Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[Dr. Pepper]

This is what it's like in my family. I point out they are all christians and they tie themselves in knots trying to prove how different they are because one's a baptist, one's a methodist, one's a catholic, one's a Lutheran, and one's an atheist.  Some go to church, some don't.  But the gist is they all believe in the same jesus and the same god except for the one who doesn't.  They eat ice cream, just different flavors (except for the one who doesn't).  Some have dabbled in entirely other religions here or there because they had the opportunity.  But the point is that they were born in a place where christianity was the predominant religion so they are, by and large, christians.  Since they have a propensity for faith in the supernatural, chances are if they had been born in a muslim majority place, they would have been some flavor of muslim, or in a jewish country some flavor of jew, and so on and so forth.  

This is what is meant, Scot.  For the most part, and with one exception, your family is predominately christian because of where they were born.  Yes, you are all different flavors of xtian, but still you are mostly xtian, with the exception of your brother.  And even then, he's probably culturally christian.  I'm an atheist and I certainly see myself as culturally christian.  This is what I grew up with.  If I engage with religious holidays, they will be primarily christian ones (xmas, easter, etc), for example.

As Mikael says, faith (and I'd argue even religiously influenced culture) tends to be caused by where one is born.  

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

In truth if I weren't Orthodox I'd probably be a philosophical Bhuddist.

My point... is that if the environment you grew up were controlling why did my Brother and I seek out paths that were so different from the one blazed by my family.  My sister thinks I've put my soul at risk by being Orthodox and my other Brother goes to church on Easter and Christmas.  

The way we grew up didn't seem to have a great deal of impact upon the choices my siblings and I made with regard to our religiosity or lack thereof.

Having said that, you are still religious and seek answers from a religion, which I would say is a choice that is heavily influenced by your upbringing.

[red snow]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

As Mikael says, faith (and I'd argue even religiously influenced culture) tends to be caused by where one is born.  

Largely true but I think micro-communities still play a large role eg any religious minorities have a tendency to group and as long as they aren't oppressed by the state they'll tend to stick to their family's religion. So Jewish communties, etc don't all convert to the dominant religion - the faith can often become stronger as it becomes more culturally relevant in a different place. Although I'm sure there is more chance of people changing to the dominant religion in those cases.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Having said that, you are still religious and seek answers from a religion, which I would say is a choice that is heavily influenced by your upbringing.

Jon,

And without the internal view I have it is certainly a point of view.  

FNR,

As a Christian I believe that we all have to come to Christ without compulsion.  That the choice to believe in our trinitarian God is freely made or is not a real choice.  I believe that this is incredibly important Christ never asked, taught, or instructed his followers to force people to believe in him.  It had to be a choice freely made.  

[Pebble thats Stubby]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Which is why my Sister (15 years ago) decided to come at me concerned "about my soul" because I liked the wrong flavor of milkshake?

And you really brushed past my brother who doesn't like milkshakes at all.

 

Ok so this view is from my non-believing self.   You identify as a Christian, you believe in God, and Jesus, Heaven.  You believe Jesus died for your sins and after 3 days came back before going up to heaven.

In many ways because of your environment you have been programmed to accept and believe this from a young age in the same way I was programmed to believe in Father Christmas.  When you are 4 you don't really question what your parents tell you even when the programming only happens once a year.   And lets face it there is far more physically evidence of Father Christmas in the form of all those presents he leave and the half eaten mince pie.

This means that when you grow up and start to form your own opinions you where much more likely to remain a Christian and remain believing in God and Jesus ect.   than to grow up to become a Hindu, because you was not really exposed to Hindu belief's to the same extent as christian ones.    Your belief in God was re-enforced a lot more than my belief in Father Christmas, (that only happens once a year)  meaning your more likely to keep the belief for longer before questioning it.  And now I think you have admitted before that although there is no physical proof of God's existence you choose to believe anyway and thats what faith really is.  (or something like that)

Yes you may have picked a different label of Christianity, but at the very core beliefs are the same.  God, Jesus ect.   Its the seasoning that different, and yes that seasoning often says Mine is the one true way.   Sometimes its Mine is the one true way, but if you believe close enough thats ok, just not as good.

There are lots of examples of people converting to a different religion or becoming a non-believer.  Its just that your a more likely to follow the faith of those most influential in your life, especially early life.

I'm guessing that you grew up in a more open family that encouraged you to explore your belief's and in many ways decide for yourselves, but you where still taken to a christian church and taught to say grace before meals.  This may have encouraged your family to explore different branches of Christianity more than some stricter closed groups that shun family members who don't conform.  It also allowed your Brother to decide that faith alone is not enough for him.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Pebble said:

Ok so this view is from my non-believing self.   You identify as a Christian, you believe in God, and Jesus, Heaven.  You believe Jesus died for your sins and after 3 days came back before going up to heaven.

In many ways because of your environment you have been programmed to accept and believe this from a young age in the same way I was programmed to believe in Father Christmas.  When you are 4 you don't really question what your parents tell you even when the programming only happens once a year.   And lets face it there is far more physically evidence of Father Christmas in the form of all those presents he leave and the half eaten mince pie.

This means that when you grow up and start to form your own opinions you where much more likely to remain a Christian and remain believing in God and Jesus ect.   than to grow up to become a Hindu, because you was not really exposed to Hindu belief's to the same extent as christian ones.    Your belief in God was re-enforced a lot more than my belief in Father Christmas, (that only happens once a year)  meaning your more likely to keep the belief for longer before questioning it.  And now I think you have admitted before that although there is no physical proof of God's existence you choose to believe anyway and thats what faith really is.  (or something like that)

Yes you may have picked a different label of Christianity, but at the very core beliefs are the same.  God, Jesus ect.   Its the seasoning that different, and yes that seasoning often says Mine is the one true way.   Sometimes its Mine is the one true way, but if you believe close enough thats ok, just not as good.

There are lots of examples of people converting to a different religion or becoming a non-believer.  Its just that your a more likely to follow the faith of those most influential in your life, especially early life.

I'm guessing that you grew up in a more open family that encouraged you to explore your belief's and in many ways decide for yourselves, but you where still taken to a christian church and taught to say grace before meals.  This may have encouraged your family to explore different branches of Christianity more than some stricter closed groups that shun family members who don't conform.  It also allowed your Brother to decide that faith alone is not enough for him.

 

Just to give an example of what I'm doing with my own children.  When my Daughter was 7 we were on our way to church on Sunday and she, randomly, asked "Daddy... is the Bible true?".  I made a point to say at that point, "Darling, that's a great question and on you are going to have to answer for yourself."  

So, perhaps you're right coming from a more pluralistic and open family with regard to religious beliefs does have impact.  I really hope so.

[Free Northman Reborn]

17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Jon,

And without the internal view I have it is certainly a point of view.  

FNR,

As a Christian I believe that we all have to come to Christ without compulsion.  That the choice to believe in our trinitarian God is freely made or is not a real choice.  I believe that this is incredibly important Christ never asked, taught, or instructed his followers to force people to believe in him.  It had to be a choice freely made.  

And I have already said I agree with that. Free will is at the heart of the Christian doctrine. However, free will does not have to entail teaching a child in detail about every religion on earth and then asking them to choose between them. Free will can also be teaching a child about Christianity only, and then having them choose whether they wish to follow it or not. The chances of them choosing it is then exponentially higher, but surely that should be the goal, if you believe in the basic principle that Christianity is the only way to be saved.

If you don't believe that Christianity is the only way to be saved, well, what do you believe then? And as in a previous incarnation of this thread, I have to ask, do you care enough about your fellow man to care that he/she will otherwise be lost for eternity? Or is it a question that you just prefer not to think about?

[Pebble thats Stubby]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Just to give an example of what I'm doing with my own children.  When my Daughter was 7 we were on our way to church on Sunday and she, randomly, asked "Daddy... is the Bible true?".  I made a point to say at that point, "Darling, that's a great question and on you are going to have to answer for yourself."  

So, perhaps you're right coming from a more pluralistic and open family with regard to religious beliefs does have impact.  I really hope so.

of course family life makes a difference.  If you had never taken her to church at all, and didn't take part in any religious activity, she would of been more likely to ask, "Daddy, Why do people believe in the Bible?"

And if you where on the extreme end, she may of been too afraid of being punished to ask anything like that.

 

 

I think its great that you encourage your kids to think for themselves.  I was never told there was no god,  Mum and Dad let me figure that stuff out for myself, even if they did not believe.  I even got sent to Sunday School one year during holidays, because it would be good for me to learn about and make my own choices.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Pebble said:

of course family life makes a difference.  If you had never taken her to church at all, and didn't take part in any religious activity, she would of been more likely to ask, "Daddy, Why do people believe in the Bible?"

And if you where on the extreme end, she may of been too afraid of being punished to ask anything like that.

 

 

I think its great that you encourage your kids to think for themselves.  I was never told there was no god,  Mum and Dad let me figure that stuff out for myself, even if they did not believe.  I even got sent to Sunday School one year during holidays, because it would be good for me to learn about and make my own choices.

Pebble,

Now, you're heading in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.  We've had people on the board, from time to time, who have claimed that it is wrong for parents to take their children to church (some have called it "child abuse").  My question for them has always been... who's going to watch the kids while their parents are at Church? 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And I have already said I agree with that. Free will is at the heart of the Christian doctrine. However, free will does not have to entail teaching a child in detail about every religion on earth and then asking them to choose between them. Free will can also be teaching a child about Christianity only, and then having them choose whether they wish to follow it or not. The chances of them choosing it is then exponentially higher, but surely that should be the goal, if you believe in the basic principle that Christianity is the only way to be saved.

If you don't believe that Christianity is the only way to be saved, well, what do you believe then? And as in a previous incarnation of this thread, I have to ask, do you care enough about your fellow man to care that he/she will otherwise be lost for eternity? Or is it a question that you just prefer not to think about?

FNR,

I call that a "God Problem".  If there is a heresy that my wife and I brush against it is "Perennialism".

I can't reach everyone and, frankly, I find aggressive evangelization turns more people off than it actually brings into Church.  I like the quote (frequently misatrributed to St. Francis), "Preach the gospel always.  When necessary use words."  I think Evangelism is more about how you live your life than how many people you frighten into coming to Church.

[Free Northman Reborn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

I call that a "God Problem".  If there is a heresy that my wife and I brush against it is "Perennialism".

I can't reach everyone and, frankly, I find aggressive evangelization turns more people off than it actually brings into Church.  I like the quote (frequently misatrributed to St. Francis), "Preach the gospel always.  When necessary use words."  I think Evangelism is more about how you live your life than how many people you frighten into coming to Church.

Thanks for the answer. I find it a bit vague, but seems to roughly translate to: Good deeds are what is important. What people believe in, less so.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Pebble,

Now, you're heading in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.  We've had people on the board, from time to time, who have claimed that it is wrong for parents to take their children to church (some have called it "child abuse").  My question for them has always been... who's going to watch the kids while their parents are at Church? 

To be fair I was raised Catholic, taken to church every Sunday and had it drilled into me by my mother about God and Jesus, and the same at school. My father was not religious and so he didn't really encourage it. By the time I hit about 12 I'd decided it was all a lot of old nonsense and didn't make a lick of sense to me so I just stopped believing any of it.

I don't think there is any harm in raising your child in a religion, as long as they have the freedom to decide to continue or not when the time is right.

[aceluby]

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

I call that a "God Problem".  If there is a heresy that my wife and I brush against it is "Perennialism".

I can't reach everyone and, frankly, I find aggressive evangelization turns more people off than it actually brings into Church.  I like the quote (frequently misatrributed to St. Francis), "Preach the gospel always.  When necessary use words."  I think Evangelism is more about how you live your life than how many people you frighten into coming to Church.

I'd like to think that if there is a God, she wouldn't be so petty as to say "you lived a really great life, full of love, great deeds, and always thinking about others; just as Jesus taught.  But you didn't come to the right church and didn't say the right words at the right time, so unfortunately you have an eternity of damnation ahead of you.  Sorry, it's just policy."

[Pebble thats Stubby]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Pebble,

Now, you're heading in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.  We've had people on the board, from time to time, who have claimed that it is wrong for parents to take their children to church (some have called it "child abuse").  My question for them has always been... who's going to watch the kids while their parents are at Church? 

I don't in anyway agree with those people.

Taking your child to church is learning about your culture and whats important to you.

Encouraging her to ask questions is letting her form her own opinions.

I'm also sure that if your daughter objected to going to church because of a lack of belief or different belief's you would do your best to try and find a compromise.  Either go less, or find some safe care for her during church time.  I also think I know you enough that if your Daughter asked you to take her to a Hindu Temple you would support her.

 

Demanding your child goes to church is not child abuse, Demanding they visit Aunt Edna is not child abuse.

Demanding your child believes as you do, is/might be abuse.   Demanding that they kiss Aunt Edna well I won't go so far as abbuse, but its certainly not totally ok.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Thanks for the answer. I find it a bit vague, but seems to roughly translate to: Good deeds are what is important. What people believe in, less so.

That's an oversimplification.  I think that God can and does judge people for who they are and how they live their lives as opposed to whether they follow the precise doctrine we believe God has told us to follow.  

For example, Orthodoxy has a fairly strict fast in the lead up to Pascha and Nativity.  We are supposed to abstain from eating, meat, dairy, bony fish, alcohol, and foods cooked with olive oil for 40 days in both circumstances (we do this on Wed. and Fridays year round and for two other minor fasts) yet this is from the Paschal sermon of St. John Chrysostom:

And he shows mercy upon the last, and cares for the first; and to the one he gives, and upon the other he bestows gifts. And he both accepts the deeds, and welcomes the intention, and honors the acts and praises the offering. Wherefore, enter you all into the joy of your Lord; and receive your reward, both the first, and likewise the second. You rich and poor together, hold high festival. You sober and you heedless, honor the day. Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast. The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously. The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We celebrate the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom almost every Sunday.  Yet St. John, in his most famous statement, tells people to feast whether they have fasted or not.  Is the fast unimportant?  No, its not.  But if the fast is elevated above salvation the fast is turned into a worship of itself and not something that is about honoring God.  Therefore, while I believe doctrine is important, I do not believe that doctrine that is conceved by and for humans can limit God.  As such... I do not claim to know or control God's mind or God's purposes.  Thus... I think God is there for all of us regardless of belief, or lack thereof.

[Dr. Pepper]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Pebble,

Now, you're heading in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.  We've had people on the board, from time to time, who have claimed that it is wrong for parents to take their children to church (some have called it "child abuse").  My question for them has always been... who's going to watch the kids while their parents are at Church? 

Your atheist brother?  Or that other sibling who rarely attends church?  Or any other babysitter you can round up who isn't attending church at the same time you are.  I mean, this isn't difficult to answer.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 As such... I do not claim to know or control God's mind or God's purposes.  Thus... I think God is there for all of us regardless of belief, or lack thereof.

Which kind of begs the question why believe in a god if he treats everyone the same. 

This all reminds me of American Gods. 

[The King in Black]

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Pebble,

Now, you're heading in a direction that makes me uncomfortable.  We've had people on the board, from time to time, who have claimed that it is wrong for parents to take their children to church (some have called it "child abuse").  My question for them has always been... who's going to watch the kids while their parents are at Church? 

Don't remind me of those dark days man.

 

But that leads to another interesting point. Christians often complaint how only they are being targeted for their beliefs and looking out for their interests when a ) every religion does that and b ) Atheists argue against religion and them specifically far more aggressively. But tying with the above point I raised about how predominant politicians must affirm their Christianity it becomes clear why - Christians have way more power in the current system than anybody else, but they ignore this simple reality and choose to indulge in victim complex  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Your atheist brother?  Or that other sibling who rarely attends church?  Or any other babysitter you can round up who isn't attending church at the same time you are.  I mean, this isn't difficult to answer.

Dr. Pepper,

The 6 hour drive to drop my kids off at Uncle Peter's, or the 16 hour drive to drop my kids off at Uncle Lucas's would be a bit of an impediment to that idea.  As for finding a babysitter on Sunday mornings from 8 AM - 1 PM that would be pricey.  Are you saying that only those who have the money to pay a babysitter should be able to go to church?

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

You word it very well, and what makes it carry more weight is that you are coming from the point of view of an atheist. You are correct that my logical point is indeed that if you take the fundamental principles of Christianity as true, then it is either "our way or the highway", so to speak. This is a logic that is quite evident, whether you are a Christian or not. And I further like the question you pose to Scot regarding what value religious pluralism has from a purely Christian point of view. Not from a philosophical or Constitutional point of view, but from a Christian point of view.

Scot blends philosophy and Christianity, and is accordingly influenced by this blended reasoning. But if you look at it purely from the religious point of view, then your characterization of the issue is quite correct.

From the average atheist point of view 'the pick and choose' believers are indeed somewhat more irritating and incoherent than the die-hard fanatics. However, I was subtly ironic there, at least in part. The idea that people today actually know what Christ may have taught or are able to uncover any sort of religious truth by going to writings that went through a lot of hands during the ages is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Not just because this whole thing is an internally contradictory mess but also because you can't be sure that it has not been doctored with. 

If a god existed I'm pretty sure he or she would be much more sympathetic to the guy who decided to worship no one because the evidence wasn't sufficient than to the mindless moron who just took a lot of unproven stuff 'on faith'. 

Even the dichotomy I made up (us vs. them) is something you have to read into the texts (because they are a convoluted mess). The fact that it is usually read in this way is because the people leading churches and religions realize that this is a great way to claim and keep power. There is no reason to believe we could not also worship a god in as different ways as there are people. We actually also have to believe that only our way is the right way, and presume we have the right to tell others what to do. Catholicism would never have ended up on top if arguments and rational interpretation of the holy scriptures would have been important. If you read a good history of dogma covering the development of doctrine in the early church you will literally find that the more irrational/internally contradictory school would win the day. 

It doesn't have to be a totalitarian ideology (and wasn't in the days prior to Constantine), it is made such by the people following it. And, of course, without any basis in reality. There is no proof that gods, heavens, hells, angels, devils, souls, etc. even exist. The arrogance you must have to actually dare tell anybody what to do while having literally nothing to back it up is breathtaking.

I don't know if you are reading the Bible a lot but I can advise you that actually reading it trying to read it without the 'interpretation guidelines' your church traditions have passed down to you things are quickly falling apart. I mean, I assume you don't follow all the laws in Leviticus to the letter but you actually have no Biblical justification for that aside from pointing to some church traditions. I also assume you don't advocate slavery despite the fact that Bible is both fine with and regulates it, giving you even little tricks to ensure that your slaves don't get away too easily. The Bible also does not condemn abortion. It is a later (and quite arbitrary) definition that life begins at conception and that children have the same legal status as human beings which can live on their own.

In that sense, even the more radical people are just picking and choosing other or more stuff. They are not better believers, just somewhat different. Not to mention there is also no reason but tradition to believe that 'the Bible' (which one are we talking about?) has been revealed or inspired by god. That has never been independently verified.