Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Are there church police?

There are in the Church of England, according the Monty Python.

[Nerdanel]

Hi again.

I don't think it's as important for a baby to be a member of a church as it is to eat.

And the reason why I dare to be critical towards the christian church, is that I've been a member myself. I would have survived without being baptized. I even had a confirmation, 'cause I was too young to decide what was right. And, of course, I got a lot of presents..
That can't be the reason why one should be member of a church. To get gifts.

Eruviel Greenleaf, thank u. That was exactly what I meant.

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

I don't think it's as important for a baby to be a member of a church as it is to eat.

You can think whatever you want... but I believe, and so do many others, something very differently. Eternal life, at least for me, is a much more pressing issue than my present life. How I live today has a direct affect on how I will live the rest of my life into eternity.

And the reason why I dare to be critical towards the christian church, is that I've been a member myself. I would have survived without being baptized. I even had a confirmation, 'cause I was too young to decide what was right. And, of course, I got a lot of presents..
That can't be the reason why one should be member of a church. To get gifts.

That's not what confirmation is, if you are refering to Catholic confirmation. Getting presents is not what is being discussed. Being a member of a religion, at least for me and others that I know, has nothing to do with getting presents... so I'm not entirely sure I understand why you reference it. I think you are attempting to accuse religious people of being materialistic and shallow. Am I wrong?

By all means, feel free to dare to be critical... but don't expect not to be challenged on it, especially when you are being critical of other people and their beliefs. Others will dare to be critical right back.

Regards,
Dave

[Rían]

Hi, Eruviel, nice to see you again!

I'll jump into the discussion in a bit, probably - we had an early Christmas celebration this weekend, and I've been pretty busy)

[brownjenkins]

i don't know if i really have enough free time for eternal life myself

[Rían]

by Artanis
And that is leading up to yet another question, RÃ*an dear, if you don't mind, and if you do please say so, I don't want to wear you out! The question is: How do you explain that Christians are split also in this question (as they are in many other questions as well)? The bishop and the priest in my little story, they believe in the same God as you do, but they seem to have a different view on what is right and wrong. How does this go together with absolute truth?

Here is Artanis' question from the Gay/Lesbian thread - I'm moving it here because we thought it was too much off-topic.

The quick answer to how I explain that Christians are split on some issues is that we are imperfect people in a damaged world. BUT - I also think that being split, and the existence of absolute truth, is not the main issue - and I'd like to illustrate this with a story ...

[Rían]

I read a lot in my younger days but never really read a lot of fairy tales until I was in college, and a friend got me started on them. I read thru most of the Andrew Lang edited Fairy Books - the Red Fairy Book, the Blue Fairy Book, Green, etc.

One of the most common forms, of course, is the brave prince rescuing the beautiful princess. But I found another one that was also quite common, to my surprise - a princess loving a prince, who is often disguised, then doing something wrong and losing him and having to go thru trials and danger to be reunited with him. A great example of this one is "The Black Bull of Norroway", which JRRT quotes from in his "On Fairy Stories" essay, and I'll quote what he quoted:

[the princess says to the prince:]
"Seven long years I served for thee,
The glassy hill I climbed for thee,
The bloody shirt I wrang for thee,
And wilt thou not waken and turn to me?"

He heard and turned to her.

At first I was rather irked that the poor princess had to go thru all that hard work to regain the prince, and thought it was just some odd quirk of a fairy tale ... until I saw another one like it, and another one ...

And I've finally realized the truth represented in it.

Now please note that I don't think the authors of fairy stories WROTE the stories with a particular analogy in mind - IMO, they were just writing beautiful stories that touched deep in people's hearts. However, I think what touches our hearts, touches because it represents something that is true and good. God is truth - the truth always points to God, IMO - and that's one reason why I like to always tell the truth, even in the "debate"-type threads, even if the truth isn't neat and easy. I don't desire to win in the discussions; just to tell what I think is the truth.

Anyway, the brave prince seeking the beautiful princess is a beautiful truth, and echoes the truth of Jesus the brave, the loving, seeking the people that He loves but are trapped by sin. But the reverse version, IMO, echoes the story from OUR point of view - we were with God, we chose rebellion, we were separated from God, and now we travel an often weary road back to Him (weary, because we must learn what separation means), but with fullness of joy at the end.

So with that second story in mind, here's a little story that I made up, that I hope will help to answer your question. (sorry that it's not Tolkien-quality but I hope it helps answer your question in a bit of a unique way, and also in a powerful way, as stories often do) :

[Rían]

The Princess and the King

Once upon a time, there was a lovely princess, who was also kind and good, which is not always the case. And just at the right time, when her heart had started to realize that it was aching for something or someone (altho she was very happy at home), there came a young King to her kingdom, looking for a bride to love and cherish. And this King was noble and wise and loving and courageous, altogether the perfect King and the answer to her heart's longing. And he saw the lovely princess, and knew that she was the one for him, and he loved her so much he knew that he would die for her, if need be, and he asked for her hand in marriage. But for some reason, he kept his face veiled, and told her she could not look upon him until their wedding night, which would take place when they reached his castle. She, however, was a wise princess, altho young, and knew that true beauty is in the soul, so altho she was a bit curious about what he looked like, she consented to the engagement with great happiness.

Her parents consented to their elopement, and she travelled with the King and his entourage towards his beautiful castle. It was a long trip, but the days seemed like minutes because of their love for each other. But there was one small problem for the princess - she grew more and more curious to see what he looked like. This little thing, which she knew to be petty and insignificant compared to his noble character and loving ways, grew to be more and more irritating, altho when she was close to him she forgot about it.

One day, they stopped to rest by a lovely stream, and the princess had wandered into the woods looking for some flowers to give to her love. She came across an old lady, who said to her, "What is troubling you, my lovely? For I see that you are not content. Is there some secret thing troubling your heart?"

The princess was startled, but answered, "You see truly, dame. I am on my way to be wed, but my betrothed will not let me see his face until our wedding night."

The old lady replied, "Why would someone hide something unless it is ugly and repulsive? For your own good, you must take away the veil while he sleeps, and see what is underneath! He must be intending to deceive you!"

The princess was troubled, for she knew that her King was so noble that he would never deceive her, but still, she wanted to see what he really looked like, and so she thanked the old lady for her advice, never stopping to consider that she didn't know her character, and she DID know the king's character, and went back to camp. The flowers she had picked and placed in her basket for him drooped and faded, but perhaps that was just because they were separated from what gave them life.

to be continued ...

[Rían]

When she got back to the encampment, the king saw that she was troubled, but tho he asked her about it, she denied it and kept the conversation with the old dame to herself. She asked him once again, as she had at their engagement, if she could see his face, but he only replied "You must trust me, my love, for I seek your greatest joy. Let my character speak for my truthfulness in this matter." But as the day turned into evening, the seed of the plot grew in her heart, and she determined to lift the veil that night, as it was a full moon and she would be able to see his face.

(my goodness, this is getting waaaay longer than I intended! I'll try to wrap it up quickly)

So that night, as the full moon reached her zenith, she crept over to the sleeping king and softly lifted the veil. What she saw broke her heart and blinded her eyes - the king was dazzlingly beautiful - and as she cried out and groped in her darkness, she heard thunder and crashing all around her, and the king's voice, coming from farther and farther away, and speaking with great sorrow - "My love, you would not trust me - and now we must both bear the consequences. You must seek me through a hard and weary journey, and I - but I cannot tell you what I must bear, for it would break your heart. You must follow what is written in the book that I give you, if you wish to find me again. Know that I love you forever, and desire nothing else but to be with you - but altho I can make the path to bring us together again, you must choose whether or not to make the journey." And the princess wept as though her heart would break. And the king wept, and his heart did break, and the blood from his wound made a path across the deep, deep chasm that now separated them.

The princess woke up in the morning, and found a beautiful book by her side that she knew was from the king. With a deep sigh, but firm resolve, she picked it up and started her journey, knowing that at the end was her heart's desire.

[Rían]

And now I must shorten my tale, and pass over the long time that the princess spent in her journey. As she passed through different countries, seeking her love, she always found that when she had read about the countries in her book, it kept her from danger and sped her journey. But when she neglected to read, her way was always more difficult and lengthy. And always, as she regained the right path, she saw small drops of red alongside the path; and this somehow reminded her of her love, and how he had delighted in giving her lovely deep red roses, and this lightened her heart and gave her strength to go on.

One day, she saw to her great joy a beautiful castle in the distance, and by the banners flying joyfully on the turrets, she knew it was the home of her love. Altho she was weary and travel-stained, she ran the last few miles to the castle, and was greeted with great honor by the guards at the gate. "Run, lovely princess, run, your race is almost finished, and your love awaits you in the throne room!" the guards sang out to her. She ran, tears streaming down her face from pure joy; she ran, aching to be reunited with her love and the desire of her heart; she ran, wanting to fall down before him and beg his forgiveness for her lack of trust, and to tell him that if he still loved her, she would be his forever. The courtiers lined the hallways, shouting "She comes! She comes! The beloved of our king comes! His long wait is over, and it is time for their joy!"

She ran into the throneroom and stopped - there he was, his arms held out to her, blood from the making of the path on his hands and brow and feet - gloriously beautiful, gloriously loving. She sank to the ground. He ran to her and lifted her up - and said, with tears in his eyes and joy in his countenance ...

(to be continued)

[Rían]

(now it's time for a brief pause...)

Artanis, I will let YOU choose which ending you think is right

1. "Oh, hello there, princess! Bummer about you not trusting me! Gave us an awful lot of pain and sorrow - but oh well. Anyway, I'm glad you followed my instructions in the book and made it! Sometimes you followed them pretty good, but other times you kinda blew it, huh! I give you about a B-minus as far as following instructions. You're a bit stubborn, you know, hee hee! But you can go back home now, or just hang out here if you want to - whatever - but I'm awful busy with running things, you know, so I won't see you even if you stick around. But know that overall, I'm pretty pleased with how you followed instructions. Ta-ta, now!"

The End.

2. "Rise, my love, our sorrows are ended! You sought me, and you have found me, and now that you are in my castle, your eyes are strengthened so that you can gaze upon me without hurt. Come away, my love, and we shall be wed this moment, and live in our love forever! We have passed through sorrow to joy, and tho the sorrow was grievous, it made our joy the sweeter. Come with me!"

And they were married that very day, and lived happily ever after.

The End.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What do you think of the two endings, and do you see how they could apply to your question? (If not, I'm not surprised at all, as I'm no Tolkien! and I'll be glad to explain. But please try to think about it for a bit and see what you come up with )

[Hemel]

quickly - before I finally disappear completely for Christmas

Just wanted to come in and say this - Guillaume, I think what Nerdanel meant was that to a young child the thought of getting presents is quite an enticement, and that she is actually questioning the wisdom of confirming a child until that child is old enough truly to understand. So my view is not that she was saying that religious people are shallow and materialistic.

Nerdanel, if I've misinterpreted or leapt in where I shouldn't - apologies! and do set me straight.


Best wishes to everyone for the season



(completely off this topic .... Nerdanel - btw, I recognised a perspective you used on another thread and thought it an interesting critique)

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
The quick answer to how I explain that Christians are split on some issues is that we are imperfect people in a damaged world. BUT - I also think that being split, and the existence of absolute truth, is not the main issue - and I'd like to illustrate this with a story ...

Then from the story I'd say that you think the continuous struggle to be reunited with God to be the main issue, the most important thing. And to interpret a little bit further: As the princess we also stray from the right path because as you said we are imperfect people and doesn't always follow what is said in the book. But when we finally reach the King it does no longer matter which path we have trod to get there, as long as we get there (option B ).

It is a nice story, and I agree with its moral. I too think that we should constantly struggle to improve ourselves, we must always try to be better than we currently are (but it is of course a huge discussion on what it means to be 'better' and 'good', and what is the goal of our improvement).

But see, the reason I asked you this question is this: From the pov of someone who is not a Christian, seeing Christians take quite the opposite views on issues such as homosexual marriages and female priests, with both sides saying that they are doing the will of God, it is not quite - logical. So when I say at least one of them must be wrong, it is not only out of jest.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

A very nice story, Rian; I liked it a lot.

However, one note: I don't think that actually Christ (i.e. God the Son) gave us the Book, but rather, God the Holy Spirit. Would you agree with this?

[Rían]

The story was just a simple analogy, Gwai, that I made up in my head over the last several days, and like PJ with LOTR, I didn't want to bring in too many characters! Note that I didn't refer to "the Emperor over the Sea" either, like Lewis does in Narnia. But since she just found it by her side, and didn't see who put it there, I guess you could say the HS did it ...

I roughly agree with you, tho, about the Bible - don't know that it was solely the work of the HS, but I would say mainly. But as long as it's from The Firm in general, it's ok by me

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Division in Christianity is a great embarrassment, and a great evil. It is the stumbling block, so I understand Artanis. We Christians believe in an absolute and unchanging truth, yet we can hardly agree among each other how to approach this absolute truth, even after this absolute truth walked among us! It is truly the most illogical thing in this world. I really liked your story, Rian, but I think the issue is way deeper than just finding different paths to the truth. The issue revolves around how Christianity is perceived by those we Christians are called to bring to the light of Christ. Not until Christians can find a way to overcome our differences will we be able to fulfill this calling, and that is why I’m encouraged and discouraged by our discussions here. Encouraged that we are discussing our differences, and discouraged by the fact that we remain in division. Differences are good, but discension is an evil that weighs on all Christians, and we Christians can't blame non-Christians for pointing out this, our greatest weakness.

This is the way I see it:

The burden is heavier for Catholics because Catholics are to blame for all the divisions. Catholics, therefore, must do more to bridge the gap. This does not mean that Catholics should think of changing the Church’s doctrines... these can not be changed. Catholics have to start living lives in accordance with the doctrines of the Church, lives that in virtue of what our Church teaches will not fail to be visibly different than the rest of our culture. American Catholics are invisible, they are just like everyone else. That has to change, because what we believe is radically different. For example, if we truly believe that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist preserved in tabernacle, why do we live so far away from that tabernacle? Why aren’t we visiting that tabernacle every day? If we believe that baptism and confirmation made us into new people, why do we still live like the old, concerned with the things of the flesh, like a second mortgage, two cars, a plasma screen TV, a boat on the lake, the Christmas shopping rush, etc.? Why do we fail to make our parishes into faith communities of mutual faith and support where we can live, not as isolated individuals, but as people sharing our new lives with each other? Why do people making over four hundred grand a year sit two pews over from an immigrant family facing foreclosure on their house? All of us will be held accountable for that crap!!!

Edit: Emphasis added above... this really really irritates me! As a Catholic, I can honestly say, you won't see a bigger group of hypocrites anywhere than at a typical Catholic church on Sunday! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE FOR CATHOLICS NOT EVEN TRYING TO LIVE IN COMMUNITIES OF MUTUAL FAITH AND SUPPORT! American Catholics need to stop trying to be like everyone else, and need to start trying to be like Catholics! If I see one more third-generation-of-Irish-immigrants-Catholic turn up his or her nose at a Spanish Mass...... alright <takes a big breath> better now...

All of us, Catholic and not, need to start working together on the big issues. It is up to each Christian community to take care of their own, to eradicate poverty and want in their own communities by sharing all things in common. On the big issues, like social and legislative action, issues like abortion, capital punishment, social welfare, etc... we should act together to represent the Gospel that we all believe in. We must remain in dialogue with each other, and make efforts to share our experiences. We have to make a concerted effort to present a united front.

I’m not a romantic. Overcoming these divisions is not something that can be done at the drop of a hat. What is often overlooked when division is considered, is that this division was not unplanned--it was not a random occurrence. Behind all the little things, behind all the acts of corruption, stupidity, and stubbornness was an intelligence working against God’s will, an intelligence that is highly organized and very pervasive in its subtle urgings and temptations. Our hope is, though, that all we have to do to overcome this malicious intelligence is co-operate with a more powerful intelligence, that of the infinitely loving God in whom we believe.

[Insidious Rex]

you go Guillaume! tell those catholics. actually that reminds me i had a bunch of questions but you guys seemed to be chewing on the menutia for the past week or two here and i didnt think i had a place to speak. but since you bring up living as god originally planned (not materialisticly) werent the very FIRST christian communities much like socialist communes where everything was shared and there was no ownership of things and everything was pooled together for the good of the group. when people got things they gave them to an arbitrator (I think Peter was the main arbitrator of the original group post Jesus) and he gave it to those in most need. Sounds like an ideal way to run a religion in my opinion. what happened? whats with all the SUVs and jacuzis and bling bling?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

IR, I haven’t time right now to give a complete answer to your question. But I’ll just say a couple of things. The passages that refer to early Christian communities in the Acts of the Apostles are very useful for formulating models for Christian communities today. It should be noted, though, that was is present here is somewhat different than what we are presented with in Paul’s letters. These passages from Acts were pictures of an ideal situation, as well, and were not intended to be exact representations of actual communities.

Paul’s letters demonstrate that Christian communities were definitely not the Marxist paradise once posited by Liberation Theologians not that long ago. In fact there is a great amount of evidence both from the texts and from recent archeology that there was a great deal of social and economic stratification. There seems to be no indication that basic social status was not changed when people became Christian... free remained free, slaves remained slaves, etc. It would even appear that some continued to practice their Jewish religion, a practice that Paul was not happy with at all.

This is not to say, however, that the Pauline communities reflected the predominate Greco/Roman culture. In fact, these communities were visibly different from the society in which they existed. They lived in close proximity to each other using the familia model, they worshiped together daily, and they certainly went to great lengths to provide for one another. Paul was very irritated that some were not providing for those in need in their communities, and he points back to customary practice in his correction. One of the greatest scandals for Paul was that there were those in need in the Christian community. I wonder how scandalized Paul would be today to see all those SUVs parked next to broken down pintos in a typical American Catholic parking lot?

Beats, me IR. I've seen more diamond earrings on Christian ears than I would care to count. Its embaracing.

[Nerdanel]

Originally posted by Guillaume le Maréchal
You can think whatever you want... but I believe, and so do many others, something very differently. Eternal life, at least for me, is a much more pressing issue than my present life. How I live today has a direct affect on how I will live the rest of my life into eternity.

But if the religion that you are "born into" is the wrong religion, then you won't get eternal life from being a part of it. Like, IF the christian God exists, and I'm born in Asia and believe in Buddah, is that good for me then? Will I have to go to hell because I was "born in" the wrong religion?

That's not what confirmation is, if you are refering to Catholic confirmation. Getting presents is not what is being discussed. Being a member of a religion, at least for me and others that I know, has nothing to do with getting presents... so I'm not entirely sure I understand why you reference it. I think you are attempting to accuse religious people of being materialistic and shallow. Am I wrong?

By all means, feel free to dare to be critical... but don't expect not to be challenged on it, especially when you are being critical of other people and their beliefs. Others will dare to be critical right back.

Oh, sorry. I had a lutheran confirmation. Forgot to tell u..
I'm absolutely not trying to accuse religious people of being materialistic. I'm accusing me. I meant that I had a confirmation just to get gifts, and so did almost everyone else of my friends. I knew back then that I shouldn't be a part of that church. So I stayed a member for the wrong reason.

Oh, please be critical. Otherwise I wouldn't be here!

[Arien the Maia]

Guillaume, I totally agree with you!

Living here in the suburbs, I see alot of what you discribed...SUVs, big houses, lots of expensive designer clothes etc., etc.,. Then you go downtown and it's a totally different game...junker cars, old clothes, falling apart houses. It realy is sad. As much as I would LOVE to have a nice house I don't want an SUV b/c I think that they are unnecessarily extravegant and no wonder that the rest of the owrld thinks that Americans are greedy fat pigs. Alot of us are.

Also, on the subject of Christain division...Divide and Conqure (sp?) Perhaps this is Satan's motto. Dividing the Christian Church to weaken it and try to dominate it.

I wen to confession today in preparation of Christmas. I must say that I saw hardly ANYONE there! How unfortunate! Jesus gave us His gift of forgiveness and we don't accept it. How sad! I know alot of Catholics who don't agree with the Church's teachings but who still call themselves CAtholic...it makes me mad b/c it gives Cahtolics who try to do what the Church teaches a bad name.