Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Philosophy/religion

Join our Philosophy forum to discuss religion and spirituality.

Being 'socially inacceptable'...

229 replies

MrsSeanBean · 03/02/2009 22:22

I just wanted to say that it's great to be able to chat about this topic (Philosophy / religion / spirituality ) on MN.

I find it so much more diffuclt to talk about religion / faith / spiritual things in RL.

I find assume that no-one in RL will think in a remotely similar way to me, or share any of my beliefs, and will think I am some kind of religious nutter.

Do you think it's just the case that people are more reluctant to talk about these things in RL?

Do you think it would be worthwhile / beneficial to instigate more RL conversations on this subject?

I heard the other day that to say you believe in God is almost 'socially inacceptable' now, which is rather sad.

OP posts:
justaboutindisguise · 09/02/2009 14:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Threadworm · 09/02/2009 14:05

Oh dear. That doesn't sound like a good thing.

And my God wouldn't be much more use than '42' as the answer ro the question about life, the universe and everything.

It really has mattered to me a lot to think about these things, but I don't think I will be able to think myself to the place I want to be.

KayHarker · 09/02/2009 14:09

I don't think any of us can do that, TW. I type stuff out, the things that make sense to me, and I just hope they help. I do believe in absolutes, personally, I do think there are things which are just so.

But if it's any help at all, I don't think God is at all neat and tidy. I'm fond of the Orthodox way of viewing Him - acknowledging that there is so much unknowable about god, that we can only really talk definitely about what He isn't.

justaboutindisguise · 09/02/2009 14:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsMerryHenry · 09/02/2009 20:43

I am so behind on this thread.

Firstly: KayHarker - clearly you and I choose different ways of sharing our faith; I prefer not to tell everyone I encounter but instead to let my 'being' (whatever that may be!) do the talking. I also find that when I do things that way any conversations I have with non-believers are more meaningful than they would be otherwise, because our relationships are deeper, and the conversation is based on mutual trust, respect and knowledge of each other.

Secondly, Tiggy R: (when you asked whether every decent person is acceptable to God): what a huge question. The parts of that answer that I'm sure about are that God's heart and vision are far, far greater and more loving than that of any human being. And so I believe that people who 'standard' Christians, for example, would think unacceptable (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) are acceptable to God - in the Bible it says that humans rely on external appearance but God judges by the heart. So actually it's sort of pointless us trying to point out who is and isn't acceptable to God, since our minds work so differently from his/hers.

The Bible also says that Jesus is the only way to God, but it doesn't say you have to 'become a Christian'. I am not trying to sound wiffly and wafty here, I am trying to show instead that the barriers that we humans set up are not necessarily endorsed by God. So for people of any religious background (i.e. believing or not) who reject Jesus, that's the choice they have made so I wouldn't expect God to nullify their freedom of choice and 'force them in'. You don't have to follow a religion to be acceptable to God, and I think that's sort of what I'm experimenting with at the moment - breaking away from 'Churchianity' and finding an authentic way to make myself more like Jesus, because I think he's extraordinary.

Another point here is that I don't believe in the club mentality. Someone once described it better as an image where some people are moving towards, and others moving away from God. You can include Christians in either group. Some of my old Christian acquaintances would perceive me as being in the latter group because I don't believe that Genesis tells the literal story of how the world came about (sorry chaps, but it clearly is an allegorical tale - analyse the writing style and it's as plain as day); because I describe God as both male and female; and because I'm trying to unravel lots of the stuff I've been taught about my faith over the past 34 years. Oh well - if they think that, more fool them!

Finally, it's not about scoring points to get you into the God Squad. It's meant to be a level playing field, where God has said that s/he loves the socks off us no matter what and that s/he wants us to enjoy his/her company, and s/he ours. So all s/he asks is for us to say 'yes'. I wish I could explain how God calculates these things for someone who commits atrocities and then renounces it all on their deathbed - here I am limited and I suspect it's one of those things that will always remain outside human understanding. And it's one of those instances which blares out just how differently God's mind works from humans'.

One more thing, actually - someone earlier mentioned evolution vs creation. I am currently reading up about this very thing - I was inspired by an Attenborough prog last week to find out about evolution again (have forgotten so much since uni days) and work out what this means for our place in the world and whether a god might have a place amongst it all. It's a fascinating journey.

One disappointment that I had with the programme was that Attenborough, like many environmentalists, completely misinterpreted the old biblical translation saying that humans should 'have dominion over the earth'. Dominion and domination are not the same thing, yet in this context many anti-religious people have made this erroneous assumption. We, as parents, have dominion over our children - that means we have a responsibility to look after them and work our socks off to enable them to flourish. As believers in a world created by an amazing God (still working out how I believe evolution and creation harmonise around each other - ask me again in a few years' time when I've finished reading up on it!) it is clearly our responsibility to look after the earth in the same way.

Right, now I need to catch up on the rest of this thread!

MrsMerryHenry · 09/02/2009 20:52

Threadworm - I too have a real issue with this question of Jesus being tortured. There are some parts of the old and new Testaments of the Bible, such as this one you've mentioned, which I just don't get. Why are we expected to freely forgive if God apparently doesn't? I reckon Christians have traditionally misinterpreted something here, but I'm feeling about in the dark. Justabout - any insights?

KayHarker - totally agree with you talking about grace. It's SO liberating, and SO important to the Christian faith, and for some people it's extraordinarily hard to accept.

Trinity - another huge question. Someone once explained it to me that it's a wee bit like the sun - you have the physical body of gases (let's call this Big God), the heat (Holy Spirit), and the light (Jesus). That helped me to understand there being three parts to a whole entity, though I daresay that in terms of the entire actual concept of what the Trinity is, I probably now understand about 1%!

MrsMerryHenry · 09/02/2009 23:19

That should say 'dominion and domineering are not the same...'

MrsMerryHenry · 09/02/2009 23:19

That should say 'dominion and domineering are not the same...'

justaboutindisguise · 10/02/2009 10:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Threadworm · 10/02/2009 10:32

I'm supposed to be working, but just stopping to say I find that very interesting. I didn't know at all that "the substitutionary theory of penitential atonement" was questioned or indeed questionable at all. I thought it was the essence of Christianity.

So Jesus might have died a painful death just as the most extreme way of modelling forgiveness -- forgiving the most extreme kind of wrongdoing against him.

It makes sense. The whole of his life was a model of ideal Christian behaviour, so his death needed to be too.

But it also seems unsatisfactory. The crucifixion is no longer the essential thing, no longer a transformative thing. It's just an educational aid. Just another parable.

Not beautiful enough!!

justaboutindisguise · 10/02/2009 10:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KayHarker · 10/02/2009 11:03

Well, I think I'm clearly in the cross-as-central group, being an evangelical. I don't engage at all with the 'moral example' model of it. It seems far too passive, mainly. Not such an enormous act of reconciliation.

btw, MrsMerryHenry, you said this -

KayHarker - clearly you and I choose different ways of sharing our faith; I prefer not to tell everyone I encounter but instead to let my 'being' (whatever that may be!) do the talking. I also find that when I do things that way any conversations I have with non-believers are more meaningful than they would be otherwise, because our relationships are deeper, and the conversation is based on mutual trust, respect and knowledge of each other.

Me again: Frankly, I am baffled that you seem to be insinuating that I don't show people respect. I really am doing everything wrong if that's genuinely your conclusion.

justaboutindisguise · 10/02/2009 11:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

KayHarker · 10/02/2009 11:13

But what did it do, in that model? That's what I don't get, really.

Btw, I don't believe Jesus's life was inconsequential, even though I believe the cross is the pivot point in salvation. I believe He lived a perfect life, so that He could exchange it with our fallen nature. That's what I think it means to be 'hid in Christ' - God looks at us through Jesus' perfect life.

So the cross is an exchange - our sinfulness for His rigtheousness.

I can only see at most, an appeal to us in the other model. An enormously emotionally affecting one, yes, but I'm not sure how much more.

justaboutindisguise · 10/02/2009 12:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AMumInScotland · 10/02/2009 12:42

Justa - that's an interesting analogy. I've been starting to think of Jesus' life and death in terms of building a bridge.... a strange sort of one-directional bridge which you have to build from the "starting" end, and which only God could build... which is possibly a concept which only makes sense if you spent years playing "Lemmings"

AMumInScotland · 10/02/2009 12:45

But that doesn't help with why it had to be death on a cross... like you, I find substitutionary atonement problematic, but I'm not sure I've come up with anything which works for me yet. Your "modelling forgiveness" has its merits, but somehow it doesn't seem to be "enough".

madhairday · 10/02/2009 13:10

I know what you mean AMIS. Penal substitution doesn't seem to quite do it for me either, but having read round various other atonement theologies I feel even more confused than before, and can't quite get a grip on any of them quite fitting. Hmmmm.

justaboutindisguise · 10/02/2009 13:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsMerryHenry · 10/02/2009 17:00

Ooh, justabout, my DH designed the cover for Bloom's autobiog! (is it the one with the photo-montage-style picture of his office on the back/ inside?)

KayHarker, I think you've misunderstood me. I said: "the conversation is based on mutual trust, respect and knowledge of each other." - this was in reference to your statements about evangelising in situations such as Speaker's Corner (which I believe you mentioned), where one couldn't possibly expect to have a relationship of trust, respect or knowledge of one's listeners. I certainly wasn't suggesting that you don't have any respect for the people you talk to. What I was doing was drawing a clear distinction between the depth of relationship when you are evangelising to strangers vs sharing your life and faith with people you know and who know you. I hope that's clearer?

You actually remind me in many ways of myself about 15-odd years ago, so please don't make the mistake of thinking that we're at opposite poles of an imagined continuum. We're all on a journey of faith, and that journey takes us in different directions at different times, but hopefully the ultimate gain for all of us is greater and greater enrichment in every way.

Justabout - please do tell more about Roman law - I'd love to have a richer contextual understanding.

MrsMerryHenry · 10/02/2009 17:03

Oh, and Rev - why do you think Jesus wasn't the only one sent to do that job? Who else could have been? This is a new theory for me, so I'm intrigued!

MrsSchmaltzyMerryHenry · 11/02/2009 11:32

Have I killed this thread? Pity. It was really interesting.

Threadworm · 11/02/2009 12:31

Fear not, MrsSchmaltzyMerryHenry, for on the third day it will rise again, having

(a) modelled forgiveness, and

(b) absolved us of our sins.

justaboutindisguise · 11/02/2009 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsSchmaltzyMerryHenry · 11/02/2009 13:30

and again.

Phew! Seems I am not The Threadicider after all.

Swipe left for the next trending thread