Ship of Fools: Christian Obligation to Evangelise

Thread: Christian Obligation to Evangelise 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=027325

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path?
Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?

[ 07. May 2014, 07:50: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

Only once they have enough humility to understand that they themselves may be on exactly the same conveyor...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Yes, we all an obligation to live and speak for Christ so that others will know he loves them and offers salvation. And yes we do it with humility because we are all sinners.

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

Following the thread title, I would like to protest against the steady trickle of doorstep "evangelists" who have to be firmly told that coming to their group to discuss Jesus is not my idea of religion. They always seem surprised and even wounded by my very definite views on this. I, on the other hand, become livid with rage at the sight of two people with an open book... [Mad]

To me, this is so intrusive. Apart from which, Christianity is what I do, not what I talk about. But I was not nice to the last lot - they obviously pressed a deep seated button.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path?
Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?

You are assuming that all Christians believe that all non-Christians are going to hell. This is not the case.

Moo

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path?
Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?

I suspect that the attempt to evangelise would have the very opposite effect of "assisting" the evangelised even further down the primrose path. [Eek!]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

Evangelism is a form of harassment . Jesus didn't harass anyone . People either followed Him or they didn't . Evangelicals who go with the *rescuing folk from a burning house* thing would no doubt disagree with that statement .

Nevertheless TMM there is no person anywhere on Earth who can't silently, and voluntarily give their heart to God if such is their desire , even if it's a nano-second before death.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Of course Christians have an obligation to evangelize. Jesus told his apostles to evangelize. They did. My question is if Jesus preached a pluralist gospel devoid of an requirement of faith or threat of judgment why the disciples sacrificed their lives to spread the message in the first place. After all, we see how little evangelism is done by modern Christians who embrace such a gospel

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

It does rather depend on what you call evangelising. Jesus preached in public, but nowhere does it say in the Gospels that he doorstepped people, or even visited a house uninvited. Also, imo if an individual's life doesn't demonstrate his belief in action, no words will be effective. I agree with Rolyn that evangelising,(whether by buttonholing, collaring or doorstepping,) is harassment.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of course Christians have an obligation to evangelize. Jesus told his apostles to evangelize. They did. My question is if Jesus preached a pluralist gospel devoid of an requirement of faith or threat of judgment why the disciples sacrificed their lives to spread the message in the first place. After all, we see how little evangelism is done by modern Christians who embrace such a gospel

They delegate.

My brother is a missionary. He has probably helped bring hundreds (perhaps thousands in part with his organizational efforts) to faith in Christ. A portion of his "team" are all the earnest folks who support him financially and pray for his efforts. How much personal witnessing these people do, too, I have no idea.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
My question is if Jesus preached a pluralist gospel devoid of an requirement of faith or threat of judgment why the disciples sacrificed their lives to spread the message in the first place. After all, we see how little evangelism is done by modern Christians who embrace such a gospel

Because they believed they wanted to invite people into the Kingdom today, not next week or next month or after they die. Because they believed the Kingdom of God is a wonderful place to be. Because they felt that a life following Jesus was better than a life lived on one's own. Because they had been blind but now they see.

One doesn't need to believe in eternal punishment to see the value in knowing and following Jesus today, or living in his Kingdom today.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Maybe, but if there are many valid paths to God, then why risk ones life to tell others about yet another way? If the disciples eyes were opened, was there something missing in their former religion? Have subsequent revelations of Godself superseded the Incarnation so that now evangelism is no longer necessary?

Also, Jesus and his apostles preached in public. In other words, they were street preachers. Street preachers are held in as much contempt as those who go door to door. Perhaps, Jesus was crucified for harassing people. Didn't he know you aren't supposed to talk about religion in polite company?

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Also, Jesus and his apostles preached in public. In other words, they were street preachers. Street preachers are held in as much contempt as those who go door to door.

By whom? As for doorstepping, I am indignant rather than contemptuous. Can't speak for anyone else. Can you?

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of course Christians have an obligation to evangelize. Jesus told his apostles to evangelize.

The exact instruction was actually to go and make disciples. Whether that counts as evangelising may depend on your interpretation but it doesn't to me. Many of the crowd around Jesus were disciples before coming to any kind of faith.

Personally I think you stand a much better chance of making disciples if you're not harassing anyone; rather, leading by example of what a great guy Jesus is.

Posted by StevHep (# 17198) on :

Coincidentally I touch on this in my latest blog. The relevant paras are-

quote:
Catholic thought has a tremendously handy concept with the splendidly un-PC name of 'Invincible Ignorance.' In a previous controversy the Church summarised the effect of this state-
"that one may obtain eternal salvation, it is not always required that he be incorporated into the Church actually as a member, but it is necessary that at least he be united to her by desire and longing. However, this desire need not always be explicit, as it is in catechumens; but when a person is involved in invincible ignorance God accepts also an implicit desire, so called because it is included in that good disposition of soul whereby a person wishes his will to be conformed to the will of God."

If part of the action of listening to the Father includes access with an open mind to the Christian Scriptures and the teachings of His Saints then those who have no such access, either because these things are not available to them or because their minds have been closed off to them from an early age because of upbringing or ingrained personal characteristics, then they can only listen to Him through the media which are available to them. If their response to this listening is to learn all that they can and follow through on that learning then they are implicitly following Jesus. As I was an unconscious Platonist so they are unconscious Christians.

It is necessary to add though that explicit faith in Christ and incorporation into His Body the Church does have an effect in strengthening faith and in expanding greatly the truth we can hear and respond to. To know Him under a veil is less good than to know Him face to face and so the Church has a duty ever to evangelise everyone who is outside her fold. She has no reason not to seek to convert Muslims, Jews or those of other faiths. As the letter already cited put it "they are in a condition "in which they cannot be sure of their salvation" since "they still remain deprived of those many heavenly gifts and helps which can only be enjoyed in the Catholic Church"

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Maybe the good thing that the Christian martyrs died for that was worth dying for was not the idea that idea that salvation comes only through faith in the Triune God and Christ as Lord and Savior (to the exclusion of all other faiths). Maybe evangelization to the Gospel of Christ is a necessary thing and something worth risking one's life to do but it is not about persuading others to believe in the formula stated above. Maybe "faith in Christ" is more about a transformed life than it is about any belief or ritual. Those people who do decide to be Christians should be baptized and engage with Scripture, other Christian writings, and Church worship and community, but I don't think that persuading non-Christians to do that is what evangelism is about.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
Personally I think you stand a much better chance of making disciples if you're not harassing anyone; rather, leading by example of what a great guy Jesus is.

That's my take on it .
Also I go with what cliffdweller said about God's Kingdom being a 'wonderful place'. Knowing that, practicing it, and not hiding one's light under a bushel is as good a way as any to advertise Jesus.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Maybe the good thing that the Christian martyrs died for that was worth dying for was not the idea that idea that salvation comes only through faith in the Triune God and Christ as Lord and Savior (to the exclusion of all other faiths).

Is that what you think the martyrs really thought or what you would like them to have thought? However, I'm sure I can hear the martyrs turning in their graves at the suggestion. Did you hear that?

[ 24. April 2014, 18:10: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

hosting/

quote:
Originally posted by StevHep:
Coincidentally I touch on this in my latest blog.

SteveHep, while we presume (possibly mistakenly) that you own the copyright to your own words posted on your blog, any post in which content from elsewhere (irrespective of the source) massively exceeds new content makes the hosts twitchy and results in them having hard-to-control urges to engage in massive editing.

In future, please post a brief excerpt of one relevant point and a link.

Thanks!

/hosting

[ 24. April 2014, 18:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Maybe the good thing that the Christian martyrs died for that was worth dying for was not the idea that idea that salvation comes only through faith in the Triune God and Christ as Lord and Savior (to the exclusion of all other faiths).
Is that what you think the martyrs really thought or what you would like them to have thought? However, I'm sure I can hear the martyrs turning in their graves at the suggestion. Did you hear that?

I don't know what they thought or if it matters. The martyrs are in heaven so they aren't turning in their graves. I'm asking why they are martyrs in the first place - what was it that they died for that had value. Lots of people die for things that may or may not be good but we don't consider them martyrs in the sense of being a Saint in Heaven now. What is it that, if someone dies for it, makes them a martyr?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Door to door evangelism. Are you, in actual fact, talking about Jehovah's Witnesses? Are there normal Christian churches that go door to door?

Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :

Yes, had some from a local happy clappy place a couple of weeks ago. They were really quite insulting when I said I wasn't interested in being a Christian any more. I haven't seen a Jehovas Witness for decade or so, but we get people touting for various evangelical churches about once or twice a year.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of course Christians have an obligation to evangelize. Jesus told his apostles to evangelize.
The exact instruction was actually to go and make disciples. Whether that counts as evangelising may depend on your interpretation but it doesn't to me. Many of the crowd around Jesus were disciples before coming to any kind of faith.

Personally I think you stand a much better chance of making disciples if you're not harassing anyone; rather, leading by example of what a great guy Jesus is.

So...it's your understanding that the apostles went around baptizing unbelievers? [Roll Eyes]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Maybe, but if there are many valid paths to God, then why risk ones life to tell others about yet another way? If the disciples eyes were opened, was there something missing in their former religion? Have subsequent revelations of Godself superseded the Incarnation so that now evangelism is no longer necessary?

I didn't say there are many paths to God. There aren't. Jesus tells us no one comes to the Father but thru him. One doesn't need to believe in the threat of eternal punishment to believe that Jesus is the only way anyone-- Christian, Jew, Buddhist or atheist-- enters the Kingdom

Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :

That is still not our business. The only salvation which concerns me is my own, and that, given the Eternal's infinite stubbornness, will probably happen, even if, as C.S.Lewis described his own experience, I am dragged reluctantly (kicking and screaming?) into the Christian camp.

More to the point would be if the general observer could still say, "How these Christians love one another" - and then wonder what they have that's so special. Example works better than words.

I have to confess that I didn't stop to find out which sect or denomination my most recent doorsteppers were, as my immediate instinct was do get rid of them pronto!

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

We hear it at the end of every catholic service don't we. And NOBODY does it. Nobody. I mean nobody. I got a reputation for being difficult when the nice lady who 'leads' home groups came to tell us how to evangelize. I said show me. Cuh. WHAT a party pooper I was!

I know of no clergy who are any good at it. I mean, at ALL. Does anyone else? The church as part of the community DOES work. Just. Barely. Most people who come come by themselves. I did. 'Eugene' did.

Does anybody here evangelize in any narrow sense? Or in ANY sense? Can anyone show me? How to do what we ALL aspirationally affirm in the liturgy?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Of course Christians have an obligation to evangelize. Jesus told his apostles to evangelize.

I'm not sure 'The mission of the Twelve' or Jesus sending the Seventy ahead Him was altogether evangelising in the way we think of it today.

If I knocked someone's door and said I'd come to cast out unclean spirits and raise the dead etc. the police would probably be called.
Knocking someone up to tell them a really cool preacher is coming to town would be a different matter .

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard

You're right. We don't do it. Mainstream Christians don't do it, and in the meantime they watch their churches decline and disappear; and evangelicals have grown increasingly reluctant to do it, and even when they do, their results are often meagre, and their conversions fragile.

Many of us want to argue that there are sensible theological reasons for not engaging in intentional evangelism. Maybe this is true. But in an ever-changing world, this is only going to lead to fewer and fewer Christians, more church closures, and the retreating impact of Christianity in the cultures where we live. If we're resigned to that, fair enough. (We might even believe that this is what God wants.) But perhaps we ought to be honest about it and say so.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

We used to go door-to-door quite a lot when I was involved with the house-church scene, Mudfrog and I've known Pentecostals and conservative evangelical FIEC types who have done the same. Some of these people were quite 'good' at it and had an engaging manner.

I get the impression that it is less common now than it was about 25 or 30 years ago.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does anybody here evangelize in any narrow sense? Or in ANY sense? Can anyone show me? How to do what we ALL aspirationally affirm in the liturgy?

I do, I think... I pray for the spiritual vision to notice opportunities to talk about Jesus, and also the courage to take those opportunities.

I don't door-knock or anything like that, but I am (sometimes...) deliberately open about my faith. I might, for example, tell my workmates about the great talk I heard at Sunday's church service, or I might talk with my neighbour or my family about what I've been learning through my latest theology course assignment.

Really, I think a lot of the time we tie ourselves up in knots unnecessarily. Isn't a huge part of 'evangelism' just being open and real about our faith and what Jesus means to us?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Does anybody here evangelize in any narrow sense? Or in ANY sense? Can anyone show me? How to do what we ALL aspirationally affirm in the liturgy?

One ministry colleague recently drew a useful distinction between implicit and explicit evangelism. In implicit evangelism the church does its "salt and light" bit in the name of Christ, affirming they are christians but not necessarily saying the name of Jesus out loud at every opportunity. I believe the church in general and christians individually gain legitimacy through doing so.

Once you have gained legitimacy, plenty of individual opportunities for explicit evangelism (which I might summarise as "Christ died for our sins") arise.

In my experience many churches that focus solely on "explicit" evangelism do not see themselves as "in but not of" the world.

quote:
I know of no clergy who are any good at it. I mean, at ALL. Does anyone else? The church as part of the community DOES work. Just. Barely. Most people who come come by themselves. I did. 'Eugene' did.

But this is what is referred to in our church (after the person who first formulated it) as the Marie-Jo principle of evangelism: the church preaches the gospel in one place, and God brings people in from somewhere else. If you came to it, I think it means your church was preaching the gospel somewhere.

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

Nice Eutychus. Thank you.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path?
Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?

How many Christians really, deeply and truly believe in hell today, and that non-believers are destined for it? If they are evangelising, is the suggestion that non-Christians will go to hell if they do not 'turn to Christ' going to have any effect at all these days?
If there are those who think I am a sinner, I would be interested to hear how they would justify that!

I'd also ask them to tell me where this hell they think I'm headed for is.

[ 28. April 2014, 09:41: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How many Christians really, deeply and truly believe in hell today, and that non-believers are destined for it? If they are evangelising, is the suggestion that non-Christians will go to hell if they do not 'turn to Christ' going to have any effect at all these days?
If there are those who think I am a sinner, I would be interested to hear how they would justify that!

I'd also ask them to tell me where this hell they think I'm headed for is.

It's not so much about their judging you as a sinner or their view of hell, as about their letting you know that sin creates a barrier between you and God from your side. That might encourage you to look to your own failings and accept God's offer of relationship as extended through Christ.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not so much about their judging you as a sinner or their view of hell, as about their letting you know that sin creates a barrier between you and God from your side. That might encourage you to look to your own failings and accept God's offer of relationship as extended through Christ.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I am well aware of my failings, but as an atheist I take full responsibility for them myself. May I ask what you think I might have done which counts as a 'sin', rather than a really daft decision, or a stupid mistake?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Imagine these possible scenarios:

1. A Jewish adult converts to Christianity and is baptized at your church. All of his/her Jewish friends and family disown him/her.

2. Same as 1., but his/her Jewish friends and family continue to associate with him/her, while remaining deeply sad.

3. Same as 1., but some of his/her Jewish friends and family support him/her, but some of the closest people in his/her life disassociate themselves from him/her.

If the convert is genuinely happy, I can't say his/her conversion is a bad thing, but should Christians try to make such conversions happen? If such a person comes to church asking to learn about converting, how enthusiastic should Christians be in response? What if the last remaining Jewish person in an ancient Jewish community converts? If you think Judaism is a special case, substitute Islam or any other religion. What if the last member of a tribal society to refuse to convert to a Western religion converts?

Does Christianity have any obligation to protect other religions from itself? Other religions may not grant Christianity the same treatment, but does that matter? I find it wrong, for example, that some Muslims see harmonious coexistence with Christians, especially in Muslim countries, as only possible if Muslim conversions to Christianity do not occur and are not encouraged. But I feel that the loss of any religious tradition from the world is something to mourn and perhaps something to work against - but in a way that respects everyone's freedom of conscience and freedom to practice the faith of their choosing.

I also think that it's not really possible for any non-Christian to convert to Christianity, even if they retain much of their native culture, without losing some very vital aspects of the culture or worldview of their previous religious background. This worries me, although I am not sure what to do about it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by jacobsen:
That is still not our business. The only salvation which concerns me is my own, and that, given the Eternal's infinite stubbornness, will probably happen, even if, as C.S.Lewis described his own experience, I am dragged reluctantly (kicking and screaming?) into the Christian camp.

Really?

Do you think Jesus and the apostles were only concerned with their own salvation?

quote:
originally posted by rolyn:
I'm not sure 'The mission of the Twelve' or Jesus sending the Seventy ahead Him was altogether evangelising in the way we think of it today.

If I knocked someone's door and said I'd come to cast out unclean spirits and raise the dead etc. the police would probably be called.
Knocking someone up to tell them a really cool preacher is coming to town would be a different matter .

Door knockers are door knockers. Perhaps, you find one less annoying. Where do you think these cool preachers did their cool preaching? Read Acts 2. How annoying must Pentecost have been to those in Jerusalem?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path?
Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?
How many Christians really, deeply and truly believe in hell today, and that non-believers are destined for it? If they are evangelising, is the suggestion that non-Christians will go to hell if they do not 'turn to Christ' going to have any effect at all these days?
If there are those who think I am a sinner, I would be interested to hear how they would justify that!

I'd also ask them to tell me where this hell they think I'm headed for is.

Hell?

It's just one of the infinite number of universes some cosmologists tell us must exist.

[Two face]

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

Christianity used to be able to make Christian Jews. Add Christ to Jews. It used to be able to graft Him on to Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians without demanding that they utterly repudiate their cultures. Funnily enough much of those cultures have been brought in to Christianity and made mandatory aspects of it. When it can rediscover that knack it will be able to make Christian Hindus and Christian Muslims and Christian secularists. Until then, the only way it can grow is by breeding and buying the poor.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until then, the only way it can grow is by breeding and buying the poor.

WTF????

We don't buy the poor, thank you very much, nor do any missionaries I know. We ARE the poor.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Christianity used to be able to make Christian Jews. Add Christ to Jews. It used to be able to graft Him on to Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians without demanding that they utterly repudiate their cultures. Funnily enough much of those cultures have been brought in to Christianity and made mandatory aspects of it. When it can rediscover that knack it will be able to make Christian Hindus and Christian Muslims and Christian secularists. Until then, the only way it can grow is by breeding and buying the poor.

Christianity made huge changes to those cultures, and those cultures made huge changes to it.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Sure, Martin's last post was a load of nonsense but it sounded so deep and right on and there is surely something to be said for that. Don't ask me what but something. You shouldn't take it so personally. Lighten up Lamb Chopped. [Big Grin]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

If the convert is genuinely happy, I can't say his/her conversion is a bad thing, but should Christians try to make such conversions happen? If such a person comes to church asking to learn about converting, how enthusiastic should Christians be in response? What if the last remaining Jewish person in an ancient Jewish community converts? If you think Judaism is a special case, substitute Islam or any other religion. What if the last member of a tribal society to refuse to convert to a Western religion converts?

Does Christianity have any obligation to protect other religions from itself?

Becoming a Christian isn't a guarantee of being happy, though. Conversion can be a struggle for some people, either internally or externally. As we know, it can lead to all sorts of complications and even persecution in some contexts. If you're arguing that people should only become Christians if it makes their lives simpler and easier, then the Bible doesn't really help you with that.

OTOH, I do think churches should seriously consider the cultural and social issues connected with evangelism and conversion. In my city there are many districts with a high percentage of Muslims. If churches in those areas want to evanglise locally then they need to become knowledgeable about Islam, consider the implications of conversion for Muslims, and should ensure that the church family can offer decent support to converts or to people who want to explore the faith.

In reality, few churches in these areas are really serious about evangelising Muslims, and some wouldn't even dream of trying. These churches tend to be quite small, and it's hard to see how they'll have a long-term future if they can't share the gospel with the people in the vicinity. But maybe that's just how things have to be.

All things considered, though, British churches don't have to worry about overevangelising any particular group of people; that's a non-issue in our context. (As for Jews, most of them are already marrying out of their own accord, and I don't think it's because they're becoming devout Christians.)

The attempted conversion of small isolated tribes is a rather different issue, IMO. At this stage I think Western evangelists have more than enough work to do in their own countries, and they should leave everyone else alone.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by stonespring:
If such a person comes to church asking to learn about converting, how enthusiastic should Christians be in response? What if the last remaining Jewish person in an ancient Jewish community converts? If you think Judaism is a special case, substitute Islam or any other religion. What if the last member of a tribal society to refuse to convert to a Western religion converts?

I'm OK with all that happening. Again, it comes from believing Jesus is God. I was a pluralist once. Then, not wanting to leave my brain at the door, I thought through the ramifications of what I prayed and claimed to believe.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, Martin's last post was a load of nonsense but it sounded so deep and right on and there is surely something to be said for that. Don't ask me what but something. You shouldn't take it so personally. Lighten up Lamb Chopped.

You try living with these accusations lifelong while simultaneously being shaken down for money you don't even possess. I swear, sometimes I want to live in a cardboard box, the way people judge our occupation and home. And the people who consider evangelism as akin to shooting the last passenger pigeon--Pfehhh. These people have as much of a right to hear the Gospel and act (or not) on it, as we do, and should not be deprived just because we like living cultural museum pieces.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Sure, Martin's last post was a load of nonsense but it sounded so deep and right on and there is surely something to be said for that. Don't ask me what but something. You shouldn't take it so personally. Lighten up Lamb Chopped.
You try living with these accusations lifelong while simultaneously being shaken down for money you don't even possess. I swear, sometimes I want to live in a cardboard box, the way people judge our occupation and home. And the people who consider evangelism as akin to shooting the last passenger pigeon--Pfehhh. These people have as much of a right to hear the Gospel and act (or not) on it, as we do, and should not be deprived just because we like living cultural museum pieces.

I know that arguing about the value of other religions risks sounding like the far-right rhetoric of "whites staying with whites," "blacks staying with blacks," "Christians staying with Christians," "Muslims staying with Muslims," etc. And of course there's a bit of bleeding heart hypocrisy in it, too. If a previously-uncontacted tribe is found in the Amazon, it really isn't for anyone to say if individual members of that tribe are better off living the way they have for centuries or adopting a Western lifestyle (and the mere fact that they have been contacted means that they will be at risk of diseases they are not immune to and all kinds of other dangers of contact that will affect them no matter what kind of life they choose to live). And if the "noble" people who contact them decide to encourage them to remain as "noble savages" (ick) then its very likely that someone else will just move in to exploit them.

I'm not suggesting that Christianity become an ethnically exclusive religion or that people's curiosity and consciences should be discounted if they are interested in Christianity just because they come from some religious background that "deserves protection."

And choosing to take a side on doctrinal issues does involve more intellectual rigor than basically deciding to enjoy the parts of a religious tradition that you like, ignore the parts you don't like, and refuse to call any other religious tradition wrong because it makes you feel uncomfortable. But actually believing in a religion involves making certain assumptions about the world that seem completely arbitrary.

That said, I don't see any reason to assume that all the hypocrites like me would be better off outside of the Churches where we can't cause any harm to religions we don't really believe in anyway.

I don't know what to think when people convert to Christianity. I understand why people celebrate and why Christianity would say that people should celebrate conversions. And, not being raised to practice the religion I was baptized in, I made a decision of sorts to continue with my Christian initiation myself as an adult. But I think it's wrong to think that anyone's conversion to Christianity is purely a good thing. The truth is, only the person undergoing the conversion really knows how good it is or not (and God does too, of course).

I admit to being particularly uncomfortable with the whole issue of Jewish conversion to Christianity. I know that many Churches make a point of avoiding explicit evangelism to Jews but I'm even concerned about how even conversion to Christianity that is completely initiated by the convert is seen as more catastrophic by traditional Judaism than just about any other religion. Christianity and Judaism have an inherently competitive nature when it comes to the Jewish people and I have no idea what doctrinal explanation can resolve it. If any religion deserves to be protected from Christianity, it is Judaism. But if a Jewish person wants to convert, it is wrong to prevent them from doing so. I just find the whole situation even more morally conflicting than others.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, you don't want any religion to disappear but you have no problem with vastly changing Christianity by removing all the elements that make you uncomfortable? Removing all the elements that make you uncomfortable would either destroy Christianity or create another religion. Hypocrites harm Christianity, remain silent, or leave.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

I don't know what to think when people convert to Christianity. I understand why people celebrate and why Christianity would say that people should celebrate conversions. And, not being raised to practice the religion I was baptized in, I made a decision of sorts to continue with my Christian initiation myself as an adult. But I think it's wrong to think that anyone's conversion to Christianity is purely a good thing. The truth is, only the person undergoing the conversion really knows how good it is or not (and God does too, of course).

Well, obviously, only God can say who is acceptable in his sight, and only He knows which conversions are 'authentic' or not. But I think it would be hypocritical to be routinely hesitant about someone else's conversion if we expect others to accept us as 'true' Christians! (If we have experience of false conversions I suppose some reticence would be understandable.)

quote:

I admit to being particularly uncomfortable with the whole issue of Jewish conversion to Christianity. I know that many Churches make a point of avoiding explicit evangelism to Jews but I'm even concerned about how even conversion to Christianity that is completely initiated by the convert is seen as more catastrophic by traditional Judaism than just about any other religion. Christianity and Judaism have an inherently competitive nature when it comes to the Jewish people and I have no idea what doctrinal explanation can resolve it. If any religion deserves to be protected from Christianity, it is Judaism. But if a Jewish person wants to convert, it is wrong to prevent them from doing so. I just find the whole situation even more morally conflicting than others.

I can see where you're coming from in terms of wanting to protect Jews from the savagery of Christians. But OTOH it was surely a bit of a waste of time Jesus being born a Jew if the Jews were the least in need of him!

Interestingly, I understand that the number of Orthodox Jews has actually risen in recent years, They're more fertile then other Jews, and much more likely to practice their religion. I presume that they would be the least likely of all Jews to convert, so they're not the ones you need to worry about. It would be interesting to know what kinds of Jews are most likely to convert to Christianity (as opposed to simply becoming secular, or marrying out).

[ 28. April 2014, 22:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Until then, the only way it can grow is by breeding and buying the poor.
WTF????

We don't buy the poor, thank you very much, nor do any missionaries I know. We ARE the poor.

The poor certainly get bombarded with more evangelism than the rich do. Why?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

How are the poor bombarded with evangelism?

What would bombarding the rich with evangelism look like?

If the gospel is good news to the poor, shouldn't you want them to hear it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The poor certainly get bombarded with more evangelism than the rich do. Why?

The rich have gates.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

My post is not intended to mock those who minister to the poor, but to mock the rich who hide from the world.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

It seems to me that it's the Jews (non-Christian variety) you need to be asking why they think Christianity is different from all other religions in invalidating a convert's Jewish identity. I know Christian Jews who would vehemently disagree with this. The position, on the face of it, is illogical.

As for the rich being bombarded with anything, never mind evangelism--the rich have the wherewithal to protect themselves from basically any human "bombardment," whether that is in favor of Christ or something like basic sanitation. Consider Howard Hughes, who might have fared better as a poor man.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The poor certainly get bombarded with more evangelism than the rich do. Why?

Because they are available? A rich non-believer can easily choose to avoid any form of religious proselytization if he chooses. The poor are more likely to need or want charitable services, and put up with a bit of preaching to get it.

Plus, of course, there are more poor people than rich people, and they tend to be more clumped together, so it's quicker and easier to target a larger number of people.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The poor certainly get bombarded with more evangelism than the rich do. Why?

Is this true? Perhaps in terms of door knocking activities - I'd imagine the rich have better security - but Holy Trinity Brompton, Redeemer Presbyterian in New York - these are big evangelistic places that mostly reach out to the rich.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You might also consider that if this is true (that Christianity targets the poor), it is something to be proud of--the proverb around our metro area among the Vietnamese is "The Buddhists get the rich, and the Christians get the poor," meaning that the Buddhist temple here will only bother with you if you look profitable in terms of membership fees and the like. The Christians, by contrast, are such chumps that they will take just ANYBODY, and will spend far more on you than they are ever likely to see back in the offering plate. Plus they don't require any loyalty action (baptism, membership) before they will help you, and will keep on helping you even if you refuse to join them. Fools!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

The poorest people in any country seem not to be the most religious, from what I've read. This is presumably because they focus as much of their energy as possible on just surviving.

Some evangelists do focus on the rich. In the past, wasn't one strategy to convert the king or the chief, which would then lead to the conversion of his people? Today, I think some evangelists feel that by focusing on the chattering classes, i.e. middle class professionals, they're targeting the people who are the most likely to influence everyone else.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Sorry, I was thinking more of Christian 'aid' charities that are really Christian 'aid and evangelism' charities (NOT Christian Aid by the way!). That seems to be taking advantage of people's suffering in order to tell them to turn or burn*.

*I know not all evangelism is of the turn or burn type, but the kind used by these groups usually is.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

Does Christianity have any obligation to protect other religions from itself? Other religions may not grant Christianity the same treatment, but does that matter? I find it wrong, for example, that some Muslims see harmonious coexistence with Christians, especially in Muslim countries, as only possible if Muslim conversions to Christianity do not occur and are not encouraged. But I feel that the loss of any religious tradition from the world is something to mourn and perhaps something to work against - but in a way that respects everyone's freedom of conscience and freedom to practice the faith of their choosing.

I also think that it's not really possible for any non-Christian to convert to Christianity, even if they retain much of their native culture, without losing some very vital aspects of the culture or worldview of their previous religious background. This worries me, although I am not sure what to do about it.

There is an obligation to tell all people everywhere the good news about Jesus Christ. Every culture has absorbed Christianity into itself, it's not a matter of being 'Westernised' or trying to lose their tradition, rather to invite God to remould it through Christ, as with ourselves as individuals.

We in Britain retained the existing culture, as some are happy to remind us at our festivals when we bring out the holly and the ivy and Easter eggs.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I am well aware of my failings, but as an atheist I take full responsibility for them myself. May I ask what you think I might have done which counts as a 'sin', rather than a really daft decision, or a stupid mistake?

As you may be aware having been around on the board for some time, the nature of sin is a topic of its own that would need a new thread. Those open to the concept of a perfect God may find themselves recognising their failings in that light and wanting to turn their lives in a new direction.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It seems to me that it's the Jews (non-Christian variety) you need to be asking why they think Christianity is different from all other religions in invalidating a convert's Jewish identity. I know Christian Jews who would vehemently disagree with this. The position, on the face of it, is illogical.

The many Jews I know (with whom I interact on a daily basis) would, almost all of them, give the same basic answer to the question: No other religion has been responsible for so much harm to the Jewish people; and no other religion (including Islam) has set itself up as the explicit negation of what is "Judaism" for the vast majority of Jews.

As one of my colleagues bluntly explained to me, a Jew who converts to Christianity spits on the memory of his ancestors who stayed faithful to Torah in the face of horrific suffering at the hands of Christians, including Christians who were motivated by THIS THEOLOGICAL "GEM".

I know that this response will be rejected on the grounds that "Christians" who persecuted Jews weren't "real" Christians after all. But most Jews find "no true Scotsman" arguments deeply unpersuasive. Someone posted "by their fruits shall you know them" with reference to Islam in another thread -- ironically, Jews apply these words of Jesus to Christianity, and they generally find the tree to be wanting.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Of course, Christianity stands in stark contrast to Judaism. It also stands to reason that Jews and Christians have had an acrimonious relationship in the past. However, many European anti-Semitism were cultural Christians at best. How some Christians treated Jews in the past has no bearing on the truth claims of Christianity. On the other hand, how Christians have treated Jews does make it less likely that Jews will convert to Christianity. Christians spent centuries digging themselves that hole. It will take centuries to dig out. I wonder how much longer Judaism will exist. Jewish identity will likely last longer than the actual religion.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

So if it is ok as a Christian to do a Hindu religious ritual (ie, an act of worship of an idol) as an educational activity in a university class, is it also ok to go to a service in a Hindu temple and join in the chants and prayers, but only with the intent of learning about the religion and with no intent of giving up on Christianity (pretend this is a small-o orthodox Christian doing so and not heretical little me)? In such a case, would it be ok to offer this experience in prayer to the Triune God, even if the whole ritual has nothing to do with Christianity?

Then there's Yoga, Eastern Religious Meditation, and Reiki, which many evangelicals and documents from the RCC have condemned as too entwined with belief in a non-Christian religion for Christians to participate in. I'm not sure if the RCC condemns yoga as exercise outright but it has certainly told people to not adopt meditation practices from eastern religions (I think they're ok with a purely secular psychological form of meditation, and of course they're ok with Christian contemplative prayer). Can Christians participate in these things? Can they become teachers of these things and practice them for a living, even if that means receiving some kind of non-Christian spiritual initiation?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Who said performing a religious ritual in a university classroom is OK? Playing at other people's religions is disrespectful and serves no real educational purpose. Show a video of the ritual being performed. Invite a practitioner of that religion to walk your class through it if they are amenable to it.

Same goes for Christians trying to do Passover meals on Maundy Thursday. We have a perfectly good liturgy for Maundy Thursday. We aren't Jews. My wife's church decided to do a Sedar meal on Maundy Thursday and insisted it was their tradition. It being her first year she agreed to do it but only if the local rabbi would come and lead it. He graciously agreed. Once there, he asked when we would be stripping the altar. Funny how the rabbi knew the meaning of Maundy Thursday but the Christians did not. As a matter of fact, the rabbi asked because he was going to offer to read Psalm 22 as the altar was being stripped. Now, if I were a Jew, I'd have problems with my rabbi doing that.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I wonder how much longer Judaism will exist. Jewish identity will likely last longer than the actual religion.

As I said above, though, studies suggest that Orthodox Jews are increasing at a faster rate than other Jews. According to Eric Kaufmann's book, by 2050 ultra-Othodox Jews will be the majority in Israel, whereas they were once a tiny minority there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth-by-eric-kaufmann-1939316. html

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some evangelists do focus on the rich. In the past, wasn't one strategy to convert the king or the chief, which would then lead to the conversion of his people?

To try to put a bit more nuance on this--

The strategy is still used today, but not because of money, rather because so many cultures are more communally based than those of the West. For example, in our own service, if a teenager happens to come to our church in some way, pretty much the first thing we'll do is make friendly overtures to the father/mother and any grandparents. If we did not, we would be accused of child-stealing and ignoring proper lines of authority. But once the parents have a chance to meet and investigate us, they generally decide we are not child-corrupters (!) and often begin attending themselves.

There are those who have no problem with simply converting the child (or trying to). Unfortunately, this leads to often-unnecessary conflict in the family, and puts the child in a bad spot, caught between his new faith and his folks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It seems to me that it's the Jews (non-Christian variety) you need to be asking why they think Christianity is different from all other religions in invalidating a convert's Jewish identity. I know Christian Jews who would vehemently disagree with this. The position, on the face of it, is illogical.
The many Jews I know (with whom I interact on a daily basis) would, almost all of them, give the same basic answer to the question: No other religion has been responsible for so much harm to the Jewish people; and no other religion (including Islam) has set itself up as the explicit negation of what is "Judaism" for the vast majority of Jews.

As one of my colleagues bluntly explained to me, a Jew who converts to Christianity spits on the memory of his ancestors who stayed faithful to Torah in the face of horrific suffering at the hands of Christians, including Christians who were motivated by THIS THEOLOGICAL "GEM".

I know that this response will be rejected on the grounds that "Christians" who persecuted Jews weren't "real" Christians after all. But most Jews find "no true Scotsman" arguments deeply unpersuasive. Someone posted "by their fruits shall you know them" with reference to Islam in another thread -- ironically, Jews apply these words of Jesus to Christianity, and they generally find the tree to be wanting.

How do you "know" I will reject this response? It seems to me the most accurately damning judgement of Christian conduct over the centuries. Communal PTSD, if I may call it that, is a very understandable reason for not wanting to be within miles of people who resemble the persecutors. In my opinion, this is the worst sin Christians have committed against Jews, to behave in such a way that the chances of the Jews ever really hearing the Gospel effectively are lessened. Bad enough to persecute, and even worse to leave this stumbling block behind. Some of my own ancestors could say the same....

As for Luther, yes, of course he gets trotted out on all occasions. But the man was clearly ill and disappointed as well as angry when he wrote that, and no Lutheran I know does anything but repudiate it. For a more balanced look at the subject by Luther, try the earlier work That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Some evangelists do focus on the rich. In the past, wasn't one strategy to convert the king or the chief, which would then lead to the conversion of his people?
To try to put a bit more nuance on this--

The strategy is still used today, but not because of money, rather because so many cultures are more communally based than those of the West. For example, in our own service, if a teenager happens to come to our church in some way, pretty much the first thing we'll do is make friendly overtures to the father/mother and any grandparents. If we did not, we would be accused of child-stealing and ignoring proper lines of authority. But once the parents have a chance to meet and investigate us, they generally decide we are not child-corrupters (!) and often begin attending themselves.

There are those who have no problem with simply converting the child (or trying to). Unfortunately, this leads to often-unnecessary conflict in the family, and puts the child in a bad spot, caught between his new faith and his folks.

This highlights the importance of cultural awareness, doesn't it?

I don't know about the religious backgrounds of your Vietnamese families, but I know of a Baptist church who's youth work often involves local Muslim children of Yemeni origin. The parents are happy for their children to participate, even though the minister is open about the church's evangelism. I'm very impressed at what this church has achieved, but I still think it would be challenging for all concerned if any of those young people eventually decided to become Christians. Conversion from Islam to Christianity seems to be an especially problematic issue. (Actually, in the UK I think we're more likely to hear about converts moving the other way.)

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

No doubt it would. But at least the church can't be accused of going behind their backs.

Whenever I think about mission to Muslims, I am thankful for an easier field of service. [Votive]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
How are the poor bombarded with evangelism?

What would bombarding the rich with evangelism look like?

If the gospel is good news to the poor, shouldn't you want them to hear it?

In my town, one of the soup kitchens requires those showing up to be fed to first listen to some evangelizing. One of the shelters requires that those seeking a bed for the night do likewise. As shelter beds and no-charge dinners are thin on the ground, the hungry and homeless generally have little choice but to listen. Not exactly bombardment, but still . . .

As to evangelizing in general, the situation in the first century was just a wee bit different than what's happening today.

The gospel was actually "news," (whether regarded as good or not) at that point. 2,000 years on, and now a religion with global distribution, it's not really news any more. Most of those posting on these boards live in places where Christianity, far from being an upstart new little movement, is the majority stance, at least nominally, for vast swathes of the population.

Anybody really interested in learning more about and/or embracing this faith tradition has plenty of opportunity to do so (apart, of course, from places where Christianity is actually outlawed -- but who posting on this thread is so situated?)

Of course, we can and do argue amongst ourselves about the particular "brands," with denoms competing with each other for converts. And frankly, that's not pretty.

Beyond all that, though, I seem to recall some advice -- was it from Jesus or from Paul? -- in the New Testament about finding oneself evangelizing to people who Just Weren't Interested: something about shaking the dust of that place from one's sandals.

TBH, I wish more of the evangelizers (where I live, it's Mormons and JWs) would take this advice to heart.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
How do you "know" I will reject this response?

I wasn't referring exclusively to you, but to my general expectation. Still, my statement was poorly-expressed: it should indeed have been, "I anticipate/expect...." I based my anticipation/expectation on two things: 1) The way you had phrased your challenge to Jews about Christianity didn't reflect much understanding of the fraught historical situation--the way you put your challenge didn't suggest to me that you had ever considered the answer I gave; 2) related to that, I've had a lot of unpleasant experience with Christians not "getting it" when the kind of question you asked is given the answer I provided; so, I do tend to expect the worst.

quote:
It seems to me the most accurately damning judgement of Christian conduct over the centuries. Communal PTSD, if I may call it that, is a very understandable reason for not wanting to be within miles of people who resemble the persecutors.

Okay. So you do "get it". Good. Really, it is that simple. For 2000 years, Christians have been a terrible "advertisement" for Christianity in relation to the Jewish people.

quote:
As for Luther, yes, of course he gets trotted out on all occasions. But the man was clearly ill and disappointed as well as angry when he wrote that, and no Lutheran I know does anything but repudiate it. For a more balanced look at the subject by Luther, try the earlier work That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.

I'm aware of the earlier work. But that doesn't cancel out the latter work, and no amount of explanation or excusing can make it cease to exist. What does it say about Luther's Christianity that, when he was "ill and disappointed as well as angry," he produced such a vile attack on Jews and Judaism? And this work did have consequences--not least at all being the Nazi German use of the tract to encourage Lutheran participation in the Holocaust. The point I was making is that such poisonous anti-Judaism exists throughout Christianity, so that even someone I admire as much as Luther (*) could end up being involved in it. I could just as easily have cited other Christian "heroes" who also expressed repulsive anti-Jewish views: John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine ... to name three.

That's what I was getting at--I "trotted out" On the Jews and Their Lies because I knew I was addressing a Lutheran--to make precisely the point you have now grasped about why Jews have such specific antipathy toward Christianity. Luther is part of what you quite aptly term the "communal PTSD" of the Jewish people.

I should note, however, that it isn't just a matter of "communal PTSD." Traditional Jewish antipathy toward Christianity is a lot like the Christian antipathy toward Islam that has been expressed in the related thread about other religions being wrong. For Jews who take their religion seriously, there is no other religion (including Islam) that represents such a fundamental challenge to what Judaism defines as Truth. To take a phrase from Mudfrog, for traditional Jews, Christianity is the most damnable heresy there is. For traditional Jews, just about every major doctrinal claim of Christianity is fundamentally false. So, for a Jew to become a Christian, from this perspective, really does mean that he/she ceases to be a Jew in everything but the crudest "biological" sense. He/She dies as a Jew so long as he/she remains a Christian.

To get a "feel" for this traditional perspective, I recommend checking out, "Jews for Judaism". As the name indicates, this organization started to counter "Jews for Jesus."

(*) Recall my favorable references to The Bondage of the Will.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

A P.S. to my last post....

This "news item" from the "Jews for Judaism" site should be of particular interest to you, Lamb Chopped.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Dubious Thomas, that was not a new insight for me. Part of my family is both Jewish and non-Christian. I love them dearly.

As for the article you linked to, yes, I know both Kevin and Steve, and Kevin is a dear friend. He would be very much grieved to hear that you or anybody considered him no longer a Jew because of his Christian faith. Though I have no doubt he has been told so many times, including by members of his own family!

Much as I regret and disavow the evil Christians have done to Jews in Christ's name, I cannot help but believe that we are doing them an even greater evil by refusing to share the Gospel. Kevin, a Jew born and bred, will agree with that--and is living sacrificially for the sake of his own people, particularly those who disavow him. That's not an easy life, as I know to my own cost.

As for Luther--you seem to think I should be defending him. Why? It was a massive fuckup. We all admit it. Luther is not canonical, nor was he inspired or inerrant. if I had a time machine, that is the first piece of literature I'd wipe out. If I may venture the comparison, this was his horrendous sin in much the same way that adultery and murder was David's. What does it say, you ask? It says that Luther was a damn-worthy sinner just as we all are, and there but for the grace of God go I. I'll count myself blessed if I avoid such a dreadful sin of my own to life's end.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
a Hindu religious ritual (ie, an act of worship of an idol

A murti is no more an 'idol' to Hindus than the blessed Sacrament is to Christians.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
a Hindu religious ritual (ie, an act of worship of an idol
A murti is no more an 'idol' to Hindus than the blessed Sacrament is to Christians.

By this, do you mean that the iconic or aniconic image of the divine to which puja is being offered is ok to worship because it is itself divine, only under a material form? Do you think that Hinduism (even in its Brahminist intellectualized form that most poor Hindus do not know or care about) teaches that worship of material things (and not divinity under material forms) is evil? The blessed sacrament in RC-ism is divine (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity) and it is adored (and adoration is worship). In the case of the puja in the course I was taking the object the puja was offered to was a coconut representing a female divinity - I forget if it was a general feminine "shakti" or if it was Kali (the course was on Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka). How is this not an idol?

And honestly, the reason that worshipping Jesus' Body, whether in Its Sacramental form or if we were around before His Ascension to worship Him, is not Idolatry is basically just because the Church says so. And that's also why eating His Body and drinking His Blood in Sacramental form is not Cannibalism and Vampirism. I would like receiving Communion even more if the Church just went out and said that we're a bunch of idolatrous cannibals and vampires celebrating human sacrifice.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path? Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?

Obviously the former, and so even if it only meant an increased chance of going to hell. It really is a question that answers itself. Penn Jillette, an atheist, gets it. And if you have the patience for the slightly longer version, then there is a good example for how this can work in the backstory.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Going back to the original post: I assume many, if not all, of those who call themselves "Christian" do believe in Hell in one sense or another. That leaves me with two questions:

(a) Suppose I observe another person who appears to me to be headed for Hell. Should I try to help that person avoid that fate?

(b) If so, what can I do?

I think many people on the Ship would agree that the answer to the first question is "Yes." I don't notice many answers to the second question except "evangelize". Other then evangelism, what can we do?

I believe this has actually been addressed in the New Testament. People have a variety of talents, some to preach, some to teach, some to comfort, some to cook dinner, some to serve as examples, etc. If there is a Christian obligation here, it is to use our talents of whatever sort.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Going back to the original post: I assume many, if not all, of those who call themselves "Christian" do believe in Hell in one sense or another.

I doubt whether many Christians still believe in Hell.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
a Hindu religious ritual (ie, an act of worship of an idol
A murti is no more an 'idol' to Hindus than the blessed Sacrament is to Christians.
By this, do you mean that the iconic or aniconic image of the divine to which puja is being offered is ok to worship because it is itself divine, only under a material form? Do you think that Hinduism (even in its Brahminist intellectualized form that most poor Hindus do not know or care about) teaches that worship of material things (and not divinity under material forms) is evil? The blessed sacrament in RC-ism is divine (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity) and it is adored (and adoration is worship). In the case of the puja in the course I was taking the object the puja was offered to was a coconut representing a female divinity - I forget if it was a general feminine "shakti" or if it was Kali (the course was on Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka). How is this not an idol?

And honestly, the reason that worshipping Jesus' Body, whether in Its Sacramental form or if we were around before His Ascension to worship Him, is not Idolatry is basically just because the Church says so. And that's also why eating His Body and drinking His Blood in Sacramental form is not Cannibalism and Vampirism. I would like receiving Communion even more if the Church just went out and said that we're a bunch of idolatrous cannibals and vampires celebrating human sacrifice.

The presence of God is called down into the murti in a similar way to the presence of Christ being called down into the eucharistic elements.

Hindus do not believe they are worshiping 'idols' and i think it is disrespectful to accuse them of doing so.

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It's not so much about their judging you as a sinner or their view of hell, as about their letting you know that sin creates a barrier between you and God from your side. That might encourage you to look to your own failings and accept God's offer of relationship as extended through Christ.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes, I am well aware of my failings, but as an atheist I take full responsibility for them myself. May I ask what you think I might have done which counts as a 'sin', rather than a really daft decision, or a stupid mistake?

Quite a lot of 'sin' could otherwise be described as a 'daft decision' or 'stupid mistake'. This is sometimes described as venial sin. Mortal sin, to put it at it's simplest, is to do something that you know well to be wrong but to do it anyway. This, obviously, is regarded as being rather more serious.

Generally speaking in the scheme of things Christians regard all human beings (with the exception of Jesus and, possibly, Mary) as sinners. When I conduct funerals I use a form of commendation which describes the deceased as 'a sinner of your own redeeming'. This isn't to say that I regard the departed as being particularly bad as an individual, more to say that collectively, as human beings, we have rather snarled things up and that we believe that God, acting through Jesus has, hopefully, unsnarled us. For Christians 'sinner' and 'sin' is as much an ontological category as it is a moral one.

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

Lamb Chopped. I'm sorry again. God bless you.

[ 30. April 2014, 21:03: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
a Hindu religious ritual (ie, an act of worship of an idol
A murti is no more an 'idol' to Hindus than the blessed Sacrament is to Christians.
By this, do you mean that the iconic or aniconic image of the divine to which puja is being offered is ok to worship because it is itself divine, only under a material form? Do you think that Hinduism (even in its Brahminist intellectualized form that most poor Hindus do not know or care about) teaches that worship of material things (and not divinity under material forms) is evil? The blessed sacrament in RC-ism is divine (Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity) and it is adored (and adoration is worship). In the case of the puja in the course I was taking the object the puja was offered to was a coconut representing a female divinity - I forget if it was a general feminine "shakti" or if it was Kali (the course was on Tamil Hindus in Sri Lanka). How is this not an idol?

And honestly, the reason that worshipping Jesus' Body, whether in Its Sacramental form or if we were around before His Ascension to worship Him, is not Idolatry is basically just because the Church says so. And that's also why eating His Body and drinking His Blood in Sacramental form is not Cannibalism and Vampirism. I would like receiving Communion even more if the Church just went out and said that we're a bunch of idolatrous cannibals and vampires celebrating human sacrifice.
The presence of God is called down into the murti in a similar way to the presence of Christ being called down into the eucharistic elements.

Hindus do not believe they are worshiping 'idols' and i think it is disrespectful to accuse them of doing so.

Ok. I won't call them idols and I apologize for doing so. But what exactly is an idol? Outside of Judaism and Christianity, is it a bad thing?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Thanks, Martin. It probably did me good, I needed a rant.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do Christians who believe in Hell have an obligation to assist the non-believers and those Christians they believe to be following the wrong path? Or can they merrily watch the benighted lie down on the conveyor to the Eternal Crematorium?
Obviously the former, and so even if it only meant an increased chance of going to hell. It really is a question that answers itself.

So then, how does one proceed?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok. I won't call them idols and I apologize for doing so. But what exactly is an idol? Outside of Judaism and Christianity, is it a bad thing?

See my comments on What is Idolatry? by Roger Hooker

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

Most gracious Lamb Chopped. Again. My broad brush swipe is ALWAYS against Christendom. I should always ... try and be FOR something eh? For the kind of selfless example you live. For the relational good news, which is all about redemption of life now, from the hell of life now, turning from burning now, not from psychotic fantasies.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok. I won't call them idols and I apologize for doing so. But what exactly is an idol? Outside of Judaism and Christianity, is it a bad thing?
See my comments on What is Idolatry? by Roger Hooker

Your post seems to be about why murtis are not idols in the Christian definition of the term, which you take to mean an object that is the God that is worshipped, and where an idol is a bad thing. I am referring to a more general definition of "idol" such as this on dictionary.com:

an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.

By this definition, the RC blessed sacrament is an idol unless you go all-out Thomas Aquinas in explaining why it's not. (I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that the Blessed Sacrament is God and that I can worship It and pray to It).

My concern was misphrased. I am not concerned that a murti is an idol. I am concerned that it is a non-Christian idol. I'm wondering where the line should be drawn in terms of what is sinful:

1. A Christian attending non-Christian worship.
2. A Christian reciting non-Christian prayers, where the name of a non-Christian deity, possibly on deity among many, is prayed to. (The Christian may believe that he/she is in fact praying to the one true triune God).
3. A Christian offers worship to (or through, if you prefer) a non-Christian image of a deity. (Again, the Christian may think that she/he is in fact worshipping the one true triune God.)

Are any of these three things sinful? Always or only sometimes? How?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't think any of those 3 are sinful and I think that anyone is at liberty is to pray in any way that they find helpful and to use any images that they find helpful.

Prayer is a meant to an end (our relationship with God) not the end in itself.

The 'idolatry' comes in we we make these things ends in themselves and I am particularly wary when Christians make idols drawn from a capitalist world view or a fundamentalist reading of the bible and use them to oppress others who see things differently.

Anyone who thinks they've 'arrived' haven't.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Having seen the London production of Book of Mormon this week, my perception of evangelism is further changed to!the negative.

I think sometimes the right thing is Not to. Better might be to live the Christian life and model that. Caricatures of belief and versions of the story learned as a child, are very difficult to have reasoned discussions about. CS Lewis said something about this, and while I don't go with all of his ideas, he's right about not arguing or talking to resistance. Further, faith is more than story, it involves additional ways of knowing than some exchange of dialogue.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I believe number 2 and 3 because scripture is clear about worshipping idols and gods other than God.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
My broad brush swipe is ALWAYS against Christendom. I should always ... try and be FOR something eh? For the kind of selfless example you live. For the relational good news, which is all about redemption of life now, from the hell of life now, turning from burning now, not from psychotic fantasies.

Thanks Martin. You know, poor battered Christendom has had a helluva lot to suffer from our own sins within as well as from attacks from without. Just maybe, you might want to consider turning your energy to building up some of the many, many, MANY obvious weak spots? Or at least use a narrower brush when you attack, so you get only the bad spot you're after. Just a thought.

[ 02. May 2014, 16:49: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I'm wondering where the line should be drawn in terms of what is sinful:

1. A Christian attending non-Christian worship.
2. A Christian reciting non-Christian prayers, where the name of a non-Christian deity, possibly on deity among many, is prayed to. (The Christian may believe that he/she is in fact praying to the one true triune God).
3. A Christian offers worship to (or through, if you prefer) a non-Christian image of a deity. (Again, the Christian may think that she/he is in fact worshipping the one true triune God.)

Are any of these three things sinful? Always or only sometimes? How?

Just for grins, and I'm probably going to regret it...

"It depends" (boo, hiss, yeah, I know) on the following:

First, How is the Lord likely to feel about what I'm doing? I mean, he's a person, he has feelings and attitudes that are not the same as mine, and he's the one that matters here. I tend to stay well away from the possible idolatry line, just in case I'm drawing it in the wrong place. Just as I stay well away from the possible adultery line, just in case my much-loved husband has a problem with something that I don't myself see as logically troubling. (I can always be wrong.)

Second, how are nonChristian people going to react to what I'm doing? Are the nonbelievers around me going to be a) offended by what I'm doing (= not a good thing), or b) confused (because I appear to be undermining everything they know about my own faith)? If so, I need to get the hell out of that situation. Nobody likes a spineless wonder, even if the SW is appearing to participate in their worship.

Third, how are Christians going to react to what I'm doing? Am I going to scandalize a (possibly) weaker brother, who sees what I am doing and freaks out? Am I going to influence such a person to do something they are nevertheless convinced is wrong, to do it against conscience, and then wind up in a guilty mess? Not good. Am I going to make life harder for other Christians who abstain from whatever I'm doing on grounds of conscience, and who find the pressure on them increased as a result of my act?

These are the things I think about when I'm walking around the landmines of idolatry. And we've got 'em, every time we attend a wedding or funeral or betrothal in our culture, not to mention assorted other odd times that pop up with no warning.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I believe number 2 and 3 because scripture is clear about worshipping idols and gods other than God.

Since all our images (including mental images) of God fall short of the reality, we all worship idols anyway.

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

A perfectly spot-lit thought Lamb Chopped. Thank you.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I believe number 2 and 3 because scripture is clear about worshipping idols and gods other than God.
Since all our images (including mental images) of God fall short of the reality, we all worship idols anyway.

I was a fan of Levinas once. But, no, we don't worship idols. Idols are three dimensional. Mental images are not. Besides Christianity doesn't suggest worshipping images of God and certainly not those on our head. The only three dimensional figure we are to worship is Jesus. Worship is intentional. Using visual aids to worship is not the same as worship.

Back to Levinas. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe God became human flesh as Jesus Christ giving us a complete image of God. Then God sent the Holy Spirit in part to guide the Church in her understanding of God.

Of course, a 20th century French Jewish philosopher wouldn't believe that. If he did he would be a Christian wouldn't he? Christianity may be correct. It maybe wrong. However, this we are all equally right stuff is just nonsense. If I wanted to leave my brain at the door, I would have stayed a fundamentalist who believed in young earth creationism.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I believe number 2 and 3 because scripture is clear about worshipping idols and gods other than God.
Since all our images (including mental images) of God fall short of the reality, we all worship idols anyway.
I was a fan of Levinas once. But, no, we don't worship idols. Idols are three dimensional. Mental images are not.

I've never read any Levinas.

But why do you exclude mental images of God? These are the most damaging and dangerous.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Because a mental image of God is not an idol. The mental image of God might be a false God. However, I don't know if anybody who literally worship a mental image of God.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I don't know why you fail to understand this.

Maybe you are taking the word 'idol' too literally.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And isn't you, my and everyone elses' mental image of God false?

Or is the classic purgation, illumination etc. false?

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
A perfectly spot-lit thought Lamb Chopped. Thank you.

Seconded, in spades.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And isn't you, my and everyone elses' mental image of God false?

Or is the classic purgation, illumination etc. false?

I don't have a mental image of God apart from Jesus. He's not false. False images of God are those contrary to God revealed to the Church. My understanding of idols is the same one Moses had. Now few people worship idols today. Yes, I've preached sermons about making idols of physical stuff. However, worshipping a graven image is still very much a sin. Didn't think that was controversial.

[ 03. May 2014, 22:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

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

Jesus the whup-ass anti-Commie bastards?

Jesus the starve-the-poor-into-submission?

[ 04. May 2014, 09:23: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

I see no evidence Jesus was concerned one way or the other with a political philosophy that didn't yet exist. Rich and poor alike should submit to Jesus. That's the point. Problem with political Christianity is it's proponents cannot submit to Jesus unless they remain convinced Jesus shared their political opinions. As a result, they'll never make Jesus Lord of their lives until they allow Jesus to change them instead of creating their own Jesus.

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

We worry about 'Eugene' frightening the little old lady brigade. Yesterday I realised the threat is far more real the other way. Eugene scruffily comes, week in, week out and we tolerate him, some give him the time of day, try and behave toward him as if they loved him.

He was talking to one of the LOLB as I passed by to get a coffee (I'd already abandoned him once to go and have a pee). His favourite I reckon. She obviously reminds him of his mother whom he lost among five close family members in recent years. Along with his job. And his will to live.

She - the Mother of All Living - grabbed me by the sleeve as I walked past and said that she was asking Eugene why he came to church. I go in to submarine mode at these moment. Dive! Dive! Go quiet, non-committal. Eugene said that people change. I thought that fascinating. She asked him again why did he come and whether he understood everything he was hearing. So I asked TMOAL why she came. She said that it was to worship Jesus who was her Lord and Saviour by dying for her sins. She smiled beatifically and embraced herself.

I wanted to explore what she meant by worship as we'd just had a sermon on the sheep and goats at the beginning of Christian Aid week and there was Jesus scruffily, brokenly, inarticulately, desperately sitting in front of us.

But I was in submarine mode and needed to get a coffee as a distraction and by the time I got back they'd gone.

I hope he's back next week. And that's just the tip of an iceberg with two more Eugene related incidents in the same day which are even closer to home.

Good news eh?

Yeah, which Jesus? Who is Jesus?

[ 05. May 2014, 11:03: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And isn't you, my and everyone elses' mental image of God false?

Or is the classic purgation, illumination etc. false?
I don't have a mental image of God apart from Jesus. He's not false. False images of God are those contrary to God revealed to the Church. My understanding of idols is the same one Moses had. Now few people worship idols today. Yes, I've preached sermons about making idols of physical stuff. However, worshipping a graven image is still very much a sin. Didn't think that was controversial.

OK - so S. John of the Cross was wrong.

There is no need for us to purge false images of God before illumination and union.

How easy and wide is the path of those who are certain that they are right.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

Next week, if he's back, let Eugene know you're glad to see him returning?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

This RC essay disagrees.

And this.

And the Jesuits.

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

Believe me Gwai, I'll thank him for forgiving us.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And isn't you, my and everyone elses' mental image of God false?

Or is the classic purgation, illumination etc. false?
I don't have a mental image of God apart from Jesus. He's not false. False images of God are those contrary to God revealed to the Church. My understanding of idols is the same one Moses had. Now few people worship idols today. Yes, I've preached sermons about making idols of physical stuff. However, worshipping a graven image is still very much a sin. Didn't think that was controversial.

I've been thinkiong about this, on and off, today.

It seems to me that you are taking the words 'idol' and 'worship' literally.

Worship need not mean 'bowing down'. The origin of the word is something like worth-scipe - that do you give worth to? What is your ultimate concern? a la Tillich. What do you live for?

For many, it is fame, success and money. For others it is 'the family' and/or 'the American way of life'

They are all idols as they are less than Almighty God.

Many idolise pop stars and celebrities. Idolatry is alive and well in Western culture.

And as for God being seen in Jesus - which Jesus do you mean? Don't people make Jesus in their own image and then make the texts of the NT fit in?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok. I won't call them idols and I apologize for doing so. But what exactly is an idol? Outside of Judaism and Christianity, is it a bad thing?
See my comments on What is Idolatry? by Roger Hooker
Your post seems to be about why murtis are not idols in the Christian definition of the term, which you take to mean an object that is the God that is worshipped, and where an idol is a bad thing. I am referring to a more general definition of "idol" such as this on dictionary.com:

an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.

By this definition, the RC blessed sacrament is an idol unless you go all-out Thomas Aquinas in explaining why it's not. (I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that the Blessed Sacrament is God and that I can worship It and pray to It).

Been thinking about this.
If Christians will not 'worship a murti' because it isn't they tradition, what about the blessed sacrament?

As in the reserved sacrament consecrated by a woman priest for someone in FiF?

By an Anglican for an RC?

By an episcopi vagantes from a mainstream Christian?

To what extent to we enter in and respect another person's faith and to what extend to we not?

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This RC essay disagrees.

And this.

And the Jesuits.

I said false images of God are contrary to those revealed to the Church. Of course they should be removed. Could you show me where John of the Cross suggests bowing down to graven images of deities foreign to Christianity? How about where Ignatius of Loyola instructs us to offer prayers to non-Christian deity.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Ok. I won't call them idols and I apologize for doing so. But what exactly is an idol? Outside of Judaism and Christianity, is it a bad thing?
See my comments on What is Idolatry? by Roger Hooker
Your post seems to be about why murtis are not idols in the Christian definition of the term, which you take to mean an object that is the God that is worshipped, and where an idol is a bad thing. I am referring to a more general definition of "idol" such as this on dictionary.com:

an image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is addressed.

By this definition, the RC blessed sacrament is an idol unless you go all-out Thomas Aquinas in explaining why it's not. (I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that the Blessed Sacrament is God and that I can worship It and pray to It).
Been thinking about this.
If Christians will not 'worship a murti' because it isn't they tradition, what about the blessed sacrament?

As in the reserved sacrament consecrated by a woman priest for someone in FiF?

By an Anglican for an RC?

By an episcopi vagantes from a mainstream Christian?

To what extent to we enter in and respect another person's faith and to what extend to we not?

If an RC walks into Eucharistic Adoration at, say, a Polish National Catholic Church parish, he or she is absolutely free to participate. And at a PNCC or Eastern Orthodox service, an RC can receive communion if they are in a situation where they cannot reach an RC Mass to receive communion (and if the other jurisdiction allows it, which unfortunately is not the case with Eastern Orthodox services). The issue with the eucharist in the Anglican communion and with female priests (or male priests ordained by female bishops) is that the RCC teaching is said to be that the eucharist in those cases is invalid - ie, it's not the eucharist at all. Now, I don't agree with this, but that's what the standard RC response would be.

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

Wow. That's Christianity eh? What a crock of shit we infest.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

You aren't RCC. So you aren't a part of that shot at all. Does your parish even offer Benediction?

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

What?

No but it just paid for a former drug addict to go on a first aid course.

So yes. They blessed him if that's what you mean. But they didn't perform some exclusive, excluding, esoteric, weird, patriarchal, misogynistic rite over him. No.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Benediction is misogynistic? [Confused]

[ 05. May 2014, 22:43: Message edited by: Beeswax Altar ]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

So, let me get this straight. You were upset that Roman Catholics wouldn't recognize the Anglican sacrament even though you believe Benediction to be a bad thing. In other words, you denigrate a rite that is meaningful to millions of Christians with a litany of nonsense but are upset that a Roman Catholic wouldn't participate if said demonic rite were held at your parish? On the other hand, I'm assuming you wouldn't participate in RCC Benediction either would you?

That doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me.

And Leo would call such behavior rude.

But in any event...

Speaking of Leo. Perhaps you can settle an argument Leo and I were having. Say your parish, not some hate filled Roman parish but your good and right on parish, decided to offer Benediction. A Hindu, who happens to be in attendance, doesn't participate. Leo believes the Hindu is being disrespectful. I disagree. What say you?

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

Any and all inclusive tradition is fine. I LOVE the Nunc Dimittis. I love the format that is at least 1700 years old, I love being INCLUDED in that fellowship of saints, being part of the church with you, with those united in schism and protest.

It's when it continues to be weird, pathetic, legalistic, narrow, exclusive, esoteric, alienating, RUDE ... been there.

Am there as you said. In your excellent company.

Mea culpa.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

How inclusive and respectful is the language you use to describe Benediction? [Killing me]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This RC essay disagrees.

And this.

And the Jesuits.
I said false images of God are contrary to those revealed to the Church. Of course they should be removed. Could you show me where John of the Cross suggests bowing down to graven images of deities foreign to Christianity? How about where Ignatius of Loyola instructs us to offer prayers to non-Christian deity.

You are still failing to understand because you are taking things literally - am talking about mental, not carved images.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Any and all inclusive tradition is fine. I LOVE the Nunc Dimittis. I love the format that is at least 1700 years old, I love being INCLUDED in that fellowship of saints, being part of the church with you, with those united in schism and protest.

It's when it continues to be weird, pathetic, legalistic, narrow, exclusive, esoteric, alienating, RUDE ... been there.

Am there as you said. In your excellent company.

Mea culpa.

I've never understood how anyone could be offended by anothers rites or that they don't recognise your rites. What difference does it make to you? It's like those muslims who say, we recognise your prophet so why don't you recognise ours? Completely bonkers, if you ask me.

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

The rite to exclude?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The rite to exclude?

Any religious claim is exclusive to a lesser or greater degree. Live with it, I say. If one is confident enough in their own faith then it shouldn't particularly bother them what others think of it. Personally I'm not into looking for other peoples acceptance as if my faith somehow depended upon it. Do I care that some Christians might not consider Orthodoxy Christian, for instance? No. Why? Because I think they're wrong. It doesn't bother me nbecause it doesn't change what I believe.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
This RC essay disagrees.

And this.

And the Jesuits.
I said false images of God are contrary to those revealed to the Church. Of course they should be removed. Could you show me where John of the Cross suggests bowing down to graven images of deities foreign to Christianity? How about where Ignatius of Loyola instructs us to offer prayers to non-Christian deity.
You are still failing to understand because you are taking things literally - am talking about mental, not carved images.

Yes, I'm talking about literal idols because the second commandment was talking about literal idols. You now want to claim that the second commandment had nothing to do with literal idols and only meant false mental images of God. You claim that Christians are rude if they don't worship Hindu idols. Fine. You want to appeal to John of the Cross and the Jesuits. Tell me where they say suggest we worship Hindu idols.

This is getting absurd. Jews and Christians throughout history have been killed for refusing to worship the deities of other religions. Turns out according to you, they were just being rude and disrespectful.

There was a time this would have frustrated me. It no longer does. I now find it all quite amusing. [Killing me]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
The rite to exclude?

Roman Catholics have no problem with you participating in Benediction at a Roman Catholic parish. They just don't participate in Anglican benediction. Why do you even care? You are quite dismissive of the whole thing anyway. One should only respect as much tolerance from others as they are willing to extend. Our Lord did say something about doing unto others.

Anglo-Catholics do Benediction. Other Anglicans offer as much derision of the rite as you do of Roman Catholic Benediction. Somehow I'm supposed to believe that it's Benediction that is exclusive and not it's detractors. [Killing me]

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by PorridgThe gospel was actually "news," (whether regarded as good or not) at that point. 2,000 years on, and now a religion with global distribution, it's not really news any more. Most of those posting on these boards live in places where Christianity, far from being an upstart new little movement, is the majority stance, at least nominally, for vast swathes of the population.

This is why.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm talking about literal idols because the second commandment was talking about literal idols.

It seems like you have a very limited, monochrome view of the inspiration of scripture.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Well, I don't invent interpretations of texts that contradict their literal meaning and then pretend my novel interpretation is the one actually taught by the Church. If that's what you mean by a monochrome or whatever you said view of inspiration of scripture, then I will gladly plead guilty as charged. True, I just call it reading for comprehension but a rose by any other name is still as sweet. Applying the Leonine approach to hermeneutics to that last phrase, we can conclude Juliet loves Romeo only because his name is Romeo and would hate him otherwise. It's the view of all the noteworthy Shakespearean scholars. [Yipee]

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

God bless you Beeswax Altar.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

And you too, Martin.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm talking about literal idols because the second commandment was talking about literal idols.
It seems like you have a very limited, monochrome view of the inspiration of scripture.

leo, stonespring's reference to the worship of idols was pretty clearly about graven images of deities which Christianity does not recognize as such. You seem to be either missing the point spectacularly or engaging in sophistry here.

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

And God bless those who exclude me in His name and God and they forgive me for cursing them above.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Jews and Christians throughout history have been killed for refusing to worship the deities

For example Polycarp. The image to which he refused to burn incense to was part of the imperial cult. At root, it was about who is Lord - Jesus or the emperor.

A modern equivalent would be pledging allegiance to the US flag, symbol of US imperialism.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I'm talking about literal idols because the second commandment was talking about literal idols.
It seems like you have a very limited, monochrome view of the inspiration of scripture.
leo, stonespring's reference to the worship of idols was pretty clearly about graven images of deities which Christianity does not recognize as such. You seem to be either missing the point spectacularly or engaging in sophistry here.

He asked about 'an act of worship of an idol ' - idol doesn't just mean graven image. Worship does not just mean bowing.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
You seem to be either missing the point spectacularly or engaging in sophistry here.

Not sophistry.

Christians can get all self-righteous in thinking that their religion is better than others and that they are not syncretists when, all along, they have syncretised Christianity with oppressive politics.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

quote:
originally posted by Leo:
Not sophistry.

Yes sophistry

quote:
Christians can get all self-righteous in thinking that their religion is better than others and that they are not syncretists when, all along, they have syncretised Christianity with oppressive politics.

I do believe my religion is better than others. Again, it comes with believing Jesus is God Incarnate and the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. If I believe God became human, then it stands to reason that I believe all religions that teach otherwise are at best less right.

I agree with you about Christians syncretizing with oppressive politics. Take a look at all the Socialist regimes of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Most of them were oppressive. And yet we still have Christian Socialists. Go figure.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Take a look at all the Socialist regimes of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Most of them were oppressive. And yet we still have Christian Socialists. Go figure.

Can anybody find a single example of any type of government which has not oppressed somebody? Beyond, say, 6th-grade Student Council?

[ 07. May 2014, 19:10: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Take a look at all the Socialist regimes of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Most of them were oppressive. And yet we still have Christian Socialists. Go figure.
Can anybody find a single example of any type of government which has not oppressed somebody? Beyond, say, 6th-grade Student Council?

When I was on my 6th-grade Student Council, we were made the stooges of the administration in having to defend and promote an oppressive dress code to the students. So, no, there is not government that is not oppressive. I'm not an anarchist, minarchist, or libertarian, though, so I think that some forms of government oppression are preferable to having no or hardly any government at all.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0