Competing World Views Of Religious Liberals And Conservatives

[Steven]

well, what do you think?

by the way simply reciting scripture is simply reciting scripture, even Satan himself did that to tempt Christ.

[sinmantyx]

well, what do you think?

by the way simply reciting scripture is simply reciting scripture, even Satan himself did that to tempt Christ.

I think all functioning literalists are hypocrits and all true literalists are insane. If you don't acknoweldge that some passages in the Bible inspire you and some do not, the Bible does not become a means of inspiration but an artificial and damaging force in any real, living breathing relationship (or life for that matter).

A "Christian marriage" strictly ripped out of the pages of the Bible can be anything between a forgiving and loving marriage, to an imbalanced and choiceless marriage...depending on who is in charge of the "spin".

My marriage would definitely not be a Christian marriage in that there does not exist the type of prescription in the committment that tend to define "marriage" in most Christian churchs and in the text of the Bible itself. Our relationships with other people are not as restricted as in most traditional marriages. If we divorce or one of us dies, we do not believe that remarriage would be a bad thing (or even be considered "adultery" or some such sin). There is no prescribed heirarchy in the relationship and I am not required to "obey". There is not an unconditional nature to us staying together as a couple. Before we became married, we made it clear what type of extreme circumstance (such as abuse due to substance dependence, etc) would basically "nullify" the adherance to the legal contract. We would not want the other person (or any children that may enter our family) to suffer because of possible serious problems in the future.

However, we do have a Christian marriage in that it is truly committed and we have pledged to "love" one another as long as we live and that we are forgiving of eachother. There is an unconditional nature to our love and we do not stay together for the good of the self alone, but for the good of the whole.

I certainly do not feel obligated, through threat of annoying some sort of higher power, to have a "Christ-like" marriage in certain regards. It was our choice. We chose what was meaningful to us, and what was not. We didn't recite I Cor 13 or anything biblical at the wedding. The sect that I grew up in didn't see marriage as a sacrament, so having a ceremony of our own choosing was not completely unexpected by our families. The fact that I recited, "How do I love thee..." which actually referred TO my loss of faith and my husband recited something from "The Prophet" about "Not making a bond of love" referring to our sense of openness and individuality in our marriage; and we were not married by a Christian minister; raised eyebrows...ALOT. However, depending on your definition of "Christian" our marriage would be considered more "Christian" than some who would use the Bible to define their relationships; but use/misuse the text to justify disfunction.

[Steven]

I think all functioning literalists are hypocrits and all true literalists are insane. If you don't acknoweldge that some passages in the Bible inspire you and some do not, the Bible does not become a means of inspiration but an artificial and damaging force in any real, living breathing relationship (or life for that matter).

A "Christian marriage" strictly ripped out of the pages of the Bible can be anything between a forgiving and loving marriage, to an imbalanced and choiceless marriage...depending on who is in charge of the "spin".

My marriage would definitely not be a Christian marriage in that there does not exist the type of prescription in the committment that tend to define "marriage" in most Christian churchs and in the text of the Bible itself. Our relationships with other people are not as restricted as in most traditional marriages. If we divorce or one of us dies, we do not believe that remarriage would be a bad thing (or even be considered "adultery" or some such sin). There is no prescribed heirarchy in the relationship and I am not required to "obey". There is not an unconditional nature to us staying together as a couple. Before we became married, we made it clear what type of extreme circumstance (such as abuse due to substance dependence, etc) would basically "nullify" the adherance to the legal contract. We would not want the other person (or any children that may enter our family) to suffer because of possible serious problems in the future.

However, we do have a Christian marriage in that it is truly committed and we have pledged to "love" one another as long as we live and that we are forgiving of eachother. There is an unconditional nature to our love and we do not stay together for the good of the self alone, but for the good of the whole.

I certainly do not feel obligated, through threat of annoying some sort of higher power, to have a "Christ-like" marriage in certain regards. It was our choice. We chose what was meaningful to us, and what was not. We didn't recite I Cor 13 or anything biblical at the wedding. The sect that I grew up in didn't see marriage as a sacrament, so having a ceremony of our own choosing was not completely unexpected by our families. The fact that I recited, "How do I love thee..." which actually referred TO my loss of faith and my husband recited something from "The Prophet" about "Not making a bond of love" referring to our sense of openness and individuality in our marriage; and we were not married by a Christian minister; raised eyebrows...ALOT. However, depending on your definition of "Christian" our marriage would be considered more "Christian" than some who would use the Bible to define their relationships; but use/misuse the text to justify disfunction.

Good Answer.

Im asuming that were only talking about applying Xtian concepts to Xtian individuals here...(and I'm assuming uh oh that your not a traditionally "practicing" Xtian?? by the way I'm ASKING and not telling because thats between you and God)

ANYWAY -

some food for thought:not all beleivers do things out of a fearful obligation (hint: me) and some of us do thigns out of a healthy set of reverance for what we beleive is truthful and quite simply - WORKS.

for example some basic ideals in my marriage with Lola that is Xtian based:

Covenent

faith, vision, and trust

the power of spoken words

life patterns

sowing and reaping

agreement

Intimacy

roles

those are all basic concepts that are unpacked with a lot of depth biblically throughout both the old and new testament, all of which apply directly to marriage. And bear in mind that I see the two as one long conclusive unit. add to that that I use the whole as a defense against "spin", becasue I belevie the Bible was put togethor to be used front to back as a source fo quality control, and that anythign written down can be taken out of context or used exclusively and therefore you need to have grasp of the wide view and know yoru place within it.

by the way I wasent married by a Xtian minister either and I dont give a rats ass becasue I dont liek to waste my time with tradition and rhetoric. I also do not care about sects and factions although I came from one. I am simply a christian. I got things to do babe, i cant worry about the traditions of men. I really on my instincts that rely on my pursuit of a real relationship with God. People can quote anythign they'd like or lean toward certain tradional leanings, but the bottom line is I've been walking my walk with God for a very long time now and I've been successfully married for a very long time now and i do beleive that I know what I'm doing and I dont mean that in a cocky manner - I simply dont sweat the thigns that do not matter and I respond to what I belevie I'm called to respond to.

by the way I like your posts.

Steven

PS - that short list I posted up there, I take it all quite literally, yet I'm a pretty sane kinda guy. you'd be suprised....

[sinmantyx]

PS - that short list I posted up there, I take it all quite literally, yet I'm a pretty sane kinda guy. you'd be suprised....

I use the word "literalist" in a very specific sense. It is someone who does not believe in flexibility of interpretation in scripture; to the point of insisting that pi=3 and poisonous snakes don't work on Christians and if your spouse dies you can't remarry and wearing blends of different fabrics is sinful and women should not speak in church, etc. Most Christians are not literalists, however there are more that claim to be than actually are. I have actually never met a true literalist that I didn't think had completely gone off the deep end. The confrontational evangelist "Brother Jed" comes to mind. My sister kinda freaks me out every once in a while as well, but even she wears 50/50 blends; realizing that every little rule in the Old Testament is not relavent to her faith and I'm pretty sure she accept the modern value of pi and stays away from poisonous snakes.

[sinmantyx]

Good Answer.

Im asuming that were only talking about applying Xtian concepts to Xtian individuals here...(and I'm assuming uh oh that your not a traditionally "practicing" Xtian?? by the way I'm ASKING and not telling because thats between you and God)

Oh, actually I'm an atheist. Many people have guessed that I'm a Christian. However, I see my "Christian values" as stemming from my upbringing and my choices; not from a belief in Christian theology or "faith" for that matter. I've "strayed" from certain values considerably from my youth as a devote Christian; but others I've kept. Sometimes I use the term "Christian" to mean "Christ-like" not neccesarily as part of the religion itself. So "Christian" marriage could be a marriage that has the ideal characteristics of Christ - that of unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, lack of greed or selfishness, etc.

[Steven]

I use the word "literalist" in a very specific sense. It is someone who does not believe in flexibility of interpretation in scripture; to the point of insisting that pi=3 and poisonous snakes don't work on Christians and if your spouse dies you can't remarry and wearing blends of different fabrics is sinful and women should not speak in church, etc. Most Christians are not literalists, however there are more that claim to be than actually are. I have actually never met a true literalist that I didn't think had completely gone off the deep end. The confrontational evangelist "Brother Jed" comes to mind. My sister kinda freaks me out every once in a while as well, but even she wears 50/50 blends; realizing that every little rule in the Old Testament is not relavent to her faith and I'm pretty sure she accept the modern value of pi and stays away from poisonous snakes.

ahh yes...literalism....

the snake thing: symbolism (by the way the scriptures are FULL of intentional symbolism so it really should not be such a stretch - look at the parables of Christ for exampel). To emphasize I told a freind recently taht I am "bulletproof till the day God decides I am not" now, am I going to go eat a bullet? No. Do I fear however, needless protection of myself? No.

Women speaking in church: there was a disturbanece of sorts going on in the temple surrounding a group of women - Paul's address of that issue is what your finding here. Its also a nod to the times/culture at hand. And allready between old and new testaments you see values and precepts changing with the times, for example it was far less common in Paul's time to see a man with multiple wives as it was in the time of say...Lot.

The multi weave thign? I have no idea and have never read it. What preceeds it in the text? Why was that "commandment" if it exists, give, to serve what purpose? usually if you do a littel research theres somethign going on

and you got the remarriage thign mixed up; you can remarry if homeboy dies. Your not supposed to remarry (in theory) if you get a divorce. But even that Christ admits was created by Moses (the divorce decree) to please the people (a rebellious nation always at odds with YHWH) and that it was not God's intention, and even THAT was said with a large exhale to the people who were tryign to trip Christ up by way of legalism and I liked yrou points about divorce being available to people who violate the marriage covenent itself, i agree. But let me add this: before you get a divorce - how bout you invest yrouself into some good old fashioned learning/fixing first?

as for Pi: I like apple.

[Steven]

Oh, actually I'm an atheist. Many people have guessed that I'm a Christian. However, I see my "Christian values" as stemming from my upbringing and my choices; not from a belief in Christian theology or "faith" for that matter. I've "strayed" from certain values considerably from my youth as a devote Christian; but others I've kept. Sometimes I use the term "Christian" to mean "Christ-like" not neccesarily as part of the religion itself. So "Christian" marriage could be a marriage that has the ideal characteristics of Christ - that of unconditional love, compassion, forgiveness, lack of greed or selfishness, etc.

interesting.

I can dig it.

Christ-like - I like much better however, because it brings clarity.

A true Christian marriage I would argue, specifically involves the work fo the Holy Spirit and Christ in a beleivers sense. But I'm not devaluing your marriage.

Your a smart girl, I like your posts. And to a large degree I can probably relate to where your at. I am curious however - how much you seem to focus on psuedo christian topics.

[sinmantyx]

I am curious however - how much you seem to focus on psuedo christian topics.

It is because I was very devote (some would probably call me a zealot) for many years. I was raised in a very conservative area where conservative religion was very strong. (...and by conservative, I mean an adherence to stricter gender-roles including no female ministers or elders, strong anti-homosexuality sentiment, abortion = infanticide, etc. with very little room for debate or dissent.) This causes me to have a particular perspective on religion; mainly as a force that not only have the potential for great success, but also extreme personal damage in people's lives.

I know that the "literalist" interpretations that I mentioned are not reasonable if you bother to allow the words and context to filter through your brain (or, if you choose, the guidance of the Holy Spirit). However, I know a religion that is based in fear and superstition more than enlightened interpretation and academic study.

I see a rise in political power of those who engage in emotional manipulation, have unshakable views that are extremely pathological, and believe that using the law to enforce religious law is appropriate. This has been building since the 50's so much so, that people don't even realize that "under God" WASN'T in the original pledge of alliance, but was added in my mother's lifetime...and scream "tradition!" if anyone suggest that it may be inappropriate. I mean, how many "War on Christmas" books were written? I believe many people just disregard that sort of nonsense, but if complacency sinks in...not only will non-Christians suffer the rise of this pathology within the Christian church, but Christianity will suffer as it reverts back to the extreme corruption of church in state that many faithful people have fought to dismantle.

The reason I talk so much about it, is that I see the danger of it. I don't think that those who have never lived in such an environment really understand the nature of conservative religion --religion of lack of choice, isolationism and hate disguised as Christian love-- to understand the potential impact of it. Frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

At the very least, there is a new evangelical leader that actually believes that poverty, slavery and pollution shouldn't be completely overshadowed by hot-button political issues (such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research) in a list of "Christian" issues. It's a start.

[Steven]

It is because I was very devote (some would probably call me a zealot) for many years. I was raised in a very conservative area where conservative religion was very strong. (...and by conservative, I mean an adherence to stricter gender-roles including no female ministers or elders, strong anti-homosexuality sentiment, abortion = infanticide, etc. with very little room for debate or dissent.) This causes me to have a particular perspective on religion; mainly as a force that not only have the potential for great success, but also extreme personal damage in people's lives.

I know that the "literalist" interpretations that I mentioned are not reasonable if you bother to allow the words and context to filter through your brain (or, if you choose, the guidance of the Holy Spirit). However, I know a religion that is based in fear and superstition more than enlightened interpretation and academic study.

I see a rise in political power of those who engage in emotional manipulation, have unshakable views that are extremely pathological, and believe that using the law to enforce religious law is appropriate. This has been building since the 50's so much so, that people don't even realize that "under God" WASN'T in the original pledge of alliance, but was added in my mother's lifetime...and scream "tradition!" if anyone suggest that it may be inappropriate. I mean, how many "War on Christmas" books were written? I believe many people just disregard that sort of nonsense, but if complacency sinks in...not only will non-Christians suffer the rise of this pathology within the Christian church, but Christianity will suffer as it reverts back to the extreme corruption of church in state that many faithful people have fought to dismantle.

The reason I talk so much about it, is that I see the danger of it. I don't think that those who have never lived in such an environment really understand the nature of conservative religion --religion of lack of choice, isolationism and hate disguised as Christian love-- to understand the potential impact of it. Frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

At the very least, there is a new evangelical leader that actually believes that poverty, slavery and pollution shouldn't be completely overshadowed by hot-button political issues (such as abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research) in a list of "Christian" issues. It's a start.

I have to go to work so I'll respond to this some more later on today.

I think that ultimately, you and I have similar backgrounds and yet very different end results. I agree with you in theory on the religion portion - however the reason I talk so much about it is because I see religion taking over the focus of a relationship with God, and therein lies the danger. I also understand this fear you speak of. I think we're both doing somethign with that fear.