Evangelicals and Trump

[Rougarou 594]

9 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

The discussion here is touching on some ancient and interesting discussions in normative ethics, namely are morals necessarily based in God's views and judgements (see the Euthyphro dilemma, i.e. does God declare laws because they are good and just, or are laws good and just because God wills them), Kant's ethics based purely on reason to obtain the categorical imperative which any rational being is duty bound to follow regardless of the existence of or beliefs in the supernatural, and various moral arguments for the existence of God.  I tend to agree with Kant's views on the rational basis for morality (although I prefer virtue ethics over his version of deontology), but without a supreme supernatural authority recording  our actions and giving a final reckoning for individuals, many people just do not see the point.  Being as introspective as I can, I'm probably one of those people.

On a side note, these conversations will often spring up organically as side discussions and get a lot of attention, but when you create a thread specifically to discuss them you will get very little participation.  I have no idea why.  

People don't like you because you know a lot about what you are talking about-- enough to, perhaps even superficially, discredit what they know (or think they know) in a visceral or experienced manner. Which is a super important and meaningful way to have knowledge, as well (and not saying you don't have a knowledge base there, either).

Either a) people need to spend a lot of energy/effort/time to bone up and get to a point of education/knowledge to discuss things with you or b) people need to already have a lot of education/understanding of the topics you want to discuss.

Mostly people aren't interested in these modalities as a UT football-based message board unless it's organic happenstance as sidebars rather than a concentrated and specific prompt for discussion because, which as you, yourself, have said this board is pretty much only really good for those rare times and the occasional raising of some cash when someone gets sick.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Rougarou

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

29 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Sitcoms are going for comedy. Comedy needs humor. Human beings find humor in abnormality. Using sitcoms as the basis for social norms is the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 

There's nothing funny about dad going to work, coming home 10-12 hours later, helping the kids with homework, doing some household chores, going to bed, then doing it all again the next day.

People also find humor in what’s relatable. I’m talking about sitcoms like home improvement, The Goldberg’s, Roseanne, king of Queens,,stuff like that- that’s meant to be relatable to a middle class ethos. The guys supposed to be the norm in that type of show it’s mundane and not typically abnormal behavior 

[workswithseed 2204]

39 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Eh,

I think that sitcoms and movies can tell us a lot about societal expectations, just like kids stories and the like. It’s our shared common language and it tells us stuff. 
mom open to you making the argument that modern man is in some way called to a higher standard than he is called to by Christ and the rest of the authors of the New Testament if you want to make that argument. 
I’m not, as I said, even sure what HP’s point is for sure. 

It's a part of culture. I think what happened is that Christians tried to be against culture for about 50 years, instead of being a light and try to guide the culture without bashing others. You don't have to say that being gay isn't a sin, but you can say that it's a sin but we're glad that you see the light of God.

[F250 29199]

18 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

 

I read some commentaries today on Joshua that I thought made sense in a non relativistic way. 
Basically 3 or 4 parts to it:

1) the anihilation wasn’t total and complete, the way it’s written about in the book was BCE shit talking that everyone did- including the Egyptians, Assyrians, Meads, etc and so forth

2) the conquest wasn’t instant, it took place over years and years and was more a dispossessing of land

3) the Jews offered them peace and to go on and get out and the Canaanites didn’t take the peace. 
4) they were into some really bad shit, including human and child sacrifice that was deserving of Gods judgment, he used Israel as that tool of judgment, and still, it had mercy in it (see points 1,2 and 3) but it needed to be rooted out, because it was so vulgar that his people couldn’t live side by side with it (think Allies engaging in total war to beat Hitler, with the evil of that regime). 
nome of those points relied on “different time, different place”. I don’t know if they are true or if something else is true, but my sense is that the answer is not- God changes his mind and that was ok but now it’s not. 

I've read all of this before and it really doesn't make a lot of sense. It's just an attempt to downplay the immorality of genocide as opposed to just admitting that kind of behavior was normal at the time. The morality of waging war didn't really become a thing in Christianity until Aquinas started writing it and just war theory is certainly different than the practices used by the Israelites.

I would also add that the same explanation of slavery is just an attempt to downplay slavery, there was an evolution of rules regarding slavery in the Old Testament but not once was it condemned as immoral. Even in the New Testament slavery was never condemned which makes sense because slavery was part of the cultural norm two thousand years ago.

As a Methodist, I believe faith is informed by reason (Wesleyan Quadrilateral) and that it wasn't that God changed the rules but humanity evolved in it's understanding of morality. We were just knuckle draggers that took thousands of years to finally comprehend enslaving human beings was morally wrong.

[Brisketexan 106887]

16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sweet. You can talk about whatever you want. I was literally taking about the playbook and what we are called to. Period. Full stop. 

The playbook doesn't matter for shit if nobody's running the plays.  I'm sure Texas had a great playbook when Greg Davis was OC, but he never ran anything but a 3 yard out pattern that ended up going for a loss.  Playbook was worthless.

On earth, the scriptures only matter if we choose to make them matter.  And most American "Christians" don't just choose not to -- they choose to work against exactly what the playbook calls for.  That matters.  So you can wave the playbook all you want, it doesn't matter when we're going 3 -and-out over and over because nobody's following it.

[Rougarou 594]

3 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

I generally agree with this (although I don't think on the whole that I'm liked more or less than most others here; I've even made some friends here from ideological opponents that started out with contentious debates), but there are some knowledgeable people on these subjects on this board.  The average level of education here is high and there are lots of clever people that already know about these subjects and even if not are capable of getting up to speed quickly on pretty much any subject.  My point is that in the past sometimes we will have multiple pages of detained back and forths on a related topic on some thread as a side discussion, but as soon as it get broken out on its own as a separate thread it often loses steam.  My guess is that there is a certain amount of exposure people feel in having these discussions on their own as others might perceive them as pretentious on a football forum, as you say.       

Look, I love you man, but I'm just saying, the Modern Reformation thread makes me think you aren't a popular fella.

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

6 minutes ago, F250 said:

I've read all of this before and it really doesn't make a lot of sense. It's just an attempt to downplay the immorality of genocide as opposed to just admitting that kind of behavior was normal at the time. The morality of waging war didn't really become a thing in Christianity until Aquinas started writing it and just war theory is certainly different than the practices used by the Israelites.

I would also add that the same explanation of slavery is just an attempt to downplay slavery, there was an evolution of rules regarding slavery in the Old Testament but not once was it condemned as immoral. Even in the New Testament slavery was never condemned which makes sense because slavery was part of the cultural norm two thousand years ago.

As a Methodist, I believe faith is informed by reason (Wesleyan Quadrilateral) and that it wasn't that God changed the rules but humanity evolved in it's understanding of morality. We were just knuckle draggers that took thousands of years to finally comprehend enslaving human beings was morally wrong.

And that’s fair. The Bible is, after all, part history. So you can read bigamy, for example, as the historical context but not ordained by God (how do 3 people become one flesh?) similarly to slavery and genocide as well. There’s certainly calls to treat aliens as fellow brothers that argues tangentially against the idea of enslaving those who are “other” to you. 

[Huckleberry 34626]

18 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

People also find humor in what’s relatable. I’m talking about sitcoms like home improvement, The Goldberg’s, Roseanne, king of Queens,,stuff like that- that’s meant to be relatable to a middle class ethos. The guys supposed to be the norm in that type of show it’s mundane and not typically abnormal behavior 

There are some relatable aspects but that's because laughs come when norms are violated. You say that the man being lazy or dumb or worthless is part of the relatable aspects when it's the opposite, those are the parts people laugh at. 

People also laugh when they feel superior to another. That's also evidence that you're looking at sitcoms completely wrong with respect to societal expectations. 

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The playbook doesn't matter for shit if nobody's running the plays.  I'm sure Texas had a great playbook when Greg Davis was OC, but he never ran anything but a 3 yard out pattern that ended up going for a loss.  Playbook was worthless.

On earth, the scriptures only matter if we choose to make them matter.  And most American "Christians" don't just choose not to -- they choose to work against exactly what the playbook calls for.  That matters.  So you can wave the playbook all you want, it doesn't matter when we're going 3 -and-out over and over because nobody's following it.

You can be so maddeningly frustrating sometimes. 
theres two separate and discreet points beings takes about here and you are conflating them in a way I have no desire to, and I’ve already conceded both that what you have to say has veracity and that IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! 

if your offense sucks there could be a lot of different reasons for it. One of which could be- is our playbook good enough.  Another of which could be- do we have the athletes to make this happen. Another of which could be- do we have the right guy calling plays. 
I was making the argument that “hey- this playbook is legit. Period. End of story, end of argument, end of what I was interested in talking about at that time.  Anything else would be a separate point of discussion to what I was taking about with Huck and HP. 

Its cardinal in life when the results you get don’t match what you want to look at the playbook. Because if the problem is that the playbook is messed up then perfect execution will never drive the result you hope for. 
End up in the wrong place- check the map first!  Make sure it’s right. Then figure out if you followed the proper instructions or did it right. 

[Rougarou 594]

Also, sorry to wade into this thread so late. I'm an evangelical and I am not voting for Trump in 2020, but the last pages have been good conversation (except for sitcom talk not going away) so keep it up!

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

There are some relatable aspects but that's because laughs come when norms are violated. You say that the man being lazy or dumb or worthless is part of the relatable aspects when it's the opposite, those are the parts people laugh at. 

People also laugh when they feel superior to another. That's also evidence that you're looking at sitcoms completely wrong with respect to societal expectations. 

Agree to disagree.  But now you aren’t arguing any longer that we can’t tell about societal expectations by watching a sitcom and that was dumb thing for me to say, you are saying that I’m watching them wrong and easing the wrong inference. Which is a big movement from where you started. 

Let me read 3 or 5 popular children’s stories, watch a couple movies, TV sitcoms and dramas and I bet I can figure out a whole hell of a lot about that people and it’s culture. 

[Brisketexan 106887]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

You can be so maddeningly frustrating sometimes. 
theres two separate and discreet points beings takes about here and you are conflating them in a way I have no desire to, and I’ve already conceded both that what you have to say has veracity and that IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT! 

if your offense sucks there could be a lot of different reasons for it. One of which could be- is our playbook good enough.  Another of which could be- do we have the athletes to make this happen. Another of which could be- do we have the right guy calling plays. 
I was making the argument that “hey- this playbook is legit. Period. End of story, end of argument, end of what I was interested in talking about at that time.  Anything else would be a separate point of discussion to what I was taking about with Huck and HP. 

Its cardinal in life when the results you get don’t match what you want to look at the playbook. Because if the problem is that the playbook is messed up then perfect execution will never drive the result you hope for. 
End up in the wrong place- check the map first!  Make sure it’s right. Then figure out if you followed the proper instructions or did it right. 

I get what you want to focus on, but you can't avoid the fact that multiple maps will get you to the same general destination: being a good and decent human being who treats other human beings with love and respect.  And that destination is literally one of the key destinations called for in your "map" (and a second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself).

I can follow the biblical map, I can follow the secular humanist map, and if I follow both as written, I'll arrive at that destination.  The problem with trumpeting the merits of the biblical map these days is that people are way more likely to get to the destination following the secular map than they are by waving around the biblical map.  Indeed, it has become so consistent that when you see a person waving around the biblical map and extolling its virtues and superiority, the odds are very, very high that they are heading in the exact OPPOSITE direction as the intended destination.

It's not that the map is wrong.  It's that the people most likely to cite it are actually hellbent on going to an entirely different destination.

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

4 minutes ago, Rougarou said:

Also, sorry to wade into this thread so late. I'm an evangelical and I am not voting for Trump in 2020, but the last pages have been good conversation (except for sitcom talk not going away) so keep it up!

And right as you said that I’m banging away at more sitcom talk. You are welcome friend! 

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I get what you want to focus on, but you can't avoid the fact that multiple maps will get you to the same general destination: being a good and decent human being who treats other human beings with love and respect.  And that destination is literally one of the key destinations called for in your "map" (and a second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself).

I can follow the biblical map, I can follow the secular humanist map, and if I follow both as written, I'll arrive at that destination.  The problem with trumpeting the merits of the biblical map these days is that people are way more likely to get to the destination following the secular map than they are by waving around the biblical map.  Indeed, it has become so consistent that when you see a person waving around the biblical map and extolling its virtues and superiority, the odds are very, very high that they are heading in the exact OPPOSITE direction as the intended destination.

It's not that the map is wrong.  It's that the people most likely to cite it are actually hellbent on going to an entirely different destination.

I’m still trying to ascertain the answer to the question- is this map right. You continue to go beyond that question after being told multiple different times, in multiple different ways that that is not the point of what I’m taking about. 

[Brisketexan 106887]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m still trying to ascertain the answer to the question- is this map right. You continue to go beyond that question after being told multiple different times, in multiple different ways that that is not the point of what I’m taking about. 

And the answer is "it doesn't fucking matter if people ain't gonna follow it."

You can write the best novel in the world, but if nobody reads it, it's just so much kindling.

The Bible may be the greatest moral code in the universe, but if the bulk of people who cite it use it for evil and cruelty, then it's not a moral code at all.  Fuck abstraction.  Reality, where the rubber meets the road, is the only metric of merit.  And by that metric, in America today, the Bible is a playbook for selfishness and cruelty more than anything else.

[troph 25220]

2 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m still trying to ascertain the answer to the question- is this map right. You continue to go beyond that question after being told multiple different times, in multiple different ways that that is not the point of what I’m taking about. 

you can't answer the question without looking at and interpreting the map you're questioning.  a version of the Gospel may be the right map but the version the overwhelming majority is waving around telling folks is the genuine is a fake map.  So yeah, Brisket as I read it is telling you that many Gospel loving people are following the wrong map.  Wives submit to your Husbands? wrong map. Stone the woman? wrong map.   Luke 6:20-23, yes.  1 Chorinthians 13, okay now we're talking.  Luke Chapter 10, hell yeah bullseye!  and you can read those chapters in full context and nothing about that context is overruled or invalidates everything those scriptures say in today's society.  That's the map and Brisket is saying secular humanists are more likely to have a map close to that one than the fake map the vocal majority is waiving around as Christians.  tl, dr - when you say the Gospel is the right map, the question of what really is the Gospel and what is it telling you to do is very much in play.  

[Huckleberry 34626]

16 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Agree to disagree.  But now you aren’t arguing any longer that we can’t tell about societal expectations by watching a sitcom and that was dumb thing for me to say, you are saying that I’m watching them wrong and easing the wrong inference. Which is a big movement from where you started. 

Let me read 3 or 5 popular children’s stories, watch a couple movies, TV sitcoms and dramas and I bet I can figure out a whole hell of a lot about that people and it’s culture. 

No, my argument hasn't changed. I've just explained why I don't believe your argument in total makes any sense even if you grant part of it for argument's sake. 

I still maintain you can't tell anything about modern social expectations of men by watching sitcoms. Heck, one of your examples is based on a family in the 1990s. So not only can't you tell anything about current expectations from that one, you can't even tell anything about 1990s expectations.

Edited July 15, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

you can't answer the question without looking at and interpreting the map you're questioning.  a version of the Gospel may be the right map but the version the overwhelming majority is waving around telling folks is the genuine is a fake map.  So yeah, Brisket as I read it is telling you that many Gospel loving people are following the wrong map.  Wives submit to your Husbands? wrong map. Stone the woman? wrong map.   Luke 6:20-23, yes.  1 Chorinthians 13, okay now we're talking.  Luke Chapter 10, hell yeah bullseye!  and you can read those chapters in full context and nothing about that context is overruled or invalidates everything those scriptures say in today's society.  That's the map and Brisket is saying secular humanists are more likely to have a map close to that one than the fake map the vocal majority is waiving around as Christians.  tl, dr - when you say the Gospel is the right map, the question of what really is the Gospel and what is it telling you to do is very much in play.  

I know what he’s saying. And I know what you are saying. And I don’t know how much clearer I can be than what I’ve been when I say that’s not what I’m taking about and it’s pointless (and not even a source of disagreement from me bc, again, I’m not making an argument on the merits bc I’m not interested in that, I’m looking at procedure. Because you have to look at procedure before you can get to the merits of the case. 

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

2 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

No, my argument hasn't changed. I've just explained why I don't believe your argument in total makes any sense even if you grant part of it for argument's sake. 

I still maintain you can't tell anything about modern social expectations of men by watching sitcoms. Heck, one of your examples is based on a family in the 1990s. So not only can't you tell anything about current expectations from that one, you can't even tell anything about 1990s expectations.

Modernity in the context of what we are taking about easily extends for generations. And the Goldberg’s is set in the 1980’s so that’s 40 years prior. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Wulaw Horn

[F250 29199]

Two things to remember in life: never get into a land war in Asia and never get into an analogy battle with Brisket because those are the logical equivalent of the Tasmanian Devil on cocaine.

[workswithseed 2204]

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

Two things to remember in life: never get into a land war in Asia and never get into an analogy battle with Brisket because those are the logical equivalent of the Tasmanian Devil on cocaine.

Brisket does love his analogies. It's like a vegan who can't help themselve to interject that they're vegan.

[Asithappens 978]

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Eh,

I think that sitcoms and movies can tell us a lot about societal expectation....

Talk about begging the question.

[Brisketexan 106887]

13 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I know what he’s saying. And I know what you are saying. And I don’t know how much clearer I can be than what I’ve been when I say that’s not what I’m taking about and it’s pointless (and not even a source of disagreement from me bc, again, I’m not making an argument on the merits bc I’m not interested in that, I’m looking at procedure. Because you have to look at procedure before you can get to the merits of the case. 

What you don't get is that by and large, we're conceding the procedure.  Every one of us -- even the atheists -- can easily see the "map" in the Gospels for being decent to other human beings.  The procedure is stipulated.

So, now what?  Well, the procedure is shit.  Because it's not used for justice, it's used for cruelty.  It's not just a failure in its results, it's such a miserable failure that the procedure itself should be called into question.

We are more likely to reach a just result by following a different procedure manual.  That's pretty damning if what you're trying to do is play up the merits of an alternate procedure.

[Brisketexan 106887]

3 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Brisket does love his analogies. It's like a vegan who can't help themselve to interject that they're vegan.

[workswithseed 2204]

25 minutes ago, troph said:

you can't answer the question without looking at and interpreting the map you're questioning.  a version of the Gospel may be the right map but the version the overwhelming majority is waving around telling folks is the genuine is a fake map.  So yeah, Brisket as I read it is telling you that many Gospel loving people are following the wrong map.  Wives submit to your Husbands? wrong map. Stone the woman? wrong map.   Luke 6:20-23, yes.  1 Chorinthians 13, okay now we're talking.  Luke Chapter 10, hell yeah bullseye!  and you can read those chapters in full context and nothing about that context is overruled or invalidates everything those scriptures say in today's society.  That's the map and Brisket is saying secular humanists are more likely to have a map close to that one than the fake map the vocal majority is waiving around as Christians.  tl, dr - when you say the Gospel is the right map, the question of what really is the Gospel and what is it telling you to do is very much in play.  

Euphesians 5:33 NIV

"However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband."

That should probably the one most quoted on the subject of the whole wives submit to your husbands dialogue. Just have to go a bit further.

[ruitxn 299]

Ok.  I’ll show how out of touch I am.  It is amazing to me how a “religion” discussion takes form on this board.  Page after page, word after word.  As a man of faith, I wonder how and should I enter this conversation.  I choose to give my simplistic approach and get out.

True faith and belief is never found through intellect (page after page, word after word).  It is always a personal search of the heart.  Yes Brisket, how you live and not what you know.  Well what in the hell are things of the heart. I can’t really express it but I can believe “heart” reality through my life experience.  My greatest example today.  Jesus says in Matthew that if you want to know him you need to come as the children who were in his presence. Children?  Surely you jest Jesus.  All a child has to offer is love and trust.  I am getting to live this truth today.  My “sweet girl” four year old granddaughter has brought me an increased awareness of my spiritual relationship to God.  She brought nothing into this world to build our relationship...except the most important things.  She loves me and she trusts me.  The one word I cherish above all others is when I hear her say “Poppa”.  What did I bring to our relationship?  I had to prove that I was worthy of her love and her trust.  I am humbled and frightened with that supreme responsibility not from my intellect, but from my heart.

[Huckleberry 34626]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

What you don't get is that by and large, we're conceding the procedure.  Every one of us -- even the atheists -- can easily see the "map" in the Gospels for being decent to other human beings.  The procedure is stipulated.

So, now what?  Well, the procedure is shit.  Because it's not used for justice, it's used for cruelty.  It's not just a failure in its results, it's such a miserable failure that the procedure itself should be called into question.

We are more likely to reach a just result by following a different procedure manual.  That's pretty damning if what you're trying to do is play up the merits of an alternate procedure.

So what you're saying is 

[troph 25220]

Euphesians 5:33 NIV "However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband." That should probably the one most quoted on the subject of the whole wives submit to your husbands dialogue. Just have to go a bit further.

 

 

I wasn’t trying to snip anything. I’m very familiar with the full verses and that’s not the only one. There is nothing humanizing about the entirety of the concept to a modern woman. Those verses applied literally in a modern world where women are not private property have nauseated me since I was 19. I explained their purpose above and your quote of the kinder part of those verses changes nothing. Context is key.

[JBJ 3823]

1 hour ago, Axiom of Choice said:

Ha, well I've probably started several dozen threads on this forum and its previous versions and they almost always start out that way.  First 20 or so posts will be gifs or one liners for laughs or tldr, sometimes even expressions of frustration.  After that either interesting discussion will begin or it will not, but more often than not I get at least some good discussion.  You only need one or two interested participants to make it worthwhile.  Also, being popular/well-liked is relative.  I'm liked well enough by those whose thoughts I'm interested in.  I once had an account on reddit that was fairly well known on some sub forums and had thousands of upvotes, I even had single posts that were gilded with thousands of votes and other silly internet points, and frankly I did not care about any of that and stopped using it.  The whole thing is a stupid game to trick your brain and give you little dopamine hits.  It is easy to be popular in that sense, but it is also worthless and not of any interest to me.  I've got enough vices and don't need anymore.  I just go to forums to post unfiltered thoughts and hopefully find some interested parties to either discuss or argue with, and if I find a single poster like sidis it is worth 10000 detractors; you do it frequent enough and you won't even see them anymore.  And often times the people who argue with you and challenge you the most (even when done with lots of derision and insults) will become your favorite posters.   

Tahoe's threads were always the same way.

[Nivek 17408]

6 hours ago, Rougarou said:

I think that the idea and definition and characterization of love, as modernity defines it (e.g. Love is Love and that's all you need to know) has been watered down. There is such a thing as tough love and a love that is harder that puts you in conflict with people because you will not agree or accept certain "truths" because of your "truth", out of love.

My grandfather would get the spirit of Jesus in him (and a few others) and tough-love the shit out of my father so that he never felt the desire to imbibe in Satan's wicked juice.   Or maybe he was just an abusive drunk.

 

5 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Modernity in the context of what we are taking about easily extends for generations. And the Goldberg’s is set in the 1980’s so that’s 40 years prior. 

TV reflects some of the values of society in some circumstances.   You can see how homosexual men and women went from being marginalized or suppressed (it was a career killer for most of television broadcasting history) to being accepted and front and center.    But Theo Huxtables' relationship with his father and Ed Bundy's relationships with his family was in no way a reflection on roles of males in society and our relationships with our fathers.   Nor should anyone expect Chris Meloni/Mariska Haggertay type to show up and actually help your family member in NYC's SVU.   

[Mole 4339]

22 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

As far as judgment goes, yes, Christians are called upon to assist their brethren in overcoming sin and becoming closer to God and grace.

But, it was once explained to me that we help a fellow traveler identify sin and overcome it with the fellow traveler's consent.   If a church member "submits to judgment" in order to become a better Christian then we can "name" the sin, or judge it (they are slightly different) in the course of helping him or her overcome it.

Christians do not have a roving mandate to judge those who do not submit to judgment.

Similar thing in AA (wonder why that is, hmm?):  we do not take others' inventories for them.  But if a sponsee or another alcoholic requests help in identifying a character defect in order to produce a more searching and fearless moral inventory, we do so.

More succinctly: What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

[workswithseed 2204]

6 minutes ago, Mole said:

More succinctly: What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

Ever heard of church ladies?

[TwiceHorn 32076]

4 minutes ago, Mole said:

More succinctly: What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?

Right.  I'm not sure you are supposed to "judge," which usually entails or implies some condemnation, those in the church, unless they ask for help.  I suppose you can consider their presence in the church as an implicit consent or request.

Of course it seems that many self-proclaimed Christians spend a whole lot of time judging and condemning those outside their faith community, and that indicates to me that they need to turn their light inward.

[formermav43 4628]

23 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Ever heard of church ladies?

Ever heard of Paul?

[workswithseed 2204]

3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Ever heard of Paul?

Related to Saul, right?

[Redneck Mutha 8176]

10 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Masturbation?

[ndawg 1242]

9 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure. I agree with all this. And as I said, I’m not saying Christians succeed at a greater level than secular humanists in being the men we are called to be. I’m merely pointing out there is a higher calling on us through our Christianity than exists through modern culture. I’m willing to listen to arguments against that you Huck or HP, but I think they would be wrong (as I’m reading you it seems like you think the same). 

There is a higher calling on everyone who contemplates their own existence long enough to juxtapose it against the whole of human suffering.

Whether we adhere to a faith or not, we all have a duty to overwhelm that suffering with love. The people I know to be Christians whom I actually respect all get this.

[Wulaw Horn 19594]

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

My grandfather would get the spirit of Jesus in him (and a few others) and tough-love the shit out of my father so that he never felt the desire to imbibe in Satan's wicked juice.   Or maybe he was just an abusive drunk.

 

TV reflects some of the values of society in some circumstances.   You can see how homosexual men and women went from being marginalized or suppressed (it was a career killer for most of television broadcasting history) to being accepted and front and center.    But Theo Huxtables' relationship with his father and Ed Bundy's relationships with his family was in no way a reflection on roles of males in society and our relationships with our fathers.   Nor should anyone expect Chris Meloni/Mariska Haggertay type to show up and actually help your family member in NYC's SVU.   

I’m not sure how to respond to this. I see it and appreciate you writing it. I agree with some and not all but am not sure how to respond or what exactly to say. Thanks for your contribution. 

[Rougarou 594]

Is Ed Bundy the serial killer?

[Mole 4339]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Right.  I'm not sure you are supposed to "judge," which usually entails or implies some condemnation, those in the church, unless they ask for help.  I suppose you can consider their presence in the church as an implicit consent or request.

Of course it seems that many self-proclaimed Christians spend a whole lot of time judging and condemning those outside their faith community, and that indicates to me that they need to turn their light inward.

The early church seemed to have an interesting relationship to sin within the church. Paul expressed the destructive nature of letting it fester. Of course, there's also references to pretty insane debauchery. On the other hand, Ananias and Sapphira were killed for their greed.

It seems that there was more willingness to call things out within the church. Of course, we only get to see one side of the conversation, so we're left with limited insight into how well it was received.

Very few American churches practice any kind of church discipline. It seems totally foreign to our American culture. There is a pretty healthy biblical model as to how to accomplish this, but it takes significant interpersonal investment and it can get messy. The church shopping consumer model that we use doesn't lend itself well to this.

[troph 25220]

The early church seemed to have an interesting relationship to sin within the church. Paul expressed the destructive nature of letting it fester. Of course, there's also references to pretty insane debauchery. On the other hand, Ananias and Sapphira were killed for their greed. It seems that there was more willingness to call things out within the church. Of course, we only get to see one side of the conversation, so we're left with limited insight into how well it was received.

Very few American churches practice any kind of church discipline. It seems totally foreign to our American culture. There is a pretty healthy biblical model as to how to accomplish this, but it takes significant interpersonal investment and it can get messy. The church shopping consumer model that we use doesn't lend itself well to this.

 

I once was hauled in front of a hundred people and made to confess I had sex with my girlfriend out of wedlock. It was Acts style discipline and it was the most damaging thing I ever experienced in the name of God. We had meetings with our pastor, our head pastor, the elders then our student congregation. They claimed the goal was to follow the Word to the letter, Acts and Paul style discipline. They were immovable and insisted infallible authority. To question it, to stand up for my rights was seen as an act of lawlessness, rebellion and an unrepentant heart. Anyone who truly know me will find I am as repentant of a human as anyone can probably find. We were trapped in a process that was so damaging.

 

We weren’t told to leave but no one would talk to us at church on Sundays. We quietly left out the back about 6 months later. We tried 3-4 other churches over the next few years and I left The Church for good about 5 years later.

 

Be careful for wanting what you think is the end all be all of Christianity based on a few thin pages in the Bible. Paul’s letters were for a place and time and while they are relatable to all times they are not meant to be literally applied. To do so can and does hurt a lot of people.

[TwiceHorn 32076]

Growing up in the Methodist church, which was far from hellfire and brimstone, I still had a kind of legalistic view of religion/Christianity.  I wasn't perfect so I didn't measure up.  I felt kind of fraudulent going to church. That was more my own bent psychology than anything the church laid on me.

AA, being a program of very practical spirituality, changed and deepened my understanding of things and made me a more committed, and also more flexible and holistic Christian.  It made me accept my imperfections, which made me less judgmental of those of others. 

You gotta have faith, and at least try to be a good, loving human being that's helpful to your fellow man, after that, it's mostly negotiable.  No one "measures up," so there's not much point in trying to quantify the degree of imperfection.  Progress not perfection.

Turns out, by hook or by crook, the Methodist church tends to fit my beliefs just fine.  Had I had some of the experiences you people had, I might feel differently.  I don't know.

AA considers itself a program of attraction, rather than promotion or coercion.  I have engrafted that onto Christianity, but it doesn't apply to the way a lot of churches and people practice it.

[NWBuck 8629]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Growing up in the Methodist church, which was far from hellfire and brimstone, I still had a kind of legalistic view of religion/Christianity.  I wasn't perfect so I didn't measure up.  I felt kind of fraudulent going to church. That was more my own bent psychology than anything the church laid on me.

AA, being a program of very practical spirituality, changed and deepened my understanding of things and made me a more committed, and also more flexible and holistic Christian.  It made me accept my imperfections, which made me less judgmental of those of others. 

You gotta have faith, and at least try to be a good, loving human being that's helpful to your fellow man, after that, it's mostly negotiable.  No one "measures up," so there's not much point in trying to quantify the degree of imperfection.  Progress not perfection.

Turns out, by hook or by crook, the Methodist church tends to fit my beliefs just fine.  Had I had some of the experiences you people had, I might feel differently.  I don't know.

AA considers itself a program of attraction, rather than promotion or coercion.  I have engrafted that onto Christianity, but it doesn't apply to the way a lot of churches and people practice it.

This is a great connection- Thanks for sharing!

I've felt for a long time that AA is possibly the best manifestation of the "church" that we have on earth, particularly the "we're all broken and we can't do this on our own" element. The unconditional acceptance and support you mention is often more sacred than the "stand, sing, sit, pray, listen, sing, donate, beat the baptists to Applebees" stuff that many of us find ourselves falling into as a part of our American tradition.

[Mole 4339]

3 hours ago, troph said:

I once was hauled in front of a hundred people and made to confess I had sex with my girlfriend out of wedlock. It was Acts style discipline and it was the most damaging thing I ever experienced in the name of God. We had meetings with our pastor, our head pastor, the elders then our student congregation. They claimed the goal was to follow the Word to the letter, Acts and Paul style discipline. They were immovable and insisted infallible authority. To question it, to stand up for my rights was seen as an act of lawlessness, rebellion and an unrepentant heart. Anyone who truly know me will find I am as repentant of a human as anyone can probably find. We were trapped in a process that was so damaging.

 

We weren’t told to leave but no one would talk to us at church on Sundays. We quietly left out the back about 6 months later. We tried 3-4 other churches over the next few years and I left The Church for good about 5 years later.

 

Be careful for wanting what you think is the end all be all of Christianity based on a few thin pages in the Bible. Paul’s letters were for a place and time and while they are relatable to all times they are not meant to be literally applied. To do so can and does hurt a lot of people.

That sounds traumatic. I spent years as part of a church that practiced a kind of church discipline and it managed to function without turning abusive. I’ll admit that it was a very special set of circumstances and personalities that made it work. Our reading of the church discipline practices sounds like it was far different as well.

There are many biblical practices that can easily turn abusive and this one is clearly one of the more easily abused ones. I wish pastors spent more time meditating on James 3:17 than trying to bludgeon souls into agreeing with John 3:16 (as wonderful of a message as it is).

Edited July 16, 2020 by Mole

[troph 25220]

Another scripture that is safe from contextual ignorance. I agree.

 

I think many of the extreme styles of the first century church documented in the NT can not be separated from the times - chaos from the loss of their founder, start up, persecuted, theologically under development, and the list goes on and on. Today is nothing like it. To follow those “rules” without understanding context is hazardous at best.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, troph said:

I once was hauled in front of a hundred people and made to confess I had sex with my girlfriend out of wedlock. It was Acts style discipline and it was the most damaging thing I ever experienced in the name of God. We had meetings with our pastor, our head pastor, the elders then our student congregation. They claimed the goal was to follow the Word to the letter, Acts and Paul style discipline. They were immovable and insisted infallible authority. To question it, to stand up for my rights was seen as an act of lawlessness, rebellion and an unrepentant heart. Anyone who truly know me will find I am as repentant of a human as anyone can probably find. We were trapped in a process that was so damaging.

 

We weren’t told to leave but no one would talk to us at church on Sundays. We quietly left out the back about 6 months later. We tried 3-4 other churches over the next few years and I left The Church for good about 5 years later.

 

Be careful for wanting what you think is the end all be all of Christianity based on a few thin pages in the Bible. Paul’s letters were for a place and time and while they are relatable to all times they are not meant to be literally applied. To do so can and does hurt a lot of people.

You deserved a medal.

This is where I've taught my boys to be the type of person that idiots won't call out in public/ at work/ in church/ et al.  Even at age 14/15/16 I would have gone scorched earth on their ass for calling me out.  "You're not judging my heart, motherfuckers."

Edited July 16, 2020 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 32076]

7 hours ago, NWBuck said:

This is a great connection- Thanks for sharing!

I've felt for a long time that AA is possibly the best manifestation of the "church" that we have on earth, particularly the "we're all broken and we can't do this on our own" element. The unconditional acceptance and support you mention is often more sacred than the "stand, sing, sit, pray, listen, sing, donate, beat the baptists to Applebees" stuff that many of us find ourselves falling into as a part of our American tradition.

It certainly jibed up well for me.

But I want to take pains to note that most of the principles of AA, while derived from Christianity, are found in all the world's religions and many of the secular belief systems.  I've known people of many faith systems, and none at all, that have found AA useful not only to quit drinking, but to find a new peace with the world and fellow men (which is really the key to stopping drinking or using and staying stopped).

AA people tend to "go back to church."  Some in the one they were raised in, others in another church, and others with some "all new" spiritual beliefs.  So, yeah, you can encounter some "Jesus freaks" in AA, but it's not a universal thing.

I was somewhat lucky in that my church's pastor at the time was a big believer in 12 step programs and even had a "no-known-addiction" group based on 12 step principles.  So I felt very welcome in the church.

This is getting a bit off-track, but there may be people that need AA reading this thread, so I don't want my post to be more ammo for "AA is not for me."

[troph 25220]

You deserved a medal.

This is where I've taught my boys to be the type of person that idiots won't call out in public/ at work/ in church/ et al.  Even at age 14/15/16 I would have gone scorched earth on their ass for calling me out.  "You're not judging my heart, motherfuckers."

I don’t know what you mean by a medal but I’ll tell you hard core evangelicalism has a lot in common with cults. The faith provides meaning, a mission, a community and the fear of being rejected causes you to want to please leaders. And if that sounds radical, so is Jesus’ teachings.

 

See how that works?

 

(That and I didn’t out us. /shrug)

[troph 25220]

Tapa double

[Brisketexan 106887]

9 hours ago, NWBuck said:

This is a great connection- Thanks for sharing!

I've felt for a long time that AA is possibly the best manifestation of the "church" that we have on earth, particularly the "we're all broken and we can't do this on our own" element. The unconditional acceptance and support you mention is often more sacred than the "stand, sing, sit, pray, listen, sing, donate, beat the baptists to Applebees" stuff that many of us find ourselves falling into as a part of our American tradition.

Great post.  And bolded for emphasis.  One of the great breaks I see between a core element of Christianity and American "Christianity" is the worship of individualism, hinted at in the whole "my personal relationship with Jesus Christ."  It has been so perverted that we have made an inviolable, sanctified God out of "me, my, mine."  At the complete and total expense fo the community.

The entirety of the Gospels is pretty clear -- while personal meditation/prayer etc. is of course included, PRACTICE of the faith is a community endeavor.  We are expressly called to be in community.  Gathering and practicing faith as a group is specifically called out - "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them."  We are called to help carry each other from time to time, because we ALL are broken, and we ALL will sometimes need it.  Creation was not of "a man."  It was of "mankind."

Oh....and I'm old-school.  We beat the Baptists to Luby's or Wyatt's back in the day.