Living the Christian Life

Originally posted by Roadkill    -Can you see what I'm getting at? Do you understand the moral of this story? If you think that your god will come along and fix everything for you then you're horribly mistaken. It is up to you to make a difference!

The duty of the Christian is to actively loan his or her free will to the just pronouncements of God. Thus, one does not refuse the neighbor, boat, helicopter, unless one is directly instructed. And incidentally, that story was initially an inspirational work, as I recall. It definitely cannot possibly be construed as an indictment of any true expression of the faith.

I guess a complimentary question would run thus:

What are the most common reasons that we Christians fall so short of the ideal we hold?

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 17-Jul-2007 at 23:55

So how do we reconcile our sometimes vitriolic views towards others?

We reconcile them in that our views towards each other, are for the most parts societal values that have been ingrained in our heads. A person may hate say blacks, or jews or irish but upon meeting individuals finds them to be a "credit to their race" and still maintain their hateful views. This person has reconciled his beliefs by being able to separate individuals from a group. Unfortunately the vitriolic views may still remain.

And more importantly are they reconcilable?

Sadly, not sufficiently so. We are creatures of society and as such we are fundamentally flawed in our nature to form groups of "us" and "them". It is hard to go beyond these instincts and see only "us".

How do we justify violence? And more importantly can it be justified (I plan, eventually to raise a thread on this question, so don't waste it all here)?

Well, I won't go into it in depth then, but violence is justified by us being imperfect. In order to survive to the present day we had to have the capacity for violence in order to ward off our many predators, since we lacked the strength and capability to defend ourselves properly when we came out of the trees we had to show more aggression than a species otherwise would, predators only face things they know they can take, if a prey animal makes it seem like a predator could be seriously injured he won't attack it.

Most importantly, how can we all live in a world together without butchering each other like so many mindless animals?

Simple, by going beyond our animal instincts, all right maybe it's not so simple.



Anyway as to my whole take on how our spiteful feelings and heinous acts towards each other fit into my own christian understanding. I believe that my personal Christ guides my own life towards this. This Christ is based on the belief of self-sacrifice and everlasting redemption. What I mean is that by denying something to yourself, can it help another person? This is pretty easy to accomplish, it may be as simple as buying a co-worker lunch and expecting no payback.

The other concept is the one that has truly taken a hold of my life lately, and that is the everlasting redemption of humanity. Jesus died on the cross to take upon himself the burden of all of our sins, so that we would be able to regain eternal life. That being said, in my view there exists nothing that any human being has done that is unforgivable. This means that a serial killer, a child rapist, and a corrupt CEO will all have to make their own separate peace with God in the hereafter, as such I have nothing to do with their actions, even if they acted against me, my friends or my family, I'd like to believe that I could forgive their transgressions, as all Christians are commanded to do. To give a specific example, I used to believe that women who committed abortions were horrible people. But to think that is fundamentally unchristian. Because if spoken aloud to them it perpetuates greater evil, perhaps driving the women to acts of self-abuse, or leading her away from the true faith, or causing her to hate individuals without cause. Also, it lessens the understanding that woman could receive since confrontation could force her to shut out other alternatives. Now I still think that abortion is never right, but sometimes people find themselves in no-win situations. Like if an 8-year old child points a gun at a police officer, the officer must shoot because his life is in danger and it's self-defense, but the child does not yet understand the ramifications of his actions. No-win situations are horrible to judge people on, because it is gray morality and I believe that sincere repentence for acts committed in this way make these acts not evil, and thus people should not be judged on them. As an example of an act that as a Christian I would always find evil, is if a woman committed an abortion just because the child wasn't the sex that she wanted.

On the subject of war, war is not a monolithic force no matter how it appears. Wars are chaotic and are the break-down of the established order of things. Wars have no bearing on the moral code of christians any more than other natural disasters like landslides or tsunamis should affect a moral code. Wars happen because people (especially leaders) are imperfect and slip ups in the common sense of the nation happen. Good christians only have to act in war in christian ways. We are not told to refrain from fighting and killing, we are told that we should only act towards others as we would have them act towards us. This means that we should follow the rules of war, as dictated by our societies. Again, individual acts during conflict can be sinful, but repentence again takes effect after the fact in my view.

You could argue that there still is no justification in these acts since people can choose to act justly and just choose not to. This is possible, but I fell it's better to leave the ultimate judging to God. Also my views on the world are skewed since I lessen the value of our bodily life while I enhance the value of the afterlife, those that aren't christian may see this as me not fully obeying my religion. However I don't believe in the philosophy that secular thought calls christianity, I am* part of the greater community of Christ.

*Meaning whether or not I believe is irrelevant since I have no choice in the matter, just like I have no choice of having an XY chromosome.

Thank you, everyone, for contributing! 

Constantine,

While I obviously cannot accept that Christian doctrine is simply the sum total of its historical and geographical context, I think you have hit on something important. I must note that, as a Christian, I view the Old Covenant as a preparation for the New.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Fast forward to the Common Era, and we see a reinvention of the scripture so that it becomes a lot more amenable. It is less harsh, less judgemental, less threatening, and places far greater emphasis on values such as compassion. We may speculate that over time, conditions changed so that the harsh and vindictive values which grew out of a more primitive Judaea gave way to kinder ones in the climate of Roman hegemony. Perhaps 2000 years on a re-engineering of ideals to accommodate modern realities is the answer. Afterall, does a man living in a small peasant village in ancient Judaea where women are covered up have a harder time of not lusting, or a modern man living in a world of internet porn, kinky movies, bikini models, swingers clubs, internet dating sites and an endless parade of further temptations which come with highly urban life and mass communication technologies?

I don't honestly know. My first inclination would be to suggest that it is more difficult in the modern era, but I can't be absolutely sure precisely because I am a part of the modern era. While I do agree that we must apply Christian doctrinal tenets to the modern era, I am not quite comfortable with calling this continual reapplication a "re-engineering". I do think that it involves a re-capitulation of our wills to God in an ever-changing context. Of course we may be using different words to say the same thing.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Do the members here think that part of the reason people fall short of the ideal, is that the ideal itself may be unrealistic or designed for those living in a time and place far removed from today's realities?

I think the ideal, of necessity, is extremely difficult to realize. We are called to do nothing less than become divinized. Through a process of continual sanctification we become more like God.

Thus, I don't think it is our ideal that needs to change, but our perspective. We must learn to actualize the ideal in a constantly changing world.

Janus Rook,

Wow!  I have to say that that is a Spirit filled witness to many aspects of Christian living.

Originally posted by Janus Rook Anyway as to my whole take on how our spiteful feelings and heinous acts towards each other fit into my own christian understanding. I believe that my personal Christ guides my own life towards this. This Christ is based on the belief of self-sacrifice and everlasting redemption. What I mean is that by denying something to yourself, can it help another person? This is pretty easy to accomplish, it may be as simple as buying a co-worker lunch and expecting no payback.

I loved reading this. Whenever I get depressed, whenever I feel like I am making no spiritual progress, I look back over the course of my life since I reverted to theism by way of Christianity and am truly humbled. I definitely have a long, long way to go, but this self examination helps me to realize that anything is possible with Christ.

Originally posted by Janus Rook To give a specific example, I used to believe that women who committed abortions were horrible people. But to think that is fundamentally unchristian. Because if spoken aloud to them it perpetuates greater evil, perhaps driving the women to acts of self-abuse, or leading her away from the true faith, or causing her to hate individuals without cause. Also, it lessens the understanding that woman could receive since confrontation could force her to shut out other alternatives. Now I still think that abortion is never right, but sometimes people find themselves in no-win situations. Like if an 8-year old child points a gun at a police officer, the officer must shoot because his life is in danger and it's self-defense, but the child does not yet understand the ramifications of his actions. No-win situations are horrible to judge people on, because it is gray morality and I believe that sincere repentence for acts committed in this way make these acts not evil, and thus people should not be judged on them. As an example of an act that as a Christian I would always find evil, is if a woman committed an abortion just because the child wasn't the sex that she wanted.

I think we are in full agreement here. While I believe that all abortions are evil, I do not necessarily think that everyone having or performing abortion is evil. Sometimes people are not fully aware that abortion is evil, and sometimes we Christians do an awfully poor job of explaining it. As you say, the judgment is left up to God.

I think we run the risk, in anti-abortion activism, of alienating people and doing to greater cause harm. This does not mean that we should stop advocating on behalf of the unborn--just the opposite in fact. It means that if we truly care for these innocent children we should find the best way of making the case for saving them. While we should not make a moral compromise, we should stretch our Christian patience to the limit.

Anyway, I want to reiterate that I loved reading your post.

edgewaters,

I think you have made some good points, but I think you may possess several misunderstandings as to certain aspects of Christian doctrine.

Originally posted by edgewaters You are not supposed to take vengeance on others or even defend yourself from violence; it's God that metes out justice, man is by nature not just. With the New Testament, it all becomes about martyrdom and passive resistance against those who oppress you or do you harm. The highest state of piety in early Christianity was only achieved through martyrdom.

Just war theory is not one of my specialties. You may wish to turn to Janus; judging by his post he is well versed in Christian perspectives on violence. Still, I will note that while we are generally permitted to defend ourselves, we are also always allowed to be martyrs. Thus, while violence is allowed under some special circumstances, passive martyrdom is always allowed and even commended.

Originally posted by edgewaters This refers to Jesus after he has risen and is no longer a man nor expected to act like a mortal. Its not advice for what people are supposed to do, if you took it that way then you'd be usurping Jesus (pride, a cardinal sin). The role of just punisher is supposed to be reserved for God (in the New Testament). Christians are supposed to suffer the wicked until the Day of Judgement.

After his resurrection, Christs humanity was glorified. He showed us, in His glorified humanity, what we may expect. As I understand it, the human and divine natures of Christ did not cease to be united, either after his death or after his resurrection. Indeed, in Christ our human nature ascended into Heaven.

You are entirely correct in asserting that Christians are to suffer the wicked until the Day of Judgment. We would do well to remember it. In America some members of the Christian right--and before anyone accuses me of picking on them note that I do have admiration for some in the movement--view the persecution which the Church is beginning to experience as strange; they have always relied on the secular power as a guarantor of Christian moral principles. Throughout the Church's history, however, the interference of secular powers has done great harm as well as great good, and we would do well to remember that every time we think about dragging the government into spiritual affairs.

Once again, I would be interested in seeing a discussion of the principles of "Just War Theory" and "Self Defense in Christianity" between you, Janus, and whoever else wished to chime in; perhaps we should start new threads.

To All Three of You,

Thank you all so much for participating. I was looking back over old threads, and thought this one looked extremely important; we often focus so much on the academic aspects of the Christian faith without ever concentrating one the practical ramifications. I have gained greatly from reading over your thoughts.

A Thought:

Could someone please move this thread to the Philosophy and Theology section?



God bless and keep you all!

-Akolouthos the Humbled


Edited by Akolouthos - 20-Jul-2007 at 01:24

Originally posted by Constantine XI People lived in a constant state of fear and guilt at their continued inability to live up to the extraordinarily high standards imposed by Christian dogma, and one can only imagine how traumatising that must be to a medieval human being. Afterall, if you are going to go to hell for some minor infractions you did, you might as well be completely wicked because either way you will suffer for eternity. The psychology of the Byzantine may be seen as reflecting this, foreign visitors often mention the effete, mendacious and passive nature of the Byzantine. Here may be an example of what happens to a society that tries so hard to live up to such massively lofty ideals, that they cannot help but fail and be psychologically affected by that failure.

I like your example, and think it accurately reflects the average medieval religious psychological profile, but I draw a different lesson from it. The failure was not Christian theology itself, but the ability of individual Christians to understand it.

A bit of guilt can serve as a correcting factor; it can help us to realize that we have done wrong and, subsequently, to repent. The guilt of which you speak is guilt to the point of despair--or guilt for the sake of guilt itself--and as such is a ploy of the Devil. By focusing too much--or rather in the wrong way--upon our own unworthiness we actually lose sight of what we are supposed to be doing; we actually prevent ourselves from reconciling with God. We must, indeed, be able to recognize the wrong we do. Once we recognize our own failings, however, we are called to repent of them, not to dwell on them; we are called to recapitulate our will to God.

This unhealthy guilt, in essence, is a demonic distortion of legitimate repentance. It is so much easier to drown in a lake of self pity and loathing than to take Christ's hand and allow Him to save and perfect us. The Devil plays upon our desire to repent, then convinces us we can do it on our own by punishing ourselves with hatred. This is something that all Christians struggle with. Consequently, all Christians must learn to recognize the snares of the Evil One. We must be aware that the demons often masquerade as angels, and their doctrines are generally cleverly distorted false-truths.

-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 20-Jul-2007 at 01:24

Originally posted by Knights Originally posted by Akolouthos A Thought: Could someone please move this thread to the Philosophy and Theology section? Your wish is granted

For which you have my thanks.

-Akolouthos

God bless you, Knights !

Now, in the interest of a series of fruitful discussions, I'll go about informing people of the title change...

-Akolouthos

Originally posted by Akolouthos Just war theory is not one of my specialties.

I don't make any claim as to which view is more in keeping with Christian doctrine; I'm not even Christian. But understand that just war theory is a relatively recent development, having been formulated by Aquinas in the 1200s during the Crusades. And in the Catholic church, which develops doctrine and does not accept that Scripture is sufficient in itself (the Church holds the apostolic succession and is seen as fit to create doctrine and catechism which is as canonical as anything else). So it definately has a certain context, which is not sciptural in origin at all. Protestants should be cautious before adopting the just war argument, as it is a Catholic, not scriptural, teaching.

The pacifisitic viewpoint stems, mainly, from the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plains and its logical consistency with other scriptural elements. It was the grounding basis of the early medieval church and its Pax Dei (aka "Peace and Truth of God") movement, which was how the church gained acceptance among the peasant masses of the early medieval era. The crusades were a sea-change in Christian doctrine, and saw Pax Dei replaced by a far more militant stance.

As I understand it, the human and divine natures of Christ did not cease to be united, either after his death or after his resurrection.

True but Christ as destroyer is not an example for man in the way that Christ the fisherman was. It is Christ acting in his divine capacity. He's not seen as merely man; he can do things man should not, such as command demons or judge and kill sinners.

I am a Christian and not afraid to say I am. I'm Orthodox and therefore fairly strict in terms of my beliefs. I will tell you why I am a Christian...