Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

How Christians Reconcile Their Personal Political Views And The Teachings Of Their Faith:


Recommended Posts

The First Amendment originally meant that the government couldn't get involved in religious affairs. For instance, the government could not make the Church of The United States or the Church of Pennsylvania. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious people bringing their convictions to government policy.

For one, the post was not about injustice, it was in response to a hackneyed comment.

It is true that some very secular cultures have experienced high levels of happiness, freedoms, etc...the problem of this is that what one person considers a "freedom" may not necessarily be good for them. For instance, a laissez-faire attitude towards marriage in Scandinavia has led to a dramatic rise in the rate of out-of-wedlock birth rates.

As well, if you do not feel like you are accountable to any higher power, it gives you tremendous liberty to do as you see fit without fear of eternal repercussions. One need only look to regimes that virulently opposed religion such as China, North Korea or the USSR to see that these governments, though not "atheistic theocracies", unleashed enormous evil upon their populations. As the Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who endured the horrors of the gulag wrote,

“A great disaster had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First Amendment originally meant that the government couldn't get involved in religious affairs. For instance, the government could not make the Church of The United States or the Church of Pennsylvania. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious people bringing their convictions to government policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one, the post was not about injustice, it was in response to a hackneyed comment.

It is true that some very secular cultures have experienced high levels of happiness, freedoms, etc...the problem of this is that what one person considers a "freedom" may not necessarily be good for them. For instance, a laissez-faire attitude towards marriage in Scandinavia has led to a dramatic rise in the rate of out-of-wedlock birth rates.

As well, if you do not feel like you are accountable to any higher power, it gives you tremendous liberty to do as you see fit without fear of eternal repercussions. One need only look to regimes that virulently opposed religion such as China, North Korea or the USSR to see that these governments, though not "atheistic theocracies", unleashed enormous evil upon their populations. As the Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who endured the horrors of the gulag wrote,

“A great disaster had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians ought to do good deeds because they are the byproduct of good faith. One's faith ought not to be devoid of good deeds.

It's typical for us 21st century analysts to compartmentalize beliefs and action, but that is where misinterpretation begins. Faith and good deeds ought not to be separated. Can an atheist do good deeds? Of course. I argue that there is God in all people. Some more than others. Definitely less in the common republican.

Getting back to the OP's comments: so you are amused at the diversity of beliefs among Christianity? So what else is new? Is there not differing beliefs even among atheists? Flawed human interpretation is present in all things. Even hockey has differing opinions and philosophy. Amused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christians ought to do good deeds because they are the byproduct of good faith. One's faith ought not to be devoid of good deeds.

It's typical for us 21st century analysts to compartmentalize beliefs and action, but that is where misinterpretation begins. Faith and good deeds ought not to be separated. Can an atheist do good deeds? Of course. I argue that there is God in all people. Some more than others. Definitely less in the common republican.

Getting back to the OP's comments: so you are amused at the diversity of beliefs among Christianity? So what else is new? Is there not differing beliefs even among atheists? Flawed human interpretation is present in all things. Even hockey has differing opinions and philosophy. Amused?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First Amendment originally meant that the government couldn't get involved in religious affairs. For instance, the government could not make the Church of The United States or the Church of Pennsylvania. It has absolutely nothing to do with religious people bringing their convictions to government policy.

For one, the post was not about injustice, it was in response to a hackneyed comment.

It is true that some very secular cultures have experienced high levels of happiness, freedoms, etc...the problem of this is that what one person considers a "freedom" may not necessarily be good for them. For instance, a laissez-faire attitude towards marriage in Scandinavia has led to a dramatic rise in the rate of out-of-wedlock birth rates.

As well, if you do not feel like you are accountable to any higher power, it gives you tremendous liberty to do as you see fit without fear of eternal repercussions. One need only look to regimes that virulently opposed religion such as China, North Korea or the USSR to see that these governments, though not "atheistic theocracies", unleashed enormous evil upon their populations. As the Russian Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who endured the horrors of the gulag wrote,

“A great disaster had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it a prerequisite for Christians to take things out of context? Seems as common among Christians as lack of belief in god is among atheists.

The amusement I derive is due to the single source. I am amused by the infallibility of god's word giving rise to denominations as varied as birds and bees. It is not the simple differences, but what they mean when looked at from outside the religion. In perspective, the statement "the bible is infallible" is preposterous. As I said in my reply to Bob.Loblaw, "My amusement (and I use the word lightly, if you can't tell) is over the differences in perception of Jesus' message". Do you get the gist of what I meant by that statement?

There are differing beliefs among atheists, but the parallel doesn't work. Atheists are similar in their lack of belief in god, nothing more. That is what atheism is. Being a Christian entails a whole lot more and, while certainly there are differences of opinion, there are many common tenets across denominations. You're wrong and you're misrepresenting your argument, which is nothing more than "I disagree with you".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there are normal athiests who keep there opinions to themselves(me), then there are the radical athiests that attack anything that remotely smacks of religeon(you). Just as there are religeous people who keep their beliefs to themselves, there are those radicals that have to save every percieved heathen they come across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your amusement is a product of truly oversimplifying history of Christian beliefs and underscoring humanity itself as it discovers the invisible spiritual realm.

For instance, you find amusing that Christianity claims to have one infallible source, and yet the countless denominations of believers are clear sign of malpractice and dumb values.

I argue that through decades and centuries, it is undoubtedly acceptable that, 1) history changes, which mean 2) cultures changes.

With 1) and 2) thrown into the mix of biblical values and ancient scripture, many denominations would clearly arise.

Take science for that matter. Not just science, but the "approach" to scientific conclusion. How is it that the approach to science in 1900's was different than it is 2000's? How is it that electrical vehicles were once the champions of the road during early 1900's, yet laughed at today? The approach was changed due to efficiency. Your ignition combustible engine became better, faster, cooler. Ironically, we now change our approach again. We no longer have incentives for combustible engines... but now more incentives towards greener, cleaner, electrical vehicles and hybrids.

With biblical interpretation it's sort of the same. Out of the 1950's, the Korean civil war separated North and South Korea. There was a massive boom of Christians in South Korea and they were really seeking comfort, justice, and solitude. Today, if you were to survey Korean churches, they are full of praise, speaking in tongues, and proverbially high on the spirit. To quote a Korean pastor, they are things that give them comfort. To put it simply, their Christian culture and beliefs is a product of their broken past.. where they seek refuge and comfort.

Similarly in Africa, they have brokenness and need of help. However, most of their suffering is starving children and broken families caused by unfaithful husbands.. AIDS is also another thing. We can see that African churches, predominantly Mennonite Brethren churches, they are more geared towards missions, helping out with the poor, and their worship is not as "spiritually high" or "sorrowful" as the Korean churches. They are more full of cheer and laughter. It is because their culture is focused on children and the next generation.

Lastly, let's take a look at 1600's. Most of the old hymnals come from this generation. Because of the great schism between Catholic and Protestant, the hymns from the Lutheran church are very focused on beliefs and, don't quote me on this, but played mostly in the Major key. If you know anything about music, the Major key is used for very uplifting songs, songs that are sung after success. The separation from Catholicism was a major success and Lutheran hymns were very proud of that. Contrast to the Russian hymns, which were composed post War, these Russian hymns were all mostly in Minor key.. which conveys a very saddening tune.

What am I saying? Basically, the interpretation and diversity of denominations is not necessarily something to be amused about. Just because the "source" is claimed to be from God, does not mean history stays the same, nor does culture stay the same. As history progresses, it changes the face of our culture. Our culture interprets God a different way. Is that something to be mocked?

I argue that God can reveal Himself differently in another culture. Perhaps Bob needs to be comforted in his own way, and Mary needs to rejoice at the birth of her child. Maybe they interpret Jesus' teachings differently. Hopefully not entirely different, but putting more emphasis on one thing than another. Is that a bad thing? It is when I listen to American Republicans preach on free market and capitalism. For sure.

One thing is clear to me, that God is truly working through different people and different cultures. I believe God can do that. He can do anything. Though, if you continue to mock Christianity due to the fact that diversity cannot equal consistency, then I think you ought to revisit history, culture, and the evolution of interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to keep in mind that religion has been around since the beginning of recorded time. Pardon me, since the beginning period. You may wish that mankind would drop the blindfold called religion, But it's not going to happen overnight. And with human nature being what it is, antagonizing,dismissive, dissecting for amusement, even pushing the truth means that heels will be digging in and in the end you end up doing the exact opposite of what your trying to accomplish, which is enlightening people. Right? Let people make there own journey. Did anyone force you to become an atheist? Me neither. Most people need to be slapped in the face with reality before they change their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to keep in mind that religion has been around since the beginning of recorded time. Pardon me, since the beginning period. You may wish that mankind would drop the blindfold called religion, But it's not going to happen overnight. And with human nature being what it is, antagonizing,dismissive, dissecting for amusement, even pushing the truth means that heels will be digging in and in the end you end up doing the exact opposite of what your trying to accomplish, which is enlightening people. Right? Let people make there own journey. Did anyone force you to become an atheist? Me neither. Most people need to be slapped in the face with reality before they change their opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there are normal athiests who keep there opinions to themselves(me), then there are the radical athiests that attack anything that remotely smacks of religeon(you). Just as there are religeous people who keep their beliefs to themselves, there are those radicals that have to save every percieved heathen they come across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats a pretty disturbing thought, good thing it is incorrect.

Working as a team is the ultimate survival strategy, co-operation is pretty much instinctive. Mutual respect and helping others means you can be part of the community.

Stealing and hurting people for no reason means you are on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...