Are we ahead of the curve or right on top of it? Christian or not, I think we should welcome this effort!
BTW, I post comments at the PI under "wsdeek".
12 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Interesting. Generally, I don't even call myself a Christian, because for most people, "Christianity" is what I refer to as "churchianity." It's church-culture, and it has very little to do with biblical Christianity at all.
Making christianity a more "progressive" religion is a strange concept for me, because the goal, I would think, would be to shift the congregation's attitudes back to a more scriptural definition. Scriptural christianity doesn't denegrate women, doesn't teach hatred, and doesn't turn a blind eye to the environment.
It's true that more and more believers are finding that their understanding of scripture isn't the same as the message that often comes from behind the pulpit. I'm encountering more and more of those kinds of people all the time.
Call it however you like, what many see as Christianity ignores post-modern developments. In fact it seems few religions address how society has changed in the last few hundred years.
I don't even think that it ignores post-modern developments. The basic ideas (Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek , eye of a needle kind of ideas) are now and have always been things that turn the power construct on it's head. So those who have power manipulate the teachings in order to maintian power.
what a about contraception, leaving procreation out of the argument, the Catholics insistence on the prophylactic issue in the light of AIDS certainly seems antiquted. Remember, AIDS is very post-modern with its global component.
How about Islam's treatment of women in light of much of the rest of the world finally coming to realize that women should be treated with equal respect to anyone? I am certain you opinions on that.
I don't think there is a universal answer; different religions have addressed modernity in various manners.
Religion used to be looked to exclusively answer moral issues. So I guess another question may be: "Who determines morality in the post-modern world?".
I think it says in the bible that it is not a life until it is 40 days from conception (I'm not good at knowing my bible sources- problem with being agnostic and all that) so if it's not a life until 40 days, it is certainly not a life when it's separate sperm and egg either- contraception not an issue then. This is the mixing up of the catholic churches need to keep membership high by outlawing abortion and contraception instead of what's actually in the bible- that's the problem. Misuse by religious authorities to support their own agenda
But doesn't the misuse means that the Church is having trouble adapting to present reality? I.e., it is going contrary to what is in the bible to maintain its membership. Is the church supposed to carry on the teachings of Jesus, or is there to maintain its membership?
I am intimate with both of your points. I would love to see a level discussion among christians about how the original christian message was wiped out. But I think with cultures' constant intermingling it becomes more difficult those in power to twist the basic message. The twisted fundamentalism in this country IS a direct response to an inferiority complex created by modern methods.
Deek - the contraception issue is a catholic issue, not necessarily a full-spectrum christian issue. Catholics don't even want contraception within marriage, while protestants are generally quite happy having sex for fun. However, most christians will agree that premarital sex is a no-no, so the distribution of contraception solely for the practice of safe sex outside marriage is often frowned upon.
... and I don't necessarily agree with that, because I don't think that christian morality is meant for non-believers. That is, a "member of the club" is supposed to abide by a particular moral code, but outside of membership, there is supposed to be no expectation of adherance to those morals. That's where things get weird. So many christians are trying to "unsin the unsaved," which makes no sense.
I would agree that today's church culture is having a difficult time adapting to reality, in the same way that the church had a hard time dealing with the earth not being flat, and then not being the center of the universe. Church culture likes to make concrete claims about things to give itself a sense of legitimacy (certainly an inferiority complex), and when reality collides with those claims, things get all wonky. Again -- I'm not a big fan of churchianity.
red Queen - the bible says nothing of the sort. The only reference to life in the womb is Jeremiah's statement, "You [God] knit me in my mother's women; before I was born, you knew me." And that's really the only thing in the bible about it.
"In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. "
The Numbers 3:15 census was for the Levites, not for the rest of Israel. Israel's census happens earlier, and only includes men over 20, since the census was conducted to determine the size of the army -- men over 20 were capable of fighting in a war. The Levites didn't participate in were, and they were, as a tribe, dedicated to the Lord as a first-born living sacrifice (the requirement God set for atonement), and any male over 1 month was considered viable, which makes sense giving likely mortality rate of children born in a desert setting. So, I think the Leviticus passage regarding monetary value is more about viability; a child cannot be compensated if they're not above 1 month old because their viability is particularly in question. There's not a statement about being a person, because I'm sure jewish mothers lamented their stillborn babies, much more their children that died prior to reaching a month old.
jove: previously. religions needed to act as authorities, the word of God on earth. Perhaps they still do. obviously no religion can serve everyone's needs, despite any individual claims. I still think there is some need to at least discuss morality in any age, but something that is not "churchianity' as you call it.
deek: We might want to establish some definitions. What is "religion?" What is "morality?"
I'm generally very anti-religion, because my definition of it states that religion is generally simply a set of rules that people are supposed to abide, with some diety as a backdrop enforcing the rules with eternal consequences. I don't think that Jesus' message had anything to do with that, and in fact... he referred to the religious leaders of the time as "sons of the devil" and "brood of vipers."
12 comments:
Interesting. Generally, I don't even call myself a Christian, because for most people, "Christianity" is what I refer to as "churchianity." It's church-culture, and it has very little to do with biblical Christianity at all.
Making christianity a more "progressive" religion is a strange concept for me, because the goal, I would think, would be to shift the congregation's attitudes back to a more scriptural definition. Scriptural christianity doesn't denegrate women, doesn't teach hatred, and doesn't turn a blind eye to the environment.
It's true that more and more believers are finding that their understanding of scripture isn't the same as the message that often comes from behind the pulpit. I'm encountering more and more of those kinds of people all the time.
Call it however you like, what many see as Christianity ignores post-modern developments. In fact it seems few religions address how society has changed in the last few hundred years.
I don't even think that it ignores post-modern developments. The basic ideas (Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek , eye of a needle kind of ideas) are now and have always been things that turn the power construct on it's head. So those who have power manipulate the teachings in order to maintian power.
what a about contraception, leaving procreation out of the argument, the Catholics insistence on the prophylactic issue in the light of AIDS certainly seems antiquted. Remember, AIDS is very post-modern with its global component.
How about Islam's treatment of women in light of much of the rest of the world finally coming to realize that women should be treated with equal respect to anyone? I am certain you opinions on that.
I don't think there is a universal answer; different religions have addressed modernity in various manners.
Religion used to be looked to exclusively answer moral issues. So I guess another question may be: "Who determines morality in the post-modern world?".
About Islam and it's treatment of women- you might want to read this:
Western Feminism and Islam.
Pretty much sums up my views on that.
I think it says in the bible that it is not a life until it is 40 days from conception (I'm not good at knowing my bible sources- problem with being agnostic and all that) so if it's not a life until 40 days, it is certainly not a life when it's separate sperm and egg either- contraception not an issue then.
This is the mixing up of the catholic churches need to keep membership high by outlawing abortion and contraception instead of what's actually in the bible- that's the problem. Misuse by religious authorities to support their own agenda
But doesn't the misuse means that the Church is having trouble adapting to present reality? I.e., it is going contrary to what is in the bible to maintain its membership. Is the church supposed to carry on the teachings of Jesus, or is there to maintain its membership?
I am intimate with both of your points. I would love to see a level discussion among christians about how the original christian message was wiped out. But I think with cultures' constant intermingling it becomes more difficult those in power to twist the basic message. The twisted fundamentalism in this country IS a direct response to an inferiority complex created by modern methods.
Deek - the contraception issue is a catholic issue, not necessarily a full-spectrum christian issue. Catholics don't even want contraception within marriage, while protestants are generally quite happy having sex for fun. However, most christians will agree that premarital sex is a no-no, so the distribution of contraception solely for the practice of safe sex outside marriage is often frowned upon.
... and I don't necessarily agree with that, because I don't think that christian morality is meant for non-believers. That is, a "member of the club" is supposed to abide by a particular moral code, but outside of membership, there is supposed to be no expectation of adherance to those morals. That's where things get weird. So many christians are trying to "unsin the unsaved," which makes no sense.
I would agree that today's church culture is having a difficult time adapting to reality, in the same way that the church had a hard time dealing with the earth not being flat, and then not being the center of the universe. Church culture likes to make concrete claims about things to give itself a sense of legitimacy (certainly an inferiority complex), and when reality collides with those claims, things get all wonky. Again -- I'm not a big fan of churchianity.
red Queen - the bible says nothing of the sort. The only reference to life in the womb is Jeremiah's statement, "You [God] knit me in my mother's women; before I was born, you knew me." And that's really the only thing in the bible about it.
Your right- it was a month after birth
"In Leviticus 27:6 a monetary value was placed on children, but not until they reached one month old (any younger had no value). Likewise, in Numbers 3:15 a census was commanded, but the Jews were told only to count those one month old and above - anything less, particularly a fetus, was not counted as a human person. In Ezekiel 37:8-10 we watch as God re-animates dead bones into living soldiers, but the passage makes the interesting note that they were not alive as persons until their first breath. Likewise, in Genesis 2:7, Adam had a human form and a vibrant new body but he only becomes a fully-alive human person after God makes him breathe. "
Some of that needs some context:
The Numbers 3:15 census was for the Levites, not for the rest of Israel. Israel's census happens earlier, and only includes men over 20, since the census was conducted to determine the size of the army -- men over 20 were capable of fighting in a war. The Levites didn't participate in were, and they were, as a tribe, dedicated to the Lord as a first-born living sacrifice (the requirement God set for atonement), and any male over 1 month was considered viable, which makes sense giving likely mortality rate of children born in a desert setting. So, I think the Leviticus passage regarding monetary value is more about viability; a child cannot be compensated if they're not above 1 month old because their viability is particularly in question. There's not a statement about being a person, because I'm sure jewish mothers lamented their stillborn babies, much more their children that died prior to reaching a month old.
RQ: so much for not knowing your bible
jove: previously. religions needed to act as authorities, the word of God on earth. Perhaps they still do. obviously no religion can serve everyone's needs, despite any individual claims. I still think there is some need to at least discuss morality in any age, but something that is not "churchianity' as you call it.
deek: We might want to establish some definitions. What is "religion?" What is "morality?"
I'm generally very anti-religion, because my definition of it states that religion is generally simply a set of rules that people are supposed to abide, with some diety as a backdrop enforcing the rules with eternal consequences. I don't think that Jesus' message had anything to do with that, and in fact... he referred to the religious leaders of the time as "sons of the devil" and "brood of vipers."
I copped out. See my most recent post.
Post a Comment