Thought for the day

Ahh yes, peyote mmmmm.
So Billy, does this mean we won't be having that beer this weekend when I am down ? Not trying to be a dick just kind of standing here with my jaw aslack.

On another related note, who exactly defines sin for the non christian ? This one always puzzled me.

haha... sure we will have a beer, maybe even 2. Just let me know when you arew coming. I'd enjoy that.

Well, I don't understand the assumption by many religious people that those who are uncommitted to a certain (or, in most cases, THEIR) religion means that they are immoral.

America was founded on Christian principles and continues to be heavily influenced by Christianity. Sin is a religious word, and it makes me think of nuns who make Catholic schoolchildren feel bad about themselves. For the most part, I just don't think about sin.

I think about what, to me, seems to be the right thing to do -- the decent and kind thing to do. What was it I read once? "Try good manners."

I was raised hardcore southern baptist and strayed and stayed away upon entering the military service and travelling the world. Being exposed to other cultures and religions just solidified my beliefs that I don't know what I believe. I guess I could be defined as an agnostic and most recently a mild student/researcher of Wicca. So when an assumption is made by proselytizers announcing we are inherently full of sin, I just have to scratch my head.

Or as Loki put it in the movie Dogma:

"Organized religion destroys who we are or who we can be by inhibiting our actions and decisions out of fear of an intangible parent-figure who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says "Do it and I'll fucking spank you!"

-Ghoti

Very thought provoking, Rose (as usual! )

First, good point about sin. The Bible even states that “to him who it is called sin, it is sin” or words to that effect (read: subjective). Some faiths might instead look at the “sin” problem as a progressive path toward enlightenment. As I understand it, Christianity looks at sin as a permeating, ontological state of being whereby no human being can ever achieve God's standard. So, in a manner of speaking, sin is irrelevant because (from a Christian vantage point, anyway) it is resolved through Jesus. Acknowledge (sin, that is), move on, rinse, repeat.

As to your final question, Rose, I think it all boils down to core motivations. Power is intoxicating. History is replete with spiritual despots, and if you ask me, that is what motivates so many to “enter the ministry.” Yay! I get to tell people how to live their lives! LOL, think Nellie Olsen as minister. An important point of distinction, though, is to attribute that type of behavior to the perpetrator, not to the faith. I know it’s hard to separate the people from the faith, but any institution of human beings is going to have its share of bullies and heroes.

I really like Lo's answer to this question but I'll give you mine too. Sin doesn't exist. It's a human invention meant to associate shame with various thoughts or acts as defined by the church. It differs widely based on culture. The more universal question is what defines the moral compass for non-believers? The answer, in my opinion, is just one word... empathy. Will my actions cause harm to someone else?

In response to Billy... I do understand, very well, though in a different way than you do. You see it from your position on the inside. I see it from without. Christianity is based on seeking forgiveness from Christ for sin and being granted admittance to the afterlife as a result. The concept of sin is central to Christian philosphy, and as I said, exists soley to create shame and guilt. In answer to your question...



I'd be prefectly fine with that. I'm not ashamed of my thoughts or actions... even ones that might be shocking to other people. The only things that ever cause me shame are when I cause harm to another person. For those things there are only two people whose opinions or forgiveness matters... mine and the person I harmed. Other people can think whatever they wish. It's none of my concern. The whole idea of someone besides myself being able to absolve me of wrongs I commit doesn't wash with me. Only I am responsible for my actions. I do not seek to pass them off to some other entity for nullification so I act according to the understanding that I must be able to live with myself and be proud of who I am throughout the singular life I was born into.

If Christian philsophy is meaningful to you and gives your life a sense of purpose, more power to you, as long as you don't try and impose it on me. I'm just telling you honestly why I personally could never accept it, and never will.

WOW!!

I never thought one post on something I wrote would create such a stir!

There are many valid arguements and points that have been made here, and to be honest, to attempt to sort through them all and then reply to them all would most likely not work at this point within this particular thread.

My suggestion to those who want to seriously discuss these issues, is to make new threads where we can discuss your points one at a time.

By the way, I work as a paramedic, (and as a pastor part-time for free), and the time I was writing is a very slow time in the day. It should not have been my call to take, but for whatever reason, the crew that was supposed to take it went missing in a Super-Wal-Mart (radio problems), so I was not cheating my boss, or posting when I was supposed to be working... Just so you know, once our shift duties are done for the day, we can do pretty much whatever we want (sleep, watch TV, surf the net, Second Life, ect), as long as we respond to calls in 30-60 seconds.

Thanks and blessings all! My back is feeling somewhat better today, so hopefully no muscle relaxers until bed.

thoughts...

I have thoughts on this topic... I was going to post them earlier... in fact I did, for about 2 seconds and then went back and edited it all with a little smiley.

I have thoughts on this topic. I just hate judgement so I can't bring myself to post them. So, I guess I have unposted thoughts on this subject.

Nevermind, forget I posted anything.

Much love,

Jessica

Jessica - Please speak your mind.

Gosh, you're such a tease.

I love your siggie, Lo. I'm sure we can distill this entire discussion down to the rules we all learned in Kindergarten.

hehe, I couldn't agree more Paolo. Never trust anyone who tries to add bylaws to the golden rule

My observation was based on the idea that it is a Christian's duty to be above reproach in all areas of life (see Titus 2:6-8 for instance), and how it's a rather idealistic directive. And the point is to question why there needs to be a moral arbiter beyond one's own intuition.

You're correct, Paolo, that an average boss wouldn't quibble about minor, unobtrusive (albeit technical) abuse of his company's time or resources, and that's why it's up to each employee to hold up his end of the bargain (keeping in mind that contracts generally have some sort of "you will work as hard as you can for the company" clause) in managing his time dutifully. So why the need for God to be looking over one's shoulder, or giving instructions on how to be a better person?

Help me out here, gene, because I'm not following your logic. While I agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual striving to live up to the highest of moral and social standards, your earlier post seemed unwarranted and accusatory.

To elaborate, what I object to is the all-too-common phenomenon of Christians imposing themselves upon others in an overtly patronizing and parental manner. Your first post, as I read it, presumed to judge Dirk and his character without even attempting to understand the broader context. I almost wish that Dirk would not have provided further explanation, because in so doing, he unwittingly validates -- and maybe even perpetuates -- that kind of behavior.

What I'm getting at is that people need to earn the right to be heard, especially when it comes to a public admonishment. If your concern was about the reputation of Christians being sullied by a Christian posting to this forum during work hours, I think your concern is mis-placed. I would be more concerned, personally, about the resentment others may feel when they witness a legalistic reprimand to such minutiae.

What I find funny about all of this is if you make a statement about a certain moral viewpoint, it will be *less* accepted if you mention that it's a Christian viewpoint. Never mind that's it's just a good idea in general to love your neighbor...if it's in a Bible verse, it must be religious propaganda.

And the gate, of course, swings both ways. You can say that moderation in all things is a good way to live your life. Say it's a Buddhist philosophy, and other religions recoil.

I don't care if you believe in God, Jesus, Buddha, The Earth Goddess, or the Earth is held up by four elephants on a turtles back....or if you *don't*. Your faith is your own business. There are some universal pieces of advice that I think transcend religious dogma:

Be Nice To Others. Work Some, Rest Some, Play Some. Love Life.

Someone's quoted Robert Fulgrum. He was a Christian pastor at one point in his life. His written works are from where I pulled the above universal truths. Should they be invalidated as 'religious propaganda' because they were stated by a Christian pastor? What if they came from a rabbi? An Islamic priest? A practicing Wiccan?

I thought Atlas was holding up the world. When did he get four elephants, that slacker?!

Your point is an especially valid one, Liona. I think one of the most difficult disciplines for human beings to cultivate is the ability to separate the message from the messenger. If we were all a bunch of brainiac Vulcans, we'd objectively evaluate all incoming data without first encoding it with the scripts of our own personal experience. Given that we're human, we tend to say or hear things through our own unique set of filters, which are primarily a by-product of culture and upbringing. It's the S(ender) > E(ncode) > M(essage) < D(ecode) < R(eceiver) communications model that mucks things up.

Another thought. In this post-modern age, I think it's especially incumbent upon Christians to be sensitive to those around them. Not that everyone else has carte blanche to bash Christians, mind you. Even so, the bully pulpit may have had its place a century or two ago, but not today. That's really the primary point I have been trying to convey -- know your audience, or as the Bible says, when in Rome, do as the Romans.

You raise a good point - in the Dirk's original post I did not take issue with the concept he was trying to convey (that humans need to forgive one another). I took issue with his use of the Bible verse to justify (and perhaps sermonize) what should be humanitarian behavior, christian or not.

Preaching generally implies that the Preacher is standing on a higher moral ground than the person to whom the sermon is bestowed. I find that offensive and precocious when delivered by anyone outside of my immediate family.

I had to step back and think for a moment about whether it is solely christian dogma that I react this way to or is it just preaching in general and I have to conclude that it's just preaching in general. Not long ago I went to lunch with a group of people, one of whom was a very strict vegan.

I respect that and made sure we went to a place where she would have a good variety of things to choose from. Several of our group ordered cesar chicken salads and from the moment that the waitress took our order to the moment we paid the check she lectured us on evils of eating meat, to the extent that it ruined our lunch.

Along the same lines, I cringe every time I hear someone talk about the evils of smoking even when there is no one around them actually smoking. I'm a non-smoker now but I have friends that smoke and I don't feel like I have to lecture them on issue. Though I have seen others do this.

There is no point in lecturing or preaching to someone about issues involving personal spirituality or personal choice except to establish superiority and self-satisfaction. If their behavior is so offensive that it disturbs you to be around it, tell them that or walk away and don’t associate with them further.

In conclusion, I respect that someone is christian, I have many friends and co-workers who are. We also discuss philosophical and moral issues and can agree on some or agree to disagree on others. A discussion is a two way street so I find that acceptable. Preaching however, only goes one way and that’s down and I find that offensive.

Then what stops suicides?

My objection to the original post is that it wasn't actually about promoting love and forgiveness. It was about promoting Christianity...



That's advertising, no different than a commercial that suggests drinking a certain kind of beer will make hot women want to have sex with you, or driving a certain car will give you a gorgeous wife and make you spend a lot of time driving along the ocean listening to jazz. To me, that does invalidate the message because of its intent. If the story hadn't had the above paragraph it would have been simply a moral tale of profound forgiveness as an example for people to emulate, but that's not really what it was about. It was simply using that story to promote religion. I find that callous, personally. The story wasn't even about being forgiving. It wasn't suggesting that people should emulate the guy who adopted the prisoner. It was saying that you could BE the prisoner and Jesus would make it all better. A better story might suggest not ending up in the prison cell to begin with.

Could you elaborate? I'm not really sure how this question directly relates to the topic.

Alright, I'll try.

Wow, I'm not sure I have the expertise to adequately address your question, Jessica. If you are seriously contemplating suicide, then I would implore you to speak to a counselor or a trusted friend/family member.

I'm not because I believe that I will go to hell if I do.