One Way Principles: What Are The Ethical Implications?

[R. S. Martin]

Part of this was posted in another thread but I'd like to elaborate.

 

Christians are always telling me we don't have to know everything, we need to take some things on faith, and that faith is not logical. I go along with that.

 

1. I don't need to know how the universe came into existence, whether God exists, or what happens when we die.

 

2. I have faith--I trust--that if the merciful, just God of the Bible exists and there is an afterlife, if I live life to the fullest with a focus on the here and now, God will admit me to heaven when I die.

 

3. That kind of reasoning does not correspond with orthodox Christian doctrine but then again, faith is not logical and I have perfect confidence--faith--that I'm right. I am dead serious about this; I am staking my eternal welfare on it. That is faith but it's hardly logical.

 

Thus, I think I am in full agreement on three main philosophical points with fundamentalist Christians. Strangely, though, they do not accept my arguments at all. They want me to accept their DOCTRINES! The principles, it seems, work only one-way--THEIR way.

 

For conscientious truth-lovers, wouldn't there be some pretty significant ethical implications to go with that? I mean, here we've got people who spout all these principles, but when all's said and done, the principles apply only when they are pushing their own agendas. Isn't that a bit suspicious for people who claim to love and seek Truth above all else???

[The-Captain]

I always wonder about that because alot of fundies will come to the admission that their doctrine can be flawed, but doctrine is what they live and die by rather than the principles that can be gleaned from it.

 

My own random thoughts that come when I consider stuff like if there is some kinda god and whether he'll let me in the pearly gates and all...why should I want to go with him in the first place?

 

And yeah I might not know everything in the moment here, but assuming that some things will always go on faith and can never be proven is one of the main things that irks me about xian thinking.

 

This doesnt apply to all xians, but in my experience being a fundamentalist leaves little room for conscientious truth-seeking by definition..

[GraphicsGuy]

I've said it often lately that fundies put doctrine first and people second when it should be the other way around. That is what Jesus would really do if he lived today (or at all). This is something I admire my own father for doing. He genuinely cares about people. He has discovered over the years that it's his doctrinal beliefs that need to conform to the lives around him, not trying to make those lives conform to his beliefs.

[Robbobrob]

I've said it often lately that fundies put doctrine first and people second when it should be the other way around. That is what Jesus would really do if he lived today (or at all). This is something I admire my own father for doing. He genuinely cares about people. He has discovered over the years that it's his doctrinal beliefs that need to conform to the lives around him, not trying to make those lives conform to his beliefs.

This is something lately I have come around to, mostly because of my exposure to Unitarian Universalism. That every person has dignity and worth.

 

It is something I see many, particularly online, forget.....especially when calling people "demons", thereby reducing the person to something less than human. It is becoming a pet peeve of mine, almost as offensive as people who CAP LOCK EVERYTHING. The latter is just annoying, but the former I find truly offensive.

[crazy-tiger]

I've said it often lately that fundies put doctrine first and people second when it should be the other way around. That is what Jesus would really do if he lived today (or at all).

I'm sure I remember something in the Bible about Jesus being a bit pissed at Doctrine...

 

 

Anyone out there fancy doing the work I, as a currently lazy bastard, can't be bothered with?

[R. S. Martin]

I've said it often lately that fundies put doctrine first and people second when it should be the other way around. That is what Jesus would really do if he lived today (or at all).

I'm sure I remember something in the Bible about Jesus being a bit pissed at Doctrine...

 

 

Anyone out there fancy doing the work I, as a currently lazy bastard, can't be bothered with?

 

Is this what you are referring to:

 

^{Matt. 15: 9} But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

^{Mark 7:7}Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

 

In the Mark passage he goes on to talk about how they changed the law about honouring/taking care of aging parents into a monetary gift to the temple or whatever.

 

In the Matthew passage he follows up the doctrine message with the famous verse about: ¹¹ Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

 

I always understood this to mean that foul language defiles a person.

 

One of my all-time favourie verses (for certain purposes) is Matt. 23:27. It is very descriptive and very appropriate. Makes you want to shield your eyes against the sun and hold your nose against the stench.

[Grandpa Harley]

It's more than just foul mouthedness by my reading. I'd say it was slandering people, prurient speculation etc... 'foul' language is just a fashion, dependent on the language of the speaker... but universally, speaking 'evil' by lying, gossiping etc... that is a defilement of the speaker AND the listener...

[Grandpa Harley]

and you should see some of the stuff being said by a venom of Christians about one of their apostate members... seems Matt passed them by...

[R. S. Martin]

First, re your previous post on gossip being foul-mouthedness. You really gave me something to think there. It is not outlawed by the strict aesthetic orders for being "too worldly." It comes in the guise of sharing community news. About more serious items (and therefore so much the more juicy gossip) some Christians have institutionalized and sanctified to the point of: If we don't know about it we can't pray about it.

 

I have seen many and many and many a kitchen full of women and girls working on food processing or other household task when a hush came over the place, and all work stopped, first with one party, and then another, until everyone was very still listening to the one person telling about some serious situation. Full-blown discussion would follow. If someone entered who did not hear the initial announcement, that person would be informed. Everyone would be sure to go home and inform everyone of appropriate age and gender. Gender barriers would be crossed when wives told their husbands. The men would then spread the word among themselves to still others and they in turn would tell their wives who would spread it to their sisters and husbands.

 

This was before we had telephones. Letters and other written notes sent with school children, husbands, and via the mail would spread the word even farther. Pregnancies outside wedlock were the most likely topics to be of such burning interest but it could be anything else. Storm damage or other "real" news was also spread this way, but was not as liable to gossip.

 

and you should see some of the stuff being said by a venom of Christians about one of their apostate members... seems Matt passed them by...

 

Anyone spitting venom about our very own Gramps???

 

It can't be worse than another ream is spouting about Ruby this side the Atlantic.

 

If they have nothing real they'll make stuff up. The stuff they dared confront me with was toxic enough. No telling what they say behind my back but it cannot be pretty.

 

I listened to the crap forty years while I was still living with them. When I left and met the people who apostated from their church (these people never left religion; they just left the plain people) I found out that I had been lied to regarding the reasons they had left.

 

Common reasons people are said to leave the horse and buggy church are:

• he just had too much money (he invested in a car)
  
• they couldn't contend themselves with our simple lifestyle
  
• it wasn't good enough for them to live our simple way so they had to go for some high-falutin church where they could live how they wanted to
  
• they think they "got the light"--as though they can't "get the light" in our simple German church. One thing is clear--there was something more they were after than just more faith. Just look at all the worldly stuff this brings with the change--car, music, light-coloured suit, church several times a week, fancy clothing on the kids, radio, and I'm sure if you'd look in their home you'd see tv and a lot of fancy stuff they never had before. It's obvious they wanted more worldly goods NOT more faith (this last word would be spit out derisively as though anyone in their right mind could see that much).
  

I'm not sure why, but going to church several times a week was despised. Back in the 60s my people did not believe that one had to go to church every Sunday. It is still not mandatory. One can read and meditate at home; everyone has Bibles. It is believed that too much of a good thing can be bad. Too much religion can lead to mental illness. Too much dependence on the church to tell people what to believe was simply not good; people had to do their own praying and thinking. A quiet Sunday at home is considered healthy and restful.

 

Besides, a pregnant woman should be kept out of the public except for visits to the doctor the last month or so, and it was not considered healthy to go riding in a buggy before the baby was at least five or six weeks old. That could mean several months of missing church for a woman. A woman who had a baby every year would get very little church for much of her early married life. People could come visit in their home, so that social life did not necessarily end.

 

When I left the horse and buggy church and went to the modern Mennonite church I met some of the people who had left decades before me. And they shared with me the reasons they left. Almost invariably it had been for the very reasons they had stated: more faith. My aunt said she did not feel capable of teaching her children what she believed they needed to know about the faith; she and her husband wanted Sunday School for their children. Others also mentioned wanting Sunday School either for themselves or their children, or both. They felt a need for more instruction and teaching in the faith than they were getting in the horse and buggy church.

 

Others felt there was too much emphasis on rules or works and not enough on salvation and God's love and grace. I could not see that but still, that was how they had experienced the church's teachings at the time they had left. Since they had left before I was born, or when I was very young, I did not know what conditions were like at the time. Also, I have found that I and my siblings did not get the same messages from the same sermons and situations. Or perhaps they just said the opposite of me to defend their church because they thought I was justifying leaving; it is impossible to sort some of these things.

 

They seemed not to disagree so much with me so long as I was a member in good standing and I talked a lot about my heretical questions back then. I guess they just brushed it off as Ruby's weird ideas. I derive some satisfaction from knowing that people on various levels of the church from leadership to my siblings have had to give account for their dismissal of my earlier questions and inquiries.

 

So anyway, they claim to be seeking truth above all else. But it sure doesn't look like it when all is said and done. I believe that a lot of people are simply incapable of thinking things through on such a deep level. In this, I believe the RC church got it right when they insisted that it takes much education to understand the Bible. The plain churches do not think that education beyond Grade 8 is necessary for anyone ministers included. Possibly the more liberal groups allow highschool education but hardly college.

[Grandpa Harley]

Not about me... I regard venom about me from believers as a badge of honour... I am doing some good in making them feel uncomfortable.

 

No, it's on your side of the pond and pretty vile. Few things get the tired old white knight that I used to be off his idle arse and back in his battered, rusty armour for one more battle than someone being bullied by hypocrites... and the lady in question is riding the edge of a nervous breakdown, thanks to this scum (the ring leader of which has pretensions of being a pastor... I'd not have him herding pigs...) I've made my warning shots clear that ANY more communication with the lady will be handled by me, I know their dirty secrets and have few qualms about using them. I also have the REAL pastor of the community's mail address... and I will use it if need be... after that... well... I may have a few other surprises

[R. S. Martin]

I think she's lucky having you on her side. The s.o.b. is probably lucky for the water between, but I don't think a couple buckets (or oceans) of water will deter you from your mission.