Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Lexilogio

Results or Reason?

I had an interesting conversation at work today.

I'd mentioned my journey round churches, and came to realise something.
I judge a church based on its outcome - what it says people should do, and how they should behave now. I'm less judgemental about how they got there.

The discussion had turned to Jehovah's Witnesses. And I hope I'm not being offensive, because I realised I have a clear bias. I really don't want to ever go to one of their services, because I so wholly disagree with the rulings on blood transfusion, which I think cause harm. Yet I might go and visit a Quaker church (which I've discovered is nearby) one week, out of curiosity - because I don't think they proscribe any practice which causes harm.


I think this possibly chimes with Floos' attitude. I think I'm right in saying, Floo, that part of your distrust of religion is rooted in the fact you think religion causes psychological harm (based on personal experience). And I think for the same reason, I wouldn't want to go to a "Hell, fire and brimstone" organisation. I just don't think its psychologically healthy.
gone

Being told from birth you will burn in hell if you don't get 'saved' is certainly psychologically damaging for a child that is for sure. Whilst a clergy person can share their thoughts with their congregations there is no way they should tell people what to believe.
The Boyg

Are you saying that you're psychologically damaged Floo?
Shaker

The Boyg wrote:
Are you saying that you're psychologically damaged Floo?

Which criteria are you using for distinguishing between the psychologically damaged and the psychologically undamaged? There must be a yardstick otherwise one could never tell one from the other, and in effect such categories would be meaningless.  

I ask because it seems to be a pointless, indeed meaningless question to ask until and unless you have some prior, fairly concrete definition in mind of the phrase you use.

Just for clarification, you understand. Obviously.
The Boyg

Shaker wrote:
The Boyg wrote:
Are you saying that you're psychologically damaged Floo?

Which criteria are you using for distinguishing between the psychologically damaged and the psychologically undamaged?


I don't.

It was Floo who made the claims about psychological damage, not me. I merely asked her a question relevant to her statement about psychological damage.

I am asking if she is saying that her childhood experiences have left her psychologically damaged (by whatever definition of psychologically damged she was using).

Therefore I suggest that if you want to understand how psychological damage is being defined in the context of this discussion you ask Floo.
Ketty

Floo wrote:
Being told from birth you will burn in hell if you don't get 'saved' is certainly psychologically damaging for a child that is for sure.
 It can be, for certain.

Quote:
Whilst a clergy person can share their thoughts with their congregations there is no way they should tell people what to believe.
 

I agree, but also think people can try and tell others what they should believe, but that's a non-starter because belief can only come from the heart and mind.

Lexilogio wrote:
I judge a church based on its outcome - what it says people should do, and how they should behave now.


My main yardstick for 'judging' a church is: is Christ Jesus at the centre of all they do, and do they preach the word of God without any extra-unbiblical add-ons?
Lexilogio

Ketty wrote:


Lexilogio wrote:
I judge a church based on its outcome - what it says people should do, and how they should behave now.


My main yardstick for 'judging' a church is: is Christ Jesus at the centre of all they do, and do they preach the word of God without any extra-unbiblical add-ons?


Ah. Extra unbiblical add ons.

Its interesting. Because the work of John Wesley is extra unbiblical add ons - its his interpretation of the Bible. Same with the work of saints, Papal cyclicals etc... Many churches gradually develop non biblical add ons.

I can see your point. Its why I don't like the Book of Revelation. The Bible itself was a collection of works put together. That make up of what goes in and what stays out was an agreement - and not all Christian religions have the same inclusions / exclusions. It could be argued that the letters from Paul and counterparts are "extra scriptural".

So I do accept your point - you can't just have someone coming along and adding to scripture. But scripture is added to. The question is the level of agreement to the addition, and the fruit of that addition.

For example, Benedictine monks lived by the orders of St Benedict. There was widespread agreement, and their living that way meant the community could follow Jesus in an effective way for the time.

I know Methodists who will not touch alcohol - because John Wesley prescribed against it. It is considered sinful to do so. The order not to drink has been elevated to the level of scripture. Yet I don't think they are not Christian for following that. I don't accept it (I do drink alcohol), but I can respect the outcome. Its not a bad way to live. It wouldn't put me off becoming a Methodist.



I could argue that going against things in the Bible would put me off a church. But I eat shellfish (Levictus). St Pauls' epistles stated we didn't have to follow all the Jewish laws stated in the Torah. As Christians, we put the New Testament over the Old Testament.
But 1 Corinthians 11:1-34 "every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head"

I pray without my head being covered. Does that make me sinful?
I rarely see anyone wearing a hat to church. The female vicars don't.

So for me, it is more about concentrating on what Jesus said - and ensuring that all the teachings are in accordance with what Jesus said. If any church teaches something I feel goes against what Jesus said - that is when I have a problem with that church. Hence my issue with the lack of communion.
Luke 22:19 "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me" For me, if we do not partake of the bread and wine, we are not remembering him in the gathering.
Farmer Geddon

Doesn't explain what Kets "extra-unbiblical add-ons" are.

Inform us - WTF are extra-unbiblical add-ons?

Give us an opinion instead of..  bullshit Ket
Powwow

Unbiblical add ons.
John never met Jesus
Jesus was married
Jesus was gay
etc, etc, etc
Ketty

Lexilogio wrote:


I pray without my head being covered. Does that make me sinful?
I rarely see anyone wearing a hat to church. The female vicars don't.

So for me, it is more about concentrating on what Jesus said - and ensuring that all the teachings are in accordance with what Jesus said. If any church teaches something I feel goes against what Jesus said - that is when I have a problem with that church.


That's more or less what I said.  I don't feel at all sinful by not wearing a hat.  Do you?  Mind you, I am not the wife of a Christian man, and I've never prophesied in church.  However, I would say to anyone who feels the conviction of the Holy Spirit over all that, then pray about it, chat to your prayer buddy and/or mentor, and follow the Lord's prompting.  

However if you were saying that you must never wear a hat, or the head covering can only be in pink with a few cherries dangling from it. I'd say that was un-Biblical tosh.  
[/u]
Ketty

pow wow wrote:
Unbiblical add ons.
John never met Jesus
Jesus was married
Jesus was gay
etc, etc, etc


Yep.  Agreed.  And so many more . . .

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum