unAmerican, but not by those who believe the Founding Fathers were Protestant Christians who founded a Christian country.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
It's complicated. Being Baptist actually stands for "soul liberty", that is, the freedom of the individual to worship as he/she chooses.

As a result, the "official theology of Baptists" is not unlike the "official beliefs of Americans" on any topic - you get a spectrum of opinion, and whoever speaks the loudest and most forcefully creates the appearance of representing the whole.

Part of the deal with individual freedom is the freedom to believe that "other people need to be controlled by me and people who think like me", and for the most part, the Southern Baptist Convention has moved in that direction for the cause of suppressing liberalism.

Hmm - an interestingly individualist spin on Baptist doctrine. Yes, Baptists are congregationalists, in the sense of believing that the local body of Christ is the proper unit for determining what Christianity means; in theory local congregations can define their own creed. However the idea that this is related to 'individual freedom' is a modern interpretation coming from the history of the Baptists as never achieving political dominance; they've always been a minority dependent on the good will of their governing authorities to exist. The congregational polity means that a 'Baptist' church can be as restrictive or relaxed as the individual congregation wants; that 'Westboro Baptist' can legitimately claim to be 'Baptist' demonstrates the breadth within the 'Baptist' movement. However to take this to mean that the individual has total liberty of conscience is a step too far; historically Baptist theology took a high view of the authority of the church to challenge and discipline its members, as did all other denominations.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
While death is a nasty and unpleasant thing, if the Gospels and Acts are to be taken seriously, shouldn't someone be martyred every now and then for their faith?
Becoming a martyr is not entirely in your own hands. It also requires there to be someone who actually wants to kill you because of your faith, and those are in short supply in the West these days.
Indeed - but there's a plenteous supply elsewhere;

Well then, anyone who wants to follow BWSmith's ideas and prove how serious they are about their Faith by getting themselves martyred knows where to go!

quote:
the fact that Western countries get more upset about gay rights than religious freedom is one of the real disgraces of modern society.

That's because we in the West have already got religious freedom. It's a done deal, and we can move on to achieving freedom for other people, like gays.

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by BWSmith:
And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

All those Christians are pretending to believe in God just for you? How nice of them. Don't you feel special?

Yeah, that was a TIC comparison to the problem of adults believing in Santa, and being open to talk about it when the kids aren't around.

If there really was a red-suited man that entered your house through the chimney once a year, wouldn't the adults be apprehensive about this and prepare like any other guest arriving?

Similarly, the problem with Santa begs the problem with God. If people really, really, really do believe in the existence of not just God, but the Christian God of the Bible, why are they content to run their lives in such a comfortable, secular manner?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
originally posted by BWSmith:
And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

All those Christians are pretending to believe in God just for you? How nice of them. Don't you feel special?
Yeah, that was a TIC comparison to the problem of adults believing in Santa, and being open to talk about it when the kids aren't around.

If there really was a red-suited man that entered your house through the chimney once a year, wouldn't the adults be apprehensive about this and prepare like any other guest arriving?

Similarly, the problem with Santa begs the problem with God. If people really, really, really do believe in the existence of not just God, but the Christian God of the Bible, why are they content to run their lives in such a comfortable, secular manner?

Well, that's a bit too general for me to say. In what way do you see their comfortable secular lives as being incompatible with the Christian conception of God?

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm sure this will upset someone but does that mean that the Southern Baptist Convention is profoundly un-Baptist and un-American in character?

In my opinion, the Southern Baptist Convention has about as much in common with the original Baptists of the 1600s as the Democratic Party has with the Founding Fathers.

I think the SBCers give face time to the principle of soul liberty (in the abstract), but aren't willing to deal with the consequences of freedom (i.e. theological liberalism). Freedom (to them) allows the individual conscience to freely agree with (submit to) the "official" statements of faith on all issues (listed in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message).

They still see theological liberalism as the ultimate denominational evil, and in fighting it, are willing to hang Baptist principles out to dry and return to the language, strategies and tactics of the oppressive communions from which we separated 400 years ago (the Puritans, Anglicans, and Catholics)...

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
the fact that Western countries get more upset about gay rights than religious freedom is one of the real disgraces of modern society.
That's because we in the West have already got religious freedom. It's a done deal, and we can move on to achieving freedom for other people, like gays.

I think—I hope I'm wrong, but I think—that the criticism was directed at the fact that we, for example, fight back harder against anti-gay legislation in Uganda than we do against, say, attacks on Christians in Iraq. So we get more upset about other people's lack of gay rights than lack of religious freedom.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
the fact that Western countries get more upset about gay rights than religious freedom is one of the real disgraces of modern society.
That's because we in the West have already got religious freedom. It's a done deal, and we can move on to achieving freedom for other people, like gays.
I think—I hope I'm wrong, but I think—that the criticism was directed at the fact that we, for example, fight back harder against anti-gay legislation in Uganda than we do against, say, attacks on Christians in Iraq. So we get more upset about other people's lack of gay rights than lack of religious freedom.

I always thought that our societies, and by extension our churches, willingness to deal with issues of poverty etc. over the serious issues of Christian persecution was partly down to main stream media attention. When was the last time you heard of the hundreds of examples of Christian persecution around the world on the news, even when they have time for silly puppy stories etc.? If our MSM fails to highlight it (and I imagine we could argue till the cows come home about why that is) then it slips away, those comfortable Christians who are content with their lives and have little concern with finding out will have the persecution of Christians pass them-by like ships in the night...

Posted by BWSmith (# 2981) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
In what way do you see their comfortable secular lives as being incompatible with the Christian conception of God?

In general, LambChopped hit the nail on the head about Christians who are indistiguishable from their secular neighbors (apart from the Christian self-label).

The Bible (and church tradition) suggests that there are a practices that secular people do that Christians should have nothing to do with.

Consider how the church deals with two issues in particular: divorce and pornography. Both are far more widespread throughout congregations everywhere than the highly-publicized homosexual issues, but the church is either unable or unwilling to address the issue other than, "Don't do it." and hope that they find a prayerful solution on their own.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Well, personally I don't view either of those as being inherently wrong, for various reasons.

YMMV, of course.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
In general, LambChopped hit the nail on the head about Christians who are indistiguishable from their secular neighbors (apart from the Christian self-label).

Not surprising that you'd approve the judgementalism of her post, given the same quality in your OP.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Oh fuck off Ruthw. The judgmentalism was aimed at the Christians. And the shoebox example was taken from a Christian group, and if the rant wasn't clear enough to suit you that's too bad. And fuck me too for posting when sick and exhausted and giving you the chance to snipe.

[ 22. December 2012, 04:08: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

[edited because this is not Hell [Hot and Hormonal]

)

[ 22. December 2012, 04:25: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Quiche Eating Dissenter (# 17193) on :

quote:
... believes in God?

And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

And if you could get them to confess, they would admit that their use of God and church language has nothing to do with an actual being that exists, but is a large-scale metaphor for something else, like secular virtues (being a nice person and a good citizen) or cherished community symbols (like the church mission or the Bible)?

Not quite the same experience for me - my take on it was that others in the church must believe in God more, because they appeared (on the surface at least) to find it so easy, whereas I felt like I was always battling with the implications of faith.

I'm now deeply relieved that I no longer have any faith.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh fuck off Ruthw. The judgmentalism was aimed at the Christians. And the shoebox example was taken from a Christian group, and if the rant wasn't clear enough to suit you that's too bad. And fuck me too for posting when sick and exhausted and giving you the chance to snipe.

If you want to say things like that, you do so in hell - as you well know.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

[ 22. December 2012, 08:29: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
In general, LambChopped hit the nail on the head about Christians who are indistiguishable from their secular neighbors (apart from the Christian self-label).

This doesn't bother me at all - why should we be distinguishable from good, honest, caring people? The problem, for me, is the Christians who are distinguishable from others due to their sexism, homophobia and self-righteousness. Which seems to happen far, far too often in this country (UK).

I no longer openly identify as Christian because of it. If pushed I answer 'What would you say a Christian is?' before I answer.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

And all the other Christians not only don't believe in an actual God, but are pretty open about not believing in God among each other whenever you aren't around?

And if you could get them to confess, they would admit that their use of God and church language has nothing to do with an actual being that exists, but is a large-scale metaphor for something else, like secular virtues (being a nice person and a good citizen) or cherished community symbols (like the church mission or the Bible)?

I think BWSmith has picked on one aspect of a basic problem with being human. We have no window into other people's souls. Here it is religion, but on a more trivial level, do we really think a large number of UK MPs have all their lives been football enthusiasts? Or that Gordon Brown was really an Arctic Monkeys fan?

I can't get into opera but some of my friends insist it the most sublime experience they ever have. For some I guess it is, others quite like it, some don't but say they do for a variety of reasons (maybe snobbery or maybe because they love their partner who does really love opera).

And though our beliefs may change over time our emotional commitments don't always keep in step. Probably some Christians remain in their churches despite losing an active faith because it is a group they are committed to. I'm aware of friends whose political and social views have changed to such an extent that I wouldn't now choose them as friends. But they are still my friends and I'll stick with them - well, at least until there is nothing left we can talk about without arguing!

I often look back and think "I haven't really changed" but deeper inspection suggests though I might say, for example, that I'm still a socialist, what I mean by that now isn't what I meant when I was twenty. That twenty year old would be appalled at the 60 year old me. I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now or as someone else said, "I've never met a butterfly that believed it had ever been a caterpillar".

Rambling on I realise. Sorry but I'm going to hit 'Add reply' anyway.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Belief is as belief does Bee Dubbyer. And we're all pretty far down the scale on the curb stone at that.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

I think BWSmith has picked on one aspect of a basic problem with being human. We have no window into other people's souls. Here it is religion, but on a more trivial level, do we really think a large number of UK MPs have all their lives been football enthusiasts? Or that Gordon Brown was really an Arctic Monkeys fan?

I can't get into opera but some of my friends insist it the most sublime experience they ever have. For some I guess it is, others quite like it, some don't but say they do for a variety of reasons (maybe snobbery or maybe because they love their partner who does really love opera).

And though our beliefs may change over time our emotional commitments don't always keep in step. Probably some Christians remain in their churches despite losing an active faith because it is a group they are committed to. I'm aware of friends whose political and social views have changed to such an extent that I wouldn't now choose them as friends. But they are still my friends and I'll stick with them - well, at least until there is nothing left we can talk about without arguing!

I often look back and think "I haven't really changed" but deeper inspection suggests though I might say, for example, that I'm still a socialist, what I mean by that now isn't what I meant when I was twenty. That twenty year old would be appalled at the 60 year old me. I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now .......

Good post que sais-je, especially the last quote [Biased]

What the op says is that other people don't see God in the same way as he does, and don't put their faith into action in the way he thinks he's called to. A few things to bear in mind, imv:

The Bible is only one of four primary directions of faith and discovery: the others being the tradition of the church, the thinking of the ages, and direct experience of God.

As the four gospels all show different portraits of Jesus, so we must be ready to see Jesus from all points of view and learn from them.

It's for God alone to judge and know who believes in him, and for us to encourage belief in him by responding to our calling and serving as best we can, knowing that it will be inadequate but that God will work through us.

We will all struggle through times of doubt and need the strength of the faith of others to sustain us rather than condemn us.

We're all sheep to some extent.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

que sais-je, seconded - nice post. We're often told Christianity is about 'relationship' etc, meaning relationship with Jesus and all that. But how we relate to each other is hardly of less interest to God. And some people are very committed and loyal to their church communities, or have very deep needs fulfilled by them, yet without an explicit expression of faith. Even feelings of agnosticism and atheism.

For some of us who are into the 'mission' of the church, it becomes too easy then to overlook the importance of relationship for those people (and its importance to God), just because we may feel (rightly or wrongly) there is less faith integrity there.

Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:

I think the SBCers give face time to the principle of soul liberty (in the abstract), but aren't willing to deal with the consequences of freedom (i.e. theological liberalism). Freedom (to them) allows the individual conscience to freely agree with (submit to) the "official" statements of faith on all issues (listed in the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message).

They still see theological liberalism as the ultimate denominational evil, and in fighting it, are willing to hang Baptist principles out to dry and return to the language, strategies and tactics of the oppressive communions from which we separated 400 years ago (the Puritans, Anglicans, and Catholics)... [/QB]

But doesn´t this freedom means that people can join them or not whenever they want, but if they choose to join them then they must accept the same principles? That you are not forbidden to be atheist or acept theological liberalism, but if you do so it would be more coherent to disafiliate with this conservative denomination? And doesn´t theological liberalism hang traditional baptist principles too, such as the supremacy of the Scriptures? So they would be hanging their baptists principles even more if they allowed their denomination to be taken over by liberals?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Anselmina [Overused]

beliefs are two a penny and not a measure of salvation. Behaviour - I mean ALL of MY behaviour - is my measure of how much I realise that I'm saved, included, in God.

Not much [Smile]

Conservatism is a natural, fallen disposition I know right well. Although by the grace of God I didn't inherit the deleterious meme of damnationism. It still didn't work for me, although I have to have a side bet on the awful pragmatism of God. I don't see it working at all for any now. Here, in my fellowship. For any exclusivists.

I find conservatism in the Pope and John Sentamu disappointingly bizarre, the windmills they choose to tilt at. The gay windmill for a prominent one.

And although my head is following my broken, sick, yearning, carried heart a lot more nowadays, I don't see God approving, blessing our brokenness per se but I do see Him ineffably, pragmatically, lovingly blessing us in it, despite it. Which covers all of our dispositions, orientations, proclivities, not least sexual.

Oh and the OP is typical of distinctly conservative paranoia.

[ 23. December 2012, 11:51: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Yes. Sorry.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by BWSmith:
While death is a nasty and unpleasant thing, if the Gospels and Acts are to be taken seriously, shouldn't someone be martyred every now and then for their faith?
Becoming a martyr is not entirely in your own hands. It also requires there to be someone who actually wants to kill you because of your faith, and those are in short supply in the West these days.

In one of his plays, T.S. Eliot said that "some are martyred by not being martyrs".

Christians are still martyred, in some places. Be careful what you wish for.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

But God is not a being and does not exist.

God is something else altogether.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

What he/she said. I don't think God is a being who exists either.

I spend quite a lot of time wondering what God might be, and I've concluded that it's impossible to determine that intellectually, but it might be possible in some other way, e.g. mystically, or if you like, through an open heart.

I have quite a few friends who also spend time wondering about this, I suppose most of them are not Christians!

But I feel it's OK if Christians go to church and so on, and don't think about God. I don't want to get into oneupmanship. Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

This book looks interesting to me, about how to let being a Christian actually change you. Yes I would expect anyone really listening to Jesus to be less likely to divorce, more likely to take in or adopt a stray child, less likely to inflate the resume, less likely to focus on material accumulation and wealth, more interested in a good game and less focused on winning, less addicted to porn or the soaps, less determined to "punish" someone who wrongs them, and so on.

Don't fret about tomorrow remember the lilies, if someone takes your cloak give him you coat, take care of the widow and orphan. Do we believe it and act on it?

True, no good behavior is exclusive to Christians, but don't statistics say Christians are no different than non-Christians in everything except church attendance? (And no I'm not saying divorce is always wrong, but there seems to be an awful lot of it!)

Does Christianity lived in accordance with Jesus' teaching lead to the same lives non-Christians live? If so, why were Jesus' teachings considered amazing? Why was I taught his teachings are "pretty but impractical in the real world" by my Sunday school teachers if in fact the teachings are just basic normal human behavior?

Posted by Caedmon (# 17482) on :

Some 40 years ago I gave away all I owned and moved hundreds of miles from home in order to find out if 'God' existed outside of my head (i.e. in the 'real world') and have lived trusting 'God' ever since.

Okay I've subsequently left Christianity behind but find the 'God' is still ever present in my life. I could not be happier.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The judgmentalism was aimed at the Christians. And the shoebox example was taken from a Christian group, and if the rant wasn't clear enough to suit you that's too bad.

It was quite clear, actually.

Judging others to be bad Christians is one of the main things we do here in Purgatory, but yours was one of several posts on this thread that reminded me forcibly of Luke 18:11.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

I may not use the same words, but I can certainly sympathise with the OP.

I recently left a church where most people seemed very well practised at professing to believe in Jesus, while doing everything possible to take all the power out of his teachings. What was left was a shell Christianity, little more than a cultural allegiance, a social club with extra tradition and pretty words. Should Jesus convict them, change them, disciple them, re-form them as new beings? I think this would have been an alien concept to most of the church.

None of that was actually the main reason why I left. However, I'm very glad that should one of my friends ask about Christianity, I can now take them to my new church without constantly worrying whether they'll see the cultural veneer to spot that if the congregation's lives are anything to go by, Christianity is apparently useless and therefore worthless.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
que sais-je, seconded - nice post. We're often told Christianity is about 'relationship' etc, meaning relationship with Jesus and all that. But how we relate to each other is hardly of less interest to God.

Indeed, I'm not much of a proof-texter, but Matthew 25:40 seems to make it absolutely explicit that the most important way we relate to God is through our relations to other people. It may be the only way that really counts.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Anselmina beliefs are two a penny and not a measure of salvation. Behaviour - I mean ALL of MY behaviour - is my measure of how much I realise that I'm saved, included, in God.

I feel the same way.

This is especially important to me since my own denomination is so small that otherwise I would share the feelings expressed in the OP even more acutely - because for us this is almost literally true.

But beliefs are two a penny and what really matters is the heart and the life - and that is shared by millions.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I can now take them to my new church without constantly worrying whether they'll see the cultural veneer to spot that if the congregation's lives are anything to go by, Christianity is apparently useless and therefore worthless.

Really? Where on earth did you find this church, unique in space and time?

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Does Christianity lived in accordance with Jesus' teaching lead to the same lives non-Christians live? If so, why were Jesus' teachings considered amazing?

When I read the gospels I do feel awe. If, as some critics suggest, Jesus didn't actually say or do some, or even most, of what appears there, I'll just transfer my awe to whoever did say them and tried to live them.

But is that Christianity? I have to really work at the synoptic gospels* to find more than a great prophet 'speaking truth to power' and living accordingly. Jesus seems remarkably un-religious in the sense the word would be used today.

It's the two thousand years between then and now that I have problems with.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why was I taught his teachings are "pretty but impractical in the real world" by my Sunday school teachers if in fact the teachings are just basic normal human behavior?

And yet some Christians do try and follow his teachings and end up feeling, at best, very uncomfortable with the church as an institution. I wonder how your Sunday School teachers would have felt about such people. Maybe the way 'sensible' Jews felt about Jesus when he was preaching radical love.

* For no better reason than that O-Level RI didn't cover John, the other three remain my (atheist) touch stone. Interestingly (or not) I got the same grade for RI as for Physics - which I studied at university - and enjoyed RI more. In a very slightly different world I might be saying something very different.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I can now take them to my new church without constantly worrying whether they'll see the cultural veneer to spot that if the congregation's lives are anything to go by, Christianity is apparently useless and therefore worthless.
Really? Where on earth did you find this church, unique in space and time?

Oh, sure they're not perfect, I'm sure there are plenty of Laodiceans in the congregation too. It makes a refreshing change that they're not so awfully complacent about it, though - at least they recognise that discipleship is a legitimate Christian concept.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0