Scoffing and Religion s/o "evil"

[Lady Florida.]

And the other problem with this line of thought? It means that:

 

saying Harry Potter=EVIL and you're going to HELL is fine, but saying that's silly is wrong. You all don't see the disconnect there? It's not offensive to tell my kids they are going to hell for reading a book about an imaginary scenario? I think saying that's a silly belief is a LOT less offensive.

 

Yes! Ds was told at age 6 that he was going to hell because his parents let him watch Harry Potter. Who says that to a six year old? We left that hs group, and after that we used HP shirts as a test to find out if we belonged in a group.

 

That was my point earlier about having to keep quiet when we think a belief is silly. People are expected to tiptoe around religion and beliefs. Why? Why is it okay to say "You're going to hell because...", but not okay to say "That's silly."?

 

ETA: In case you're wondering why an atheist cared that people (these were adults not kids) were telling her kid he would go to hell - we weren't atheists back then.

Edited October 8, 2012 by floridamom

[Jennifer3141]

Yes! Ds was told at age 6 that he was going to hell because his parents let him watch Harry Potter. Who says that to a six year old? We left that hs group, and after that we used HP shirts as a test to find out if we belonged in a group.

 

That was my point earlier about having to keep quiet when we think a belief is silly. People are expected to tiptoe around religion and beliefs. Why? Why is it okay to say "You're going to hell because...", but not okay to say "That's silly."?

 

ETA: In case you're wondering why an atheist cared that people (these were adults not kids) were telling her kid he would go to hell - we weren't atheists back then.

 

 

My three year old son left a homeschool park day utterly sobbing because several of the older kids there told him that the stuffed dinosaur he always carried was evil and that he would die forever if he didn't throw it away.

 

He was THREE. He had no context for the crazy stuff that family was spewing but he was scared.

[Scrub Jay]

My three year old son left a homeschool park day utterly sobbing because several of the older kids there told him that the stuffed dinosaur he always carried was evil and that he would die forever if he didn't throw it away.

 

He was THREE. He had no context for the crazy stuff that family was spewing but he was scared.

 

That's disgusting. :(

[ThatCyndiGirl]

My three year old son left a homeschool park day utterly sobbing because several of the older kids there told him that the stuffed dinosaur he always carried was evil and that he would die forever if he didn't throw it away.

 

He was THREE. He had no context for the crazy stuff that family was spewing but he was scared.

 

 

:grouphug: Poor kid!

[Jennifer3141]

We can look back in it now and laugh. But again, that's the danger of fundamentalism. The mom tried to mend fences a year or so ago but I don't want that kind of thinking around my kids and I'd NEVER trust her boys around my kids so what was the point?

 

But for a long time, whenever we watched a dinosaur show or read a dinosaur book, the whackos came up.

[Amirah]

Be that as it may, it was certainly the core tenet of Universalists (one of the "parents," if you will of Unitarian Universalism), so much so that it is their most identifying feature, and there is a general sense that the notion of takfir (i.e. declaring someone else a non-believer) among Muslims is offensive, and that those groups that practice it or espouse it (often including those groups with violent leanings, most notably Al Qaeda) should be considered terrorists. The point of contention is that these groups are quick to declare others as non-believers. Therefore, it appears that in at least some cases, there are some people who object to a non-divine third party presuming to suggest that someone will be eternally d***ed or declared a non-believer, on the basis of his/her behavior. Perhaps the rules don't apply to Christians, though, and they are free to pass judgment on others without the government having an opinion one way or the other.

 

 

um I am a Salafi and am part of a large Salafi group where i live. I in no way support any sort of violent leanings and neither do any of the other families we know in various places. the link you posted its a big sweeping generalization that makes it look like anyone who is Salafi is a terrorist.

[mytwomonkeys]

My three year old son left a homeschool park day utterly sobbing because several of the older kids there told him that the stuffed dinosaur he always carried was evil and that he would die forever if he didn't throw it away.

 

He was THREE. He had no context for the crazy stuff that family was spewing but he was scared.

 

 

i'm a conservative christian (so i thought) and i don't even understand why a stuffed dinosaur is bad:confused: my son has lots of dinosaurs to play with. i'm sorry that happened:grouphug:

[shanvan]

i'm a conservative christian (so i thought) and i don't even understand why a stuffed dinosaur is bad:confused: my son has lots of dinosaurs to play with. i'm sorry that happened:grouphug:

 

Same here. I truly do not understand. :confused:

 

I'm also a conservative Christian, but I always cringe when someone who is not a Christian tells me they or their child were told they are going to hell because of _______.

[Ipsey]

One thing I have noticed is that those who call themselves tolerant as a badge are the least tolerant. They believe they are right and just, and so they think what they dictate and ridicule is a necessity. I spent my 20s with people like that, and they would say "We can't tolerate the intolerant."

With straight faces.

 

I think religious threads should go the way of political threads. I can't believe long threads making fun of religious beliefs are allowed. I don't get the point.

 

What is your definition of tolerant?

 

People were expressing things they found strange. Even for those things that were of a religious bent, most people holding those basic religious views would find those extremes rather strange. That was the point.

 

I think it's bad that children are terrorized about hell because of dinosaurs or TV shows or having Shakespeare in their book bags. Or wearing the wrong clothes or listening to the wrong music. Sorry if that's not tolerant of me.

 

Actually, no, I'm not.

[Jennifer3141]

Same here. I truly do not understand. :confused:

 

I'm also a conservative Christian, but I always cringe when someone who is not a Christian tells me they or their child were told they are going to hell because of _______.

 

Thanks everyone! We're over it.

 

The reason why dinosaurs are "evil" is because Satan apparently hides the bones around the earth to throw people off the trail of Jesus. I don't know, I tuned the woman out after about 2 minutes of her explanation.

[shanvan]

Thanks everyone! We're over it.

 

The reason why dinosaurs are "evil" is because Satan apparently hides the bones around the earth to throw people off the trail of Jesus. I don't know, I tuned the woman out after about 2 minutes of her explanation.

 

Okay, now I'm verging on offense maybe, but I haven't tripped over any bones yet. Apparently I have different stumbling blocks! Probably too many to list...

[Jennifer3141]

Okay, now I'm verging on offense maybe, but I haven't tripped over any bones yet. Apparently I have different stumbling blocks! Probably too many to list...

 

 

You and me both, babe! :D:D

[stripe]

um I am a Salafi and am part of a large Salafi group where i live. I in no way support any sort of violent leanings and neither do any of the other families we know in various places. the link you posted its a big sweeping generalization that makes it look like anyone who is Salafi is a terrorist.

Well, that was not my purpose in linking to the Frontline documentary about Al Qaeda. I was addressing the idea that everyone has a limit after which point someone is out of their religion:

Saturday at fellowship, one of the brothers shared how we all have a 'line in the sand' that we draw. Each one of us. We each will say 'Well, ok, you can do X. But if you do Y, that's it, you're out. You're not 'Christian enough' anymore. And it's true. We ALL have that line we draw.

and I said, no, "everyone" does not have that line. Some people do not pass judgments like this. I daresay this includes members of the clergy who perform last rites for the condemned on Death Row.

 

For Muslims, this declaration that someone else is a non-believer is, in Arabic, takfir. Some people do this casually, in a non-violent, merely judgmental way. Others do it as part of a violent movement. I was pointing out that some people are uncomfortable with the concept of takfir, particularly when carried out casually by individuals with no religious authority.

 

The point is that there is major discomfort when a group calling itself Islamic, spends a portion of its time saying people who identify as Muslims actually aren't. Some people are NOT comfortable with Muslims being called non-believers, and some people are not comfortable with Christians being called non-Christians.

 

Here is are two specific examples of a rejection of declaring others non-believers, in the context of radical/violent groups:

Among the masses, there has been a wave of revulsion against the organisation's espousal of takfir, under which an unbeliever, or even a Muslim, may be excommunicated the moment he or she does not follow the Sharia, or Islamic law, in its strictest sense.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/160261/20110609/al-qaeda-s-takfir-killings-turn-muslims-away-before-and-after-death-of-osama-bin-laden-ayman-al-zawa.htm

On behalf of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah, Second Deputy Premier and Minister of Interior Prince Naif opened the three-day Conference on the Phenomenon of Takfir (the practice of branding those who don’t agree with one’s beliefs as infidels) on Tuesday.

 

More than 150 scholars from Muslim countries discusses the causes and consequences of takfir and its remedies at the event organized by the Prince Naif International Prize for the Sunnah of the Prophet and Contemporary Islamic Studies.

http://mideastposts.com/2011/09/the-takfir-mindset-a-major-saudi-problem/

also discussed at http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140247658/post-sept-11-saudi-arabia-modernizing-slowly

[mytwomonkeys]

 

And quite frankly the thread in question was not limited to Christians of any stripe. Go back and read the OP in that thread. Anyone of any religious belief could have participated.

 

:iagree: I shared in that thread but I wasn't raised with any religious upbringing really, so my posts weren't based on anything religious. I still shared my few memories of what I was taught as evil, but it wasn't affiliated to a specific teaching...just isolated incidents of parenting. Smoking was another one I thought of afterward, but again, it is because it killed my grandfather. It wasn't from Satan or anything.

 

Bethany. there have been many threads on these forums that I felt mocked my beliefs and practices. Honestly, I'm sure most of the members here can identify with that statement. I'm sorry you felt offended in the other thread. For me, I can honestly say some of the things I read there I had never even heard of. I couldn't even understand some of the things listed as to why they would be evil. So I did think some of them were really silly. And to me, I guess they still are. But I wasn't meaning for that to hurt you or anyone else. Anyway, I'm sorry it felt upsetting to you:grouphug:

[mytwomonkeys]

Thanks everyone! We're over it.

 

The reason why dinosaurs are "evil" is because Satan apparently hides the bones around the earth to throw people off the trail of Jesus. I don't know, I tuned the woman out after about 2 minutes of her explanation.

 

 

you are educating me. i have never heard that in my life.:001_smile:

[Dustybug]

I'm with Elaine. (And no, I didn't tag the thread, either. :tongue_smilie:)

 

I refrained from commenting in that thread. But honestly, I feel it is rather rude and mean spirited. It's a whole thread making fun of 'those people' who hold 'those beliefs'. Why is that ok?

 

A fair number of things people are scoffing at in that thread as 'so ridiculous' I actually agree with. Yes, I think many things in that thread are to be avoided. Not that I think those things are necessarily, by themselves, ****ing someone to eternal hell. But I do think many of the things mentioned in the thread should be avoided by true followers of Christ. I base this belief on many scriptures in the Bible; however, one in particular that sums it up nicely would be:

 

Phillipians 4:8 - Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

 

And I also agree with Elaine that there seems to be, today in our society, an unfortunate allowance for scoffing at those who hold certain Christian beliefs, where scoffing at those who hold beliefs (be they Jewish, Muslim, pagan, wiccan, atheist, whatever) are *never* to be scoffed at. *THAT* would just be rude. :tongue_smilie: But those crazy fundie Christians? Yeah, it's ok to laugh at them.

 

Makes me think of this verse:

 

Matthew 5:11-12 - Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

 

:001_smile:

 

 

:iagree:

[Lovedtodeath]

Same here. I truly do not understand. :confused:

 

I'm also a conservative Christian, but I always cringe when someone who is not a Christian tells me they or their child were told they are going to hell because of _______.

You'd think that the people mentioning hell had read the Bible. John 3:18 blows their little theory of "you are going to hell because of xyz" out of the water.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think it's bad that children are terrorized about hell because of dinosaurs or TV shows or having Shakespeare in their book bags. Or wearing the wrong clothes or listening to the wrong music. Sorry if that's not tolerant of me.

Yes, that is the thing. When I said that I used to believe something was evil I meant that it was literally a phobia.

[Lovedtodeath]

Bethany, I posted in the other thread because it was cathartic. I am a survivor of extreme legalism, ... it usually has the opposite effect intended - people leave God in droves.

 

But, I can't turn a blind eye to the horrible effects it has on young ones when this is preached at them or worse, driven into their brains through oppression and aggression. I think I have as much right to scoff and proclaim the opposite.

:iagree:

Bethany, I know you know that because you have been a wonderful person on these boards. You have been loving, kind, compassionate, and nurturing. I have absolutely no doubt that you are also against these kinds of extremes regardless of your personal beliefs.

:iagree:I can vouch that Bethany has tried to help me when I asked for advice, and then left me be when my decision didn't match hers. :grouphug:

[IsabelC]

I respect all people's rights automatically.

 

But, I don't feel as though I have to respect a person who doesn't deserve respect, let alone a belief that doesn't deserve respect.

 

So if you believe something I find patently ridiculous, I feel free to privately laugh (or gasp with horror) at your belief, and I feel free to think you're ignorant/stupid/insane. But I still support your right to express your belief in any way you like as long as it doesn't hurt or unreasonably annoy me or others.

 

In a place like this I do try my hardest not to stir, anger, irritate, shock or upset anybody. (If you don't believe this, you should see the number of posts I have typed up, edited and then wound up deleting because I couldn't get them sufficiently non-offensive!)

 

In some ways, forums are simpler than real life. It's easier irl to get into a situation where people assume you agree with them. Then it sometimes becomes a difficult decision around whether to speak up and cause unnecessary offence, or remain silent and feel inauthentic.

[shanvan]

I respect all people's rights automatically.

 

But,

In a place like this I do try my hardest not to stir, anger, irritate, shock or upset anybody. (If you don't believe this, you should see the number of posts I have typed up, edited and then wound up deleting because I couldn't get them sufficiently non-offensive!)

 

In some ways, forums are simpler than real life. It's easier irl to get into a situation where people assume you agree with them. Then it sometimes becomes a difficult decision around whether to speak up and cause unnecessary offence, or remain silent and feel inauthentic.

 

:iagree: Absolutely! And, I struggle with speaking up irl. There are times I think I should find some way to speak up with things we don't allow just b/c by staying silent I feel I'm giving the person the wrong idea about who I am and making future awkward situations. But, then I don't want to offend or have them think I expect them to arrive at the same conclusion. I usually end up opting for staying silent, but I'm not sure I'm right.

 

Then there are times when I feel I should speak up b/c of some ridiculous idea/statement/belief that I think could harm others. How on earth can you do it tactfully? I haven't figured it out yet. We are struggling with this at church right now. A number of beliefs are being spouted from the pulpit that we do not think are scriptural. So far, we've discussed it among ourselves only. Not sure how long we can keep that up. We are still determining if and how we might possibly speak up. Dh has announced he will. not. go. to church this week to hear the rest of the sermon.

[FaithManor]

:iagree: Absolutely! And, I struggle with speaking up irl. There are times I think I should find some way to speak up with things we don't allow just b/c by staying silent I feel I'm giving the person the wrong idea about who I am and making future awkward situations. But, then I don't want to offend or have them think I expect them to arrive at the same conclusion. I usually end up opting for staying silent, but I'm not sure I'm right.

 

Then there are times when I feel I should speak up b/c of some ridiculous idea/statement/belief that I think could harm others. How on earth can you do it tactfully? I haven't figured it out yet. We are struggling with this at church right now. A number of beliefs are being spouted from the pulpit that we do not think are scriptural. So far, we've discussed it among ourselves only. Not sure how long we can keep that up. We are still determining if and how we might possibly speak up. Dh has announced he will. not. go. to church this week to hear the rest of the sermon.

 

 

Hey, I hear ya! We struggle with the same things too. Recently something has popped up at this church and we have spoken up, dh in particular, and what they are doing is wrong and will likely come back to bite them in the hiney, but they do.not.want.to.hear.a.dissenting.opinion. I don't know what is going to happen. Dh has taken some heat and now I can see that speaking up probably doesn't do any good. No one wants to hear a dissenting opinion these days. There isn't room for healthy discourse and debate. So, the one that brings it up, ends up eaten. There is a chance we will end up leaving the church and that is very, very painful for us. I guess we'll just see how that plays out over the next few months. The one thing that I do know will happen is that we'll be selectively attending and not be involved in many aspects of the life of the church. There are ministries we can be involved with and not have a violation of conscience, but one big one that Dh has been doing for four years, is about to end and that alone has the potential of landing us back in the frying pan.

 

I think my new game plan is to be a very quiet, withdrawn, but polite person. I have decided that I will tell people gently that I am not interested in their opinion of us spiritually and will offer no opinion to anyone else. I'm beginning to think that the more superficial conversations of the Edwardian and Victorian eras in which propriety dictated that a huge array of topics are off limits during social events was for the best. People got to know each other for years before they made the move to become confidants.

 

I think I'm feeling a little jaded this morning.

 

Faith

[shanvan]

Hey, I hear ya! We struggle with the same things too. Recently something has popped up at this church and we have spoken up, dh in particular, and what they are doing is wrong and will likely come back to bite them in the hiney, but they do.not.want.to.hear.a.dissenting.opinion. I don't know what is going to happen. Dh has taken some heat and now I can see that speaking up probably doesn't do any good. No one wants to hear a dissenting opinion these days. There isn't room for healthy discourse and debate. So, the one that brings it up, ends up eaten. There is a chance we will end up leaving the church and that is very, very painful for us. I guess we'll just see how that plays out over the next few months. The one thing that I do know will happen is that we'll be selectively attending and not be involved in many aspects of the life of the church. There are ministries we can be involved with and not have a violation of conscience, but one big one that Dh has been doing for four years, is about to end and that alone has the potential of landing us back in the frying pan.

 

I think my new game plan is to be a very quiet, withdrawn, but polite person. I have decided that I will tell people gently that I am not interested in their opinion of us spiritually and will offer no opinion to anyone else. I'm beginning to think that the more superficial conversations of the Edwardian and Victorian eras in which propriety dictated that a huge array of topics are off limits during social events was for the best. People got to know each other for years before they made the move to become confidants.

 

I think I'm feeling a little jaded this morning.

 

Faith

 

I'm pretty close to the same conclusion--maybe I'm jaded too! Then the problem becomes how to judge when you've become sufficiently acquainted to allow for confidences or honesty (you know, showing who you really are)?

 

BTW we are pretty sure that speaking up at church leads nowhere, however, I'm not sure that means it shouldn't be done. It's a tough one to figure out.

[Parrothead]

I'm beginning to think that the more superficial conversations of the Edwardian and Victorian eras in which propriety dictated that a huge array of topics are off limits during social events was for the best. People got to know each other for years before they made the move to become confidants.

 

I think I'm feeling a little jaded this morning.

 

Faith

I'm with you on the above. :grouphug:

[Lovedtodeath]

:iagree: Absolutely! And, I struggle with speaking up irl. There are times I think I should find some way to speak up with things we don't allow just b/c by staying silent I feel I'm giving the person the wrong idea about who I am and making future awkward situations. But, then I don't want to offend or have them think I expect them to arrive at the same conclusion. I usually end up opting for staying silent, but I'm not sure I'm right.

 

Then there are times when I feel I should speak up b/c of some ridiculous idea/statement/belief that I think could harm others. How on earth can you do it tactfully? I haven't figured it out yet. We are struggling with this at church right now. A number of beliefs are being spouted from the pulpit that we do not think are scriptural. So far, we've discussed it among ourselves only. Not sure how long we can keep that up. We are still determining if and how we might possibly speak up. Dh has announced he will. not. go. to church this week to hear the rest of the sermon.

:grouphug: You pray, if you speak up you do so with a humble attitude, and expect one in return from the preacher. If someone is teaching your children harmful things then you pray and the Lord guides you elsewhere. And consider this...

 

 

Todd Friel; Before you criticize your pastor Edited October 9, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[*********]

:grouphug: You pray, if you speak up you do so with a humble attitude, and expect one in return from the preacher. If someone is teaching your children harmful things then you pray and the Lord guides you elsewhere. And consider this...

 

 

Todd Friel; Before you criticize your pastor

 

Friel makes some good points; some good advice in that youtube video you linked, LTD.

 

However.

 

This is *exactly* why a fellowship should have a PLUALITY of elders, not just ONE main pastor. Which is how the church should be 'set up', according to the New Testament.

 

As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

[shanvan]

:grouphug: You pray, if you speak up you do so with a humble attitude, and expect one in return from the preacher. If someone is teaching your children harmful things then you pray and the Lord guides you elsewhere. And consider this...

 

 

Todd Friel; Before you criticize your pastor

 

 

All I can say is of course. Already being considered. But, I'm not so sure on the humble attitude in return. I once would have thought so, but not as sure now.

[Lovedtodeath]

All I can say is of course.

yes. :001_smile:

Already being considered. But, I'm not so sure on the humble attitude in return. I once would have thought so, but not as sure now.

:( :grouphug:

There is a chance we will end up leaving the church and that is very, very painful for us.

:grouphug:

[Aelwydd]

I believe that Jesus' example should be what Christians should wish to emulate. And being that Jesus regularly scoffed, baited, and derided the religious leaders of the day, and disregarded many of their "sacred cows" (anyone up for some ears of wheat on Sabbath?), I feel it is only in keeping with sacred Tradition that I follow that example. ;)

 

Therefore, I will continue to mock the rules I grew up with (I was raised fundamentalist Christian, so sorry it's not convenient on this board), like watching Smurfs/ He-Man/ She-Ra (all the shows I was denied) would somehow hurt my faith.

 

As a direct result of that rule, and the anti-Santa Claus, and anti-everything-magical rule my mom had, it had the unintended effect of giving me the impression that Jesus existed on the same plane of reality as these characters--else, why would He care so much if I liked them? I used to imagine Jesus lived in the clouds, disappearing and reappearing at will, using His powers to do crazy stuff like walking on the water, and making dead people live again.

 

Yeah, nothing "magical" sounding about that!

 

Anyway, as a Christian now, I reject that magical view of Jesus, and have adopted one that places him in the realm of the Divine--above all other realms, including human imaginary realms of magic. The reason I scoff at many of these "laws" of Christian faith is that they did a lot to reduce mine to a fantastical, whimsical view of God. And I'm hardly the only one.

 

All these folks that believe that placing these restrictions on their kids should notice the trend here and in society at large, of how many liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, and so forth went that direction due to the distaste they have for being made to follow someone else's (a parent's) prescribed path for personal edification. That burden is legalistic, no matter how much you dress it up or slice it.

[Joanne]

I believe that Jesus' example should be what Christians should wish to emulate. And being that Jesus regularly scoffed, baited, and derided the religious leaders of the day, and disregarded many of their "sacred cows" (anyone up for some ears of wheat on Sabbath?), I feel it is only in keeping with sacred Tradition that I follow that example. ;)

 

Therefore, I will continue to mock the rules I grew up with (I was raised fundamentalist Christian, so sorry it's not convenient on this board), like watching Smurfs/ He-Man/ She-Ra (all the shows I was denied) would somehow hurt my faith.

 

As a direct result of that rule, and the anti-Santa Claus, and anti-everything-magical rule my mom had, it had the unintended effect of giving me the impression that Jesus existed on the same plane of reality as these characters--else, why would He care so much if I liked them? I used to imagine Jesus lived in the clouds, disappearing and reappearing at will, using His powers to do crazy stuff like walking on the water, and making dead people live again.

 

Yeah, nothing "magical" sounding about that!

 

Anyway, as a Christian now, I reject that magical view of Jesus, and have adopted one that places him in the realm of the Divine--above all other realms, including human imaginary realms of magic. The reason I scoff at many of these "laws" of Christian faith is that they did a lot to reduce mine to a fantastical, whimsical view of God. And I'm hardly the only one.

 

All these folks that believe that placing these restrictions on their kids should notice the trend here and in society at large, of how many liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, and so forth went that direction due to the distaste they have for being made to follow someone else's (a parent's) prescribed path for personal edification. That burden is legalistic, no matter how much you dress it up or slice it.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Magnificient post.

 

Although it was not parents or childhood, the dynamic you describe is a part of my departure from Christianity.

[milovany]

This is *exactly* why a fellowship should have a PLUALITY of elders, not just ONE main pastor. Which is how the church should be 'set up', according to the New Testament.

 

This happens in the ancient, highly liturgical, "institutional" church that we're a part of, too; it doesn't have to be in a home-based fellowship. In our situation, all the Orthodox parishes around the world provide this plurality, it's not parish by parish. Yes, we do have one main priest at the parish level, but there's a bishop above him with a metropolitan above him with the ecumenical patriarch above him. Then there's the church-wide eldership vertically (parish to parish, jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and historically (a unity through time). This all provides a plurality of eldership. You will not hear things taught in our priest's homilies that could not be preached in any other Orthodox parish, no matter the jurisdiction or country or time period.

 

Just wanted to clarify that there's more than one perspective on what church can look like in real life, with a "plurality of elders."

Edited October 9, 2012 by milovaný

[Aelwydd]

 

 

This is *exactly* why a fellowship should have a PLUALITY of elders, not just ONE main pastor. Which is how the church should be 'set up', according to the New Testament.

 

As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

 

 

Not to derail...

 

 

[sounds of screeching metal, sparts flying, etc.]

 

But, I'm having intense head thingys going in my brain clamering for attention.

 

Why is it many very conservative Christians find such shared leadership attractive and completely logical in the Church, but find it anathema in a marriage?

 

Why aren't there cries of "But who will decide to mail off the electric bill??? You have to have someone be in charge!" in such conversations about the hierarchal structure of a church?

 

Everyone seems to recognize the dangers of having a single leader in a church. But only the egalitarians seem aware of it in marriage.

 

 

[/derail]

 

Please carry on with the regular, non-Smurf programming! :lol:

[Aelwydd]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Magnificient post.

 

Although it was not parents or childhood, the dynamic you describe is a part of my departure from Christianity.

 

Thanks, Joanne. :)

 

It's a phenomenon that is so widespread, it's almost formulaic. I sometimes wonder why it hasn't been cottoned on by liberal Christian/agnostic/atheist parents as a highly successful way to assure their kids won't grow up to become fundamentalists of any type.

 

Just start giving them several randomized rules and restrictions, link it to obscure scripture or spiritual goals, categorically refuse to hear any counter arguments, rinse, repeat. Viola... you've just raised a distrustful skeptical person now inured to the subjectivism and fervor of legalistic religion.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Aelwydd

[shanvan]

Not to derail...

 

 

[sounds of screeching metal, sparts flying, etc.]

 

But, I'm having intense head thingys going in my brain clamering for attention.

 

Why is it many very conservative Christians find such shared leadership attractive and completely logical in the Church, but find it anathema in a marriage?

 

Why aren't there cries of "But who will decide to mail off the electric bill??? You have to have someone be in charge!" in such conversations about the hierarchal structure of a church?

 

Everyone seems to recognize the dangers of having a single leader in a church. But only the egalitarians seem aware of it in marriage.

 

 

[/derail]

 

Please carry on with the regular, non-Smurf programming! :lol:

 

Okay, derailing with you. I'm assuming you mean the idea that man and wife should make decisions together, without the man being the ruler? Am I right on that?

 

Some conservative Christians somewhere must think husbands and wives working together is a good thing. I certainly don't follow the idea that Dh is the boss and only what he says goes. I still consider myself a conservative Christian--and I consider my position biblical, though I wouldn't like to argue with anyone about it (b/c I hate arguing).

[Aelwydd]

Okay, derailing with you. I'm assuming you mean the idea that man and wife should make decisions together, without the man being the ruler? Am I right on that?

 

Some conservative Christians somewhere must think husbands and wives working together is a good thing. I certainly don't follow the idea that Dh is the boss and only what he says goes. I still consider myself a conservative Christian--and I consider my position biblical, though I wouldn't like to argue with anyone about it (b/c I hate arguing).

 

 

Care to take this train of thought elsewhere? :D

 

I'll start a s/o thread.

[Lovedtodeath]

I believe that Jesus' example should be what Christians should wish to emulate. And being that Jesus regularly scoffed, baited, and derided the religious leaders of the day, and disregarded many of their "sacred cows" (anyone up for some ears of wheat on Sabbath?), I feel it is only in keeping with sacred Tradition that I follow that example. ;)

:hurray:

[Lovedtodeath]

This is *exactly* why a fellowship should have a PLUALITY of elders, not just ONE main pastor. Which is how the church should be 'set up', according to the New Testament.

 

As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

The Baptist church I was baptized at had several pastors, and so did my neighbor's church that I visited.

 

I don't know about the Lutheran church, but there were two men with robes on. :D

Edited October 9, 2012 by Lovedtodeath

[8circles]

I believe that Jesus' example should be what Christians should wish to emulate. And being that Jesus regularly scoffed, baited, and derided the religious leaders of the day, and disregarded many of their "sacred cows" (anyone up for some ears of wheat on Sabbath?), I feel it is only in keeping with sacred Tradition that I follow that example. ;)

 

...

 

All these folks that believe that placing these restrictions on their kids should notice the trend here and in society at large, of how many liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, and so forth went that direction due to the distaste they have for being made to follow someone else's (a parent's) prescribed path for personal edification. That burden is legalistic, no matter how much you dress it up or slice it.

 

I only clipped your quote for space, I agreed with all of it.

 

I always love your posts - they stretch me yet are familiar, too. Wonderful.

[kiana]

All these folks that believe that placing these restrictions on their kids should notice the trend here and in society at large, of how many liberal Christians, agnostics, atheists, and so forth went that direction due to the distaste they have for being made to follow someone else's (a parent's) prescribed path for personal edification. That burden is legalistic, no matter how much you dress it up or slice it.

 

Absolutely.

 

Or to put it another way -- when *everything* is evil, and not going along with pop culture is put on the same level as not breaking the ten commandments -- well, you're already evil because you listened to that Justin Bieber song, so what's the big deal about not going further?

[Rosie_0801]

I'm beginning to think that the more superficial conversations of the Edwardian and Victorian eras in which propriety dictated that a huge array of topics are off limits during social events was for the best. People got to know each other for years before they made the move to become confidants.

 

It would have killed me as a young person, but it would suit me now.

 

I think I'm feeling a little jaded this morning.

 

I'm wondering if that feeling will ever go away.

[pdalley]

Absolutely.

 

Or to put it another way -- when *everything* is evil, and not going along with pop culture is put on the same level as not breaking the ten commandments -- well, you're already evil because you listened to that Justin Bieber song, so what's the big deal about not going further?

 

This. That was how I felt as a child. I was going to hell anyway because I liked modern music so why bother? I'm not going to make my child feel the same way.

 

I have no problem with parents limiting what their own children engage in but I do not think it is anyone's right to tell my kids that Smurfs or dinosaurs are evil. That doesn't mean I am poking fun at those beliefs because we don't share them. They do frighten kids sometimes. I was the frightened kid.

 

On an non religious note, I stayed up one night because someone at school convinced me that the planets were lining up a certain way and we could see it and that meant the end of the world.

 

I was a pretty impressionable child. :001_smile:

[Parrothead]

This happens in the ancient, highly liturgical, "institutional" church that we're a part of, too; it doesn't have to be in a home-based fellowship. In our situation, all the Orthodox parishes around the world provide this plurality, it's not parish by parish. Yes, we do have one main priest at the parish level, but there's a bishop above him with a metropolitan above him with the ecumenical patriarch above him. Then there's the church-wide eldership vertically (parish to parish, jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and historically (a unity through time). This all provides a plurality of eldership. You will not hear things taught in our priest's homilies that could not be preached in any other Orthodox parish, no matter the jurisdiction or country or time period.

 

Just wanted to clarify that there's more than one perspective on what church can look like in real life, with a "plurality of elders."

The RCC too. Just some of the names have been changed. ;)

 

(I keep saying over the years if I weren't RC I'd surely be EO.)

[*********]

This happens in the ancient, highly liturgical, "institutional" church that we're a part of, too; it doesn't have to be in a home-based fellowship. In our situation, all the Orthodox parishes around the world provide this plurality, it's not parish by parish. Yes, we do have one main priest at the parish level, but there's a bishop above him with a metropolitan above him with the ecumenical patriarch above him. Then there's the church-wide eldership vertically (parish to parish, jurisdiction to jurisdiction) and historically (a unity through time). This all provides a plurality of eldership. You will not hear things taught in our priest's homilies that could not be preached in any other Orthodox parish, no matter the jurisdiction or country or time period.

 

Just wanted to clarify that there's more than one perspective on what church can look like in real life, with a "plurality of elders."

 

That's interesting Milovany. :001_smile:

 

No where in my post did I say anything about home fellowship being the only place one can fine a plurality of elders.

[milovany]

That's interesting Milovany. :001_smile:

 

No where in my post did I say anything about home fellowship being the only place one can fine a plurality of elders.

 

I realize that ~ sorry! I wasn't meaning to imply you did say that; I was speaking to the general public, while quoting you for context. I was just presenting more information since I agree that having elders in relationship with one another is important. The original church's leadership always worked together in relationship like this, as described with the word "plurality." They still do.

[mommaduck]

That's interesting Milovany. :001_smile:

 

No where in my post did I say anything about home fellowship being the only place one can fine a plurality of elders.

Milovany was not implying that you did. However, there are those that believe the EO and RC are run only by this or that person when, in fact, they are conciliar. Just as you were explaining about your group, Milovany just used your post to jump point and explained about ours.