Jump to content

Menu

Undercover apostates (from Christianity) CC, obviously


Are there "secret" apostates at your church?  

  1. 1. Are there "secret" apostates at your church?

    • Yes, I think there are many apostates externally going along with the program.
      42
    • Maybe there are a moderate amount of undercover apostates at my church.
      27
    • I think there are very few apostates at my church.
      47
    • I don't believe there is any such thing.
      6
    • Other
      16


Recommended Posts

They're still committed to an activity that is a healthy outlet for their extroverted tendency, as opposed to any number of sinful ways one could have their needs addressed. They still show up. They could be at the casino or brothel or sitting around gossiping with Mabel and Ethel about how cute Clint Eastwood is.

 

 

But community IS a part of *being* the church. It's not ALL of being the church (meaning you have your service, and your sacraments) but, it is an important part and still guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

So, even if they show up for the company--that is still an integral part--and I don't get it :confused: Do we undervalue relationship and the time it takes to build that relationship so much nowadays in this individualistic world that we mock people who show up to take part in the physical expression of the body?

 

I took it as saying the church is the emperor, with the OP's question wondering if the pews are full of people who are afraid to say anything even though they don't believe in his "clothes."

 

No one is making them stay. Big difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've heard the accusations; I have never seen sources. History channel also had his wife portrayed as power hungry schemer. I need sources. These two are considered Saints in our Church.

Ah, I see. I don't have any sources off hand.

 

ETA: He and his mother St. Helena are considered saints in our church too.

Edited by Parrothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would want is to be accepted regardless of what I said about what I believe, but I am not so stupid as to think that would happen. I know what happens when one questions an important tenet. It's most often a one-way ticket to outer mongolia.

 

 

You know, when I joined the RCC I wasn't fully there in my acceptance of stuff, and I let them know that. They were OK with it. You wanna know why? Because we ALL are sojourners on this travel and we're all at different places. YOu just have to be willing to understand that your belief is not in the dogma.

 

The women who believe in NFP, there are women who take the pill--which in the RCC is a big nono. NO ONE is kicking out the BCers. We pray that truth lights up the whole church and we ALL would walk accordingly, but to give someone a one way ticket to Mongolia?

 

You see Biden in the debate? He had the Bishops come down on him the next day--and HE didn't get a ticket to Mongolia.

 

Smith Wigglesworth said something that has always stuck with me-- be willing to be willing. I did not come into the RCC believing everything, but I was willing to be willing.

 

I have never felt judged sitting in that pew. I don't know what is different, but no one is judging me, if I go up for communion, if I don't, if I sing, if I don't, if I raise my hands at the Our Father, if I don't, whatever activities I partake in or not, I've never felt so free to be where I am with my faith and be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is really sad to stay somewhere that ostracizes and that does not allow honest questioning. I have never felt that way in my church, no matter where I have been faith-wise and no matter how closely I was living that faith. I have always felt encouraged to "work out my salvation with fear and trembling" and be honest about where that puts me spiritually.

 

And there are many, many churches out there that allow open discussion and encourage dealing head on with questions and doubts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is really sad to stay somewhere that ostracizes and that does not allow honest questioning. I have never felt that way in my church, no matter where I have been faith-wise and no matter how closely I was living that faith. I have always felt encouraged to "work out my salvation with fear and trembling" and be honest about where that puts me spiritually.

 

And there are many, many churches out there that allow open discussion and encourage dealing head on with questions and doubts.

:iagree:And I don't think questioning equals apostate. Also to be perfect honest, I believe any spiritual leader who does not accept honest and thoughtful questions need not be be given the time of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is really sad to stay somewhere that ostracizes and that does not allow honest questioning. I have never felt that way in my church, no matter where I have been faith-wise and no matter how closely I was living that faith. I have always felt encouraged to "work out my salvation with fear and trembling" and be honest about where that puts me spiritually.

 

And there are many, many churches out there that allow open discussion and encourage dealing head on with questions and doubts.

:iagree:Thank you, Shelly! This is my experience as well. I am sorry that others have felt put out and ostracized by their doubts and questions. It shouldn't be that way. Jesus himself demonstrated how to address doubts/concerns with Mary and Martha, Zaccheus and Nicodemus....straight on and with love and concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard the accusations; I have never seen sources. History channel also had his wife portrayed as power hungry schemer. I need sources. These two are considered Saints in our Church.

 

There are no surviving primary historical documents of the Council; only a few partial accounts by historians (who are considered heretical). What is left are various accounts by both pro-Constantine and anti-Constantine sources.

 

I always consider the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The irony is, that both accounts agree in one major respect: the Council was still divided on the issue of Arianism when they left, and the best answer the "orthodox" members could give them was to exile those who disagreed (heretics).

 

Protestants want Constantine discredited because they consider him the father of Roman Catholicism. The down side is that in doing so, the Council of Nicea's authority is called into question, and therefore the canon of Scripture--which has given shape to their Bible--is also then suspect.

 

Catholics want to downplay any interference because the whole authority of the Church is predicated upon the Holy Spirit guiding Council members to a universal understanding on all doctrinal matters.

 

I can give you links to both pro- and anti-Constantine historical accounts, but again, the thing that jumps out at me is the inherent hostility of the attending bishops towards each other. You cannot convince this Christian that any miraculous movement of the Holy Spirit was behind the "agreement" of the bishops. Not when there was the threat of being exiled or killed if one happened to fall on the wrong side of the majority, which becomes by virtue of its greater numbers, orthodoxy.

 

But even if one is to disregard all accounts of Constantine's manipulations, there are two facts:

 

1. Constantine, not the leaders of the church, called for the Council and arranged for it to be hosted on his territory, as "Bishop of bishops."

 

2. Constantine appointed many of these bishops, himself. Therefore, they derived their authority directly from his political influence. He is the one who doled out the sentences of exile to the heretics.

 

Human nature being what it is, you cannot expect me to suspend common sense, and believe that such a power broker really had no effect on the outcome of the Council. That is why I believe that the accounts of him bribing or coercing the bishops is much closer to reality than the accounts of him piously calling a Council, and remaining in the background, while others called the shots. This was the conquering emperor, who was looking to shore up his empire. I seriously doubt he was motivated by anything more than a desire to cement is power, and resigning himself to being an inert factor just does not fit the picture.

 

 

 

 

For an interesting Protestant account:

 

Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, by David Dungan

 

Anti-Constantine:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm

http://theamazingdeception.com/new_page_15.htm

 

 

pro-Constantine:

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/nicaea.html

http://www.antiochian.org/1110388342

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no surviving primary historical documents of the Council; only a few partial accounts by historians (who are considered heretical). What is left are various accounts by both pro-Constantine and anti-Constantine sources.

 

I always consider the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The irony is, that both accounts agree in one major respect: the Council was still divided on the issue of Arianism when they left, and the best answer the "orthodox" members could give them was to exile those who disagreed (heretics).

 

Protestants want Constantine discredited because they consider him the father of Roman Catholicism. The down side is that in doing so, the Council of Nicea's authority is called into question, and therefore the canon of Scripture--which has given shape to their Bible--is also then suspect.

 

Catholics want to downplay any interference because the whole authority of the Church is predicated upon the Holy Spirit guiding Council members to a universal understanding on all doctrinal matters.

 

I can give you links to both pro- and anti-Constantine historical accounts, but again, the thing that jumps out at me is the inherent hostility of the attending bishops towards each other. You cannot convince this Christian that any miraculous movement of the Holy Spirit was behind the "agreement" of the bishops. Not when there was the threat of being exiled or killed if one happened to fall on the wrong side of the majority, which becomes by virtue of its greater numbers, orthodoxy.

 

But even if one is to disregard all accounts of Constantine's manipulations, there are two facts:

 

1. Constantine, not the leaders of the church, called for the Council and arranged for it to be hosted on his territory, as "Bishop of bishops."

 

2. Constantine appointed many of these bishops, himself. Therefore, they derived their authority directly from his political influence. He is the one who doled out the sentences of exile to the heretics.

 

Human nature being what it is, you cannot expect me to suspend common sense, and believe that such a power broker really had no effect on the outcome of the Council. That is why I believe that the accounts of him bribing or coercing the bishops is much closer to reality than the accounts of him piously calling a Council, and remaining in the background, while others called the shots. This was the conquering emperor, who was looking to shore up his empire. I seriously doubt he was motivated by anything more than a desire to cement is power, and resigning himself to being an inert factor just does not fit the picture.

 

 

 

 

For an interesting Protestant account:

 

Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, by David Dungan

 

Anti-Constantine:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm

http://theamazingdeception.com/new_page_15.htm

 

 

pro-Constantine:

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/nicaea.html

http://www.antiochian.org/1110388342

I agree that the truth is usually somewhere in the middle :) That is why I asked for something to read ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is really sad to stay somewhere that ostracizes and that does not allow honest questioning. I have never felt that way in my church, no matter where I have been faith-wise and no matter how closely I was living that faith. I have always felt encouraged to "work out my salvation with fear and trembling" and be honest about where that puts me spiritually.

 

And there are many, many churches out there that allow open discussion and encourage dealing head on with questions and doubts.

 

Understand - my church on the whole does allow questioning; they encourage it and have a forum for that purpose. Part of my church's entire schtick is to be accepting of seekers or wherever a person is on their journey.

 

What I describe is what I have experienced with individuals, sometimes close friends or family members, sometimes people I've conversed with on-line, sometimes casual friends. There are some subjects that are treated as a severe taboo and mentioning them raises major "I-can't-be-friends-with-you-if-you-think-that-way" vibes. I am not naive about how shunned a person can be by saying they do or don't believe this or that, by making that known. I have a small amount of angst just in the fact that I'm saying these things in a public forum filled with homeschoolers. Who knows who is reading my words?

 

One time, I was having an e-mail conversation with a friend about how it is hard to believe in God's goodness. I thought we were in a good rapport and all was going well; we were both indicating times when we have found it hard to believe that God is good. But in one reply, I made a remark about not believing in the story of the Fall to begin with and the conversation changed abruptly and then ended. She said very curtly that she has never questioned the origin of sin and then the e-mails ended. This type of response has happened MANY times, more times than I could enumerate. There is still a line where "It's okay to doubt this, but if you doubt this, you are in serious trouble." Or, "Oh, plenty of Christians don't believe in a young earth," but then, "WOAH. You don't believe in ___________________????"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand - my church on the whole does allow questioning; they encourage it and have a forum for that purpose. Part of my church's entire schtick is to be accepting of seekers or wherever a person is on their journey.

 

What I describe is what I have experienced with individuals, sometimes close friends or family members, sometimes people I've conversed with on-line, sometimes casual friends. There are some subjects that are treated as a severe taboo and mentioning them raises major "I-can't-be-friends-with-you-if-you-think-that-way" vibes. I am not naive about how shunned a person can be by saying they do or don't believe this or that, by making that known. I have a small amount of angst just in the fact that I'm saying these things in a public forum filled with homeschoolers. Who knows who is reading my words?

 

One time, I was having an e-mail conversation with a friend about how it is hard to believe in God's goodness. I thought we were in a good rapport and all was going well; we were both indicating times when we have found it hard to believe that God is good. But in one reply, I made a remark about not believing in the story of the Fall to begin with and the conversation changed abruptly and then ended. She said very curtly that she has never questioned the origin of sin and then the e-mails ended. This type of response has happened MANY times, more times than I could enumerate. There is still a line where "It's okay to doubt this, but if you doubt this, you are in serious trouble." Or, "Oh, plenty of Christians don't believe in a young earth," but then, "WOAH. You don't believe in ___________________????"

I am so very sorry. :grouphug:

 

Anytime you want to talk or ask questions I would love for you to come to the CTT social group. No conversion needed. And no one will pressure you to believe ___. Just a safe place to be and seek answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand - my church on the whole does allow questioning; they encourage it and have a forum for that purpose. Part of my church's entire schtick is to be accepting of seekers or wherever a person is on their journey.

 

What I describe is what I have experienced with individuals, sometimes close friends or family members, sometimes people I've conversed with on-line, sometimes casual friends. There are some subjects that are treated as a severe taboo and mentioning them raises major "I-can't-be-friends-with-you-if-you-think-that-way" vibes. I am not naive about how shunned a person can be by saying they do or don't believe this or that, by making that known. I have a small amount of angst just in the fact that I'm saying these things in a public forum filled with homeschoolers. Who knows who is reading my words?

 

One time, I was having an e-mail conversation with a friend about how it is hard to believe in God's goodness. I thought we were in a good rapport and all was going well; we were both indicating times when we have found it hard to believe that God is good. But in one reply, I made a remark about not believing in the story of the Fall to begin with and the conversation changed abruptly and then ended. She said very curtly that she has never questioned the origin of sin and then the e-mails ended. This type of response has happened MANY times, more times than I could enumerate. There is still a line where "It's okay to doubt this, but if you doubt this, you are in serious trouble." Or, "Oh, plenty of Christians don't believe in a young earth," but then, "WOAH. You don't believe in ___________________????"

 

I am sorry you are being treated like that. I see a tendency within certain circles to "shoot their wounded" instead of working on healing them, so to speak. They would rather purge outwardly than look inwardly to purify.

 

I don't care how nice these people are otherwise, if they are not treating you intellectually with dignity and respect, maybe being shunned by them is not the worst thing that could happen to you. At the end of the day, you have to respect yourself, and being in a position of silencing yourself to make them happy is not the way to do it. And it does not make them stronger Christians or their churches stronger witnesses either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so very sorry. :grouphug:

 

Anytime you want to talk or ask questions I would love for you to come to the CTT social group. No conversion needed. And no one will pressure you to believe ___. Just a safe place to be and seek answers.

 

Thank you.

 

I am sorry you are being treated like that. I see a tendency within certain circles to "shoot their wounded" instead of working on healing them, so to speak. They would rather purge outwardly than look inwardly to purify.

 

I don't care how nice these people are otherwise, if they are not treating you intellectually with dignity and respect, maybe being shunned by them is not the worst thing that could happen to you. At the end of the day, you have to respect yourself, and being in a position of silencing yourself to make them happy is not the way to do it. And it does not make them stronger Christians or their churches stronger witnesses either.

 

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no surviving primary historical documents of the Council; only a few partial accounts by historians (who are considered heretical). What is left are various accounts by both pro-Constantine and anti-Constantine sources.

 

I always consider the truth is likely somewhere in the middle. The irony is, that both accounts agree in one major respect: the Council was still divided on the issue of Arianism when they left, and the best answer the "orthodox" members could give them was to exile those who disagreed (heretics).

 

Protestants want Constantine discredited because they consider him the father of Roman Catholicism. The down side is that in doing so, the Council of Nicea's authority is called into question, and therefore the canon of Scripture--which has given shape to their Bible--is also then suspect.

 

Catholics want to downplay any interference because the whole authority of the Church is predicated upon the Holy Spirit guiding Council members to a universal understanding on all doctrinal matters.

 

I can give you links to both pro- and anti-Constantine historical accounts, but again, the thing that jumps out at me is the inherent hostility of the attending bishops towards each other. You cannot convince this Christian that any miraculous movement of the Holy Spirit was behind the "agreement" of the bishops. Not when there was the threat of being exiled or killed if one happened to fall on the wrong side of the majority, which becomes by virtue of its greater numbers, orthodoxy.

 

But even if one is to disregard all accounts of Constantine's manipulations, there are two facts:

 

1. Constantine, not the leaders of the church, called for the Council and arranged for it to be hosted on his territory, as "Bishop of bishops."

 

2. Constantine appointed many of these bishops, himself. Therefore, they derived their authority directly from his political influence. He is the one who doled out the sentences of exile to the heretics.

 

Human nature being what it is, you cannot expect me to suspend common sense, and believe that such a power broker really had no effect on the outcome of the Council. That is why I believe that the accounts of him bribing or coercing the bishops is much closer to reality than the accounts of him piously calling a Council, and remaining in the background, while others called the shots. This was the conquering emperor, who was looking to shore up his empire. I seriously doubt he was motivated by anything more than a desire to cement is power, and resigning himself to being an inert factor just does not fit the picture.

 

 

 

 

For an interesting Protestant account:

 

Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament, by David Dungan

 

Anti-Constantine:

http://freetruth.50webs.org/A2a.htm

http://theamazingdeception.com/new_page_15.htm

 

 

pro-Constantine:

http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/nicaea.html

http://www.antiochian.org/1110388342

 

Regardless, without the Council of Nicea and the defeating of Arianism, I would have converted to Judaism long ago. ;)

 

I liked this article, but really found the notes at the bottom to be the most fascinating. Not necessarily, high on the academia scale, but rather readable.

:D http://www.equip.org/articles/what-really-happened-at-nicea-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how exactly is it that atheists live their lives? I wish more Christians lived like the atheists I've known. IME, atheists are thoughtful, curious, possessed of high ethics, concerned about their fellow human being, and very honest.

 

Why should atheists give up these qualities to adopt the peevish, smug, self-righteous, self-centered mindset that is predominate among so many Christians? Why is it when Christians go to criticize the faith of other Christians, the height of insult is to "live like an atheist," likening atheism to the excrement one might wipe off the bottom of their shoe.

 

There is a difference between acknowledged atheists and Christians who just live their faith in a half-a**ed way. The former are constantly called into question over how they live their lives, with their choices always been weighed to determine if they are decent human beings, or amoral beasts ravaging the land.

 

Whereas nominal Christians get to indulge in the outward piety of not-being-atheist while internally picking and choosing what parts of Christianity they want to live by, and what they what to discard. So, in the end, they aren't living by the institutionalized moral system of Christianity, but neither are they living according to their own conscience.

 

 

Oh - I'm sorry. I meant no offense and when writing my original comment I was extremely tired and needed a nap. Sorry if I did offend anyone on this board. What I mean is that Christians that proclaim there is a God with their mouth but live their lives as if they don't believe. They say things in agreement with the Bible but they have no faith in a way that can be seen ... by their actions they don't trust in God. I'm not saying that you can't be nice people, without a belief in God. I'm saying that they really don't have a faith which is what I believe one of the biggest differences between Christianity and atheists. I hope that makes more sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - I'm sorry. I meant no offense and when writing my original comment I was extremely tired and needed a nap. Sorry if I did offend anyone on this board. What I mean is that Christians that proclaim there is a God with their mouth but live their lives as if they don't believe. They say things in agreement with the Bible but they have no faith in a way that can be seen ... by their actions they don't trust in God. I'm not saying that you can't be nice people, without a belief in God. I'm saying that they really don't have a faith which is what I believe one of the biggest differences between Christianity and atheists. I hope that makes more sense.

 

Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. I'm not atheist myself, but I've seen how many get treated by so-called "loving" Christians, and I don't like it.

 

I agree with you that there are many people in lots of churches who are masking disbelief. I think that one reason more of them don't just "come out" and stop pretending, is that they are afraid of being identified as atheists or agnostics, due to the contempt folks in that group have received from society at large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Oh, plenty of Christians don't believe in a young earth," but then, "WOAH. You don't believe in ___________________????"

 

The "Woah" moment would be anything in the Creed, (of Nicea in 325, and perfected in Constantinople in 381 - in our Church that is.)

 

But, for me personally that would not result in shunning a person and our personal relationship, assuming the relationship was good and genuine aside from Christian belief or disbelief. I would continue the relationship as usual and discuss the matter if the other person wanted to discuss it, but ignore it if the person wanted to ignore it. Basically, be a good friend regardless.

 

In our Church if a person was open with the priest about their disbelief in a certain aspect of the Creed that would most likely (it's the priest's decision based on individual circumstances) result in the priest guarding them from receiving communion to their condemnation, and therefore not serve communion to that person until the issue was resolved and faith was restored. Of course the priest would have to determine whether or not a person was wondering, questioning, searching, etc. vs. they are done searching and they have come to a place where they refuse to believe, say in the virginity of the Theotokos (Mary) or any other doctrine as written in the Creed.

 

"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death, until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread and drinks the cup in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord (1 Cor 11:23-26)."

 

The parish priest (in my Church) is responsible for determining when to serve someone communion and when to protect them from receiving unworthily. Here's how that reads from our OCA website, "the priest must discern, recognize, and respond to any circumstances by which an individual has cut off himself or herself from the Eucharist or any other sacrament. In other words it is not the priest who “refuses” to offer the sacrament but, rather, the circumstance in which the person is involved which makes it impossible for the priest to offer the sacrament."

 

The laity is not responsible for determining these things. This is where the phrase, "keep your eyes on your own plate" applies. If we suspect someone should be protected from receiving communion in an unworthy manner, we better get our eyes back on our own plate and repent before we take communion. "Judge not lest ye be judged."

 

That is why I would not answer the poll. I would not presume to even guess at this. I try not to look around at who is taking communion and who is not when it comes time for that part of the liturgy. I focus on my own pre-communion prayers and heart condition. The entire liturgy is an exercise in this, as we continually attend to the prayers, readings, hymns, bows, crossings, prostrations, etc. The minute we realize our attention is on someone else or some distracting thing, we are encouraged to put our attention back on worshiping God. The liturgy is full of "LET US ATTEND" chants. For someone who has a critical spirit (I suffer from this disease) it's like the priest or deacon is saying, "PUT YOUR EYES ON YOUR OWN PLATE."

 

Peace to you in your journey OP.

Edited by JenniferB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think there are many people going to your church who have internally gone apostate or who have withdrawn from most of the belief system of their faith? Do you think it's common or rare?

 

Poll to follow. Please add your thoughts.

We are a new church and most the people who attend, well, there are about 12 adults plus kids are so new to the faith that they are just learning the basics of the faith now. But overall I was surprised when I first became a Christian at how many church people seemed very "godly" yet in their personal lives lived quite the opposite :( That is a sad truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're still committed to an activity that is a healthy outlet for their extroverted tendency, as opposed to any number of sinful ways one could have their needs addressed. They still show up. They could be at the casino or brothel or sitting around gossiping with Mabel and Ethel about how cute Clint Eastwood is.

okay, but I have variety of Christians and non-Christians over for board games, video games and karioke.

I consider myself to be both an apostate (from Mormonism) and a (Christian) heretic.
:cheers2:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I describe is what I have experienced with individuals, sometimes close friends or family members, sometimes people I've conversed with on-line, sometimes casual friends. There are some subjects that are treated as a severe taboo and mentioning them raises major "I-can't-be-friends-with-you-if-you-think-that-way" vibes. I am not naive about how shunned a person can be by saying they do or don't believe this or that, by making that known. I have a small amount of angst just in the fact that I'm saying these things in a public forum filled with homeschoolers. Who knows who is reading my words?

 

One time, I was having an e-mail conversation with a friend about how it is hard to believe in God's goodness. I thought we were in a good rapport and all was going well; we were both indicating times when we have found it hard to believe that God is good. But in one reply, I made a remark about not believing in the story of the Fall to begin with and the conversation changed abruptly and then ended. She said very curtly that she has never questioned the origin of sin and then the e-mails ended. This type of response has happened MANY times, more times than I could enumerate. There is still a line where "It's okay to doubt this, but if you doubt this, you are in serious trouble." Or, "Oh, plenty of Christians don't believe in a young earth," but then, "WOAH. You don't believe in ___________________????"

 

That stinks. I'm sorry. I have seen this & its worse than unfortunate but I can't think of a better word. It has happened to me as well, but thankfully only once that I know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Woah" moment would be anything in the Creed, (of Nicea in 325, and perfected in Constantinople in 381 - in our Church that is.)

 

Exactly. I never put my finger on why the different reactions, but you're right - that is it exactly.

 

I've been in Evangelical circles all my life and the Nicene or Apostolic Creeds are not emphasized. I don't think I even heard of them until about 12 years ago (already an adult with kids).

 

Thanks for explaining the Eyes on your Own Plate thing a bit more fully. It makes more sense to me now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow. I voted and answered based on the understanding that we weren't "judging" peoples' Christianness. We were discussing what percentage of people we think likely don't buy into 100% of their denomination's teachings. I don't think tht has anything to do with judging a personor whether or not they are Christian. Our former priest, whom I loved, would qualify here. He announced every week that ANYONE who was truly a Christ-seeker was welcome to take communion, regardless of whether or not they were baptized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, isn't the word apostate kind of derogatory? So, the poll is actually deciding--as you can see in this thread--if they are 'true' believers or not, and that is exactly what the quote is talking about.

 

It's a keep your eyes on your own plate, moment.

 

I think the use of the word "apostate" is confusing me. Someone who is "apostate" is one who at one time had faith/believed and then "leaves" the faith. To me this is different from someone who is a social Christian or religous participant in name only, but does not actually hold to the beliefs of that church or religion, or have what you might call "true faith".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay, but I have variety of Christians and non-Christians over for board games, video games and karioke.

? Fine, sing karaoke with them and play Scrabble. Not everyone has a built in social network. Some people like an activity, or they just are used to it.

 

Surely all these casual believers know they could go other places on Sunday morning or whenever the services in question is. Yet they continue to show up. I don't see what's so upsetting about it. I think it's nice people feel welcome. I doubt very many people are well informed AND super excited about the whole slate of beliefs. I surely know tons of people who have never found their spiritual "home" and group of friendly people to spend their time with. This seems pretty common. Most people are not ready to be burned alive to prove they are devoted. Most people who attend are comfortable and that's why they keep going. In my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow. I voted and answered based on the understanding that we weren't "judging" peoples' Christianness. We were discussing what percentage of people we think likely don't buy into 100% of their denomination's teachings. I don't think tht has anything to do with judging a personor whether or not they are Christian. Our former priest, whom I loved, would qualify here. He announced every week that ANYONE who was truly a Christ-seeker was welcome to take communion, regardless of whether or not they were baptized.

 

That's how I took it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in my church, the word "apostate" means someone who is in open rebellion against God, so I honestly doubt there are too many. Why stick around if you sincerely think the church is completely wrong?

 

Having said that, on occasion, we do have people wanting to "out" us in some way, so they join our church under false pretenses and then proceed to write and say scurrilous things about our beliefs...but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

To us, considering someone an apostate is not the same as someone who is questioning their beliefs or who is struggling with a particular tenet of their faith. That's just being human, and I think we all have times in our lives where we struggle with things or need help. I think the difference lies in intention. If you want to believe, but you have doubts...that's not being apostate. If you've totally rejected the teachings of your faith, and feel nothing about it is true and good...that it's all a big lie and you don't believe in God...that would be apostate in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is really sad to stay somewhere that ostracizes and that does not allow honest questioning. I have never felt that way in my church, no matter where I have been faith-wise and no matter how closely I was living that faith. I have always felt encouraged to "work out my salvation with fear and trembling" and be honest about where that puts me spiritually.

 

And there are many, many churches out there that allow open discussion and encourage dealing head on with questions and doubts.

I am so glad that you shared this.

 

Surely all these casual believers know they could go other places on Sunday morning or whenever the services in question is. Yet they continue to show up. I don't see what's so upsetting about it.
I am not saying my way is better, you just seemed to think showing up at a religious service that one does not agree with just for the social interaction is better, that's all.

 

The reason I brought it up at all is that I know a lot of people that judge solely based on attendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in my church, the word "apostate" means someone who is in open rebellion against God, so I honestly doubt there are too many. Why stick around if you sincerely think the church is completely wrong?

 

Having said that, on occasion, we do have people wanting to "out" us in some way, so they join our church under false pretenses and then proceed to write and say scurrilous things about our beliefs...but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

 

To us, considering someone an apostate is not the same as someone who is questioning their beliefs or who is struggling with a particular tenet of their faith. That's just being human, and I think we all have times in our lives where we struggle with things or need help. I think the difference lies in intention. If you want to believe, but you have doubts...that's not being apostate. If you've totally rejected the teachings of your faith, and feel nothing about it is true and good...that it's all a big lie and you don't believe in God...that would be apostate in my book.

 

To me that seems like only the most extreme example of someone who no longer believes. There's quite a continuum of how many beliefs one might have given up. I don't eschew everything I ever believed, but if it came down to brass tacks and someone wanted to make me initial a contract of doctrine, they would most likely say I didn't "qualify" to be a Christian. I'm really way beyond having a couple of doubts. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me that seems like only the most extreme example of someone who no longer believes. There's quite a continuum of how many beliefs one might have given up. I don't eschew everything I ever believed, but if it came down to brass tacks and someone wanted to make me initial a contract of doctrine, they would most likely say I didn't "qualify" to be a Christian. I'm really way beyond having a couple of doubts. :tongue_smilie:

 

I'm still not sure I would call that apostate. I believe that you have to be openly advocating rebellion against your church or belief system to earn that title. Simply deciding it's not for you and quietly moving on (without trying to take others with you or shaking your fist at God at the door of your church) does not an apostate make in my book. I'd call that a "personal decision" or a "crisis of belief".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure I would call that apostate. I believe that you have to be openly advocating rebellion against your church or belief system to earn that title. Simply deciding it's not for you and quietly moving on (without trying to take others with you or shaking your fist at God at the door of your church) does not an apostate make in my book. I'd call that a "personal decision" or a "crisis of belief".

 

Well, by this definition, I'm not a Mormon apostate.

 

I just left. Officially, but without trying to take others with me and without shaking my fist at anyone. I rejected Mormonism, but not God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, by this definition, I'm not a Mormon apostate.

 

I just left. Officially, but without trying to take others with me and without shaking my fist at anyone. I rejected Mormonism, but not God.

 

I agree. I would never call you an apostate. I left the Catholic church to become Mormon, but I don't consider myself a Catholic apostate. I have nothing but good memories of my Catholc childhood, my years in Catholic school, and the wonderful priests and sisters who selflessly gave of their time to educate me. I didn't rebel against the Catholic church, I just chose another faith. I imagine your path was similar, but in a different direction. I don't consider either of us apostates...although maybe other people think we are. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. I would never call you an apostate. I left the Catholic church to become Mormon, but I don't consider myself a Catholic apostate. I have nothing but good memories of my Catholc childhood, my years in Catholic school, and the wonderful priests and sisters who selflessly gave of their time to educate me. I didn't rebel against the Catholic church, I just chose another faith. I imagine your path was similar, but in a different direction. I don't consider either of us apostates...although maybe other people think we are. LOL

Personally I wouldn't consider either of you apostate. It sounds more like simply converting to a belief system you have more in common with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me that seems like only the most extreme example of someone who no longer believes. There's quite a continuum of how many beliefs one might have given up. I don't eschew everything I ever believed, but if it came down to brass tacks and someone wanted to make me initial a contract of doctrine, they would most likely say I didn't "qualify" to be a Christian. I'm really way beyond having a couple of doubts. :tongue_smilie:

I believe you are having a crisis of faith. Maybe even just a crisis of denomination. But I don't think you are apostate.

 

IMNSHO, All it takes to qualify as a Christian is belief that you are a follower of Christ and believe He is your Savior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that I like about Judaism -- even really religious Judaism, like ours -- is that we walk a wide circle around what someone _believes_ rather than what someone _does_.

 

If I knew that someone in my congregation was second-guessing what I may secretly think about theological issues, I would think less of that person. If I wanted that person to know what I think about a given theological issue, I'd tell him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the whole thread.

 

It makes me sad.

 

I'm an apostate by most Christian's definitions.

 

But it's the defining Christians who pushed me that direction.

 

Here's what I've renounced: scripted, restrictive, proscribed, man made, exclusive religion.

 

Ironically, to my thinking, Jesus was an apostate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the whole thread.

 

It makes me sad.

 

I'm an apostate by most Christian's definitions.

 

But it's the defining Christians who pushed me that direction.

 

Here's what I've renounced: scripted, restrictive, proscribed, man made, exclusive religion.

 

Ironically, to my thinking, Jesus was an apostate.

 

All religions are exclusive~except, perhaps, Bahai.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

577432_434344989961417_1420557973_n.jpg

 

 

 

I am sorry you are being treated like that. I see a tendency within certain circles to "shoot their wounded" instead of working on healing them, so to speak. They would rather purge outwardly than look inwardly to purify.

 

I don't care how nice these people are otherwise, if they are not treating you intellectually with dignity and respect, maybe being shunned by them is not the worst thing that could happen to you. At the end of the day, you have to respect yourself, and being in a position of silencing yourself to make them happy is not the way to do it. And it does not make them stronger Christians or their churches stronger witnesses either.

 

As hard as it is to be in that position, I agree with Shelly. You deserve better. Questioning, ebbs and flows, they are part and parcel of it all.

Edited by justamouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what I've renounced: scripted, restrictive, proscribed, man made, exclusive religion.

 

Ironically, to my thinking, Jesus was an apostate.

 

That was pretty much the thinking that eventually led us to leave our former church, and why we haven't found a new church. Thank you for summing it up so succinctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's perfectly okay not to believe what your church teaches. Yes it's annoying to have to hide this. The word apostate is old-fashioned and should only be applied to renegade theologians. Everyone should accept us as we are but a lot don't. Even those Christians who judge us only in their minds are wrong. The church should accept everybody. There are no perfect people or churches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All religions are exclusive~except, perhaps, Bahai.

 

I don't believe that.

 

I believe that man has made many known, major world religions exclusive. But I don't believe those religions *are* exclusive, including Christianity.

 

(And I don't see where Buddhism is, either, since they don't worship a deity but follow ideas and a path).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...