sophiaserpentia (
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-04-11 01:11 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
If I was a Christian, for Easter
I am a spiritual refugee, exiled from my home forever. I could be a Christian if not for scripture, if not for doctrine.
If I was a Christian, this is what I would believe.
That Jesus believed in us.
That Jesus wanted us to see that no matter what we had experienced or done before, that we could rise above it by living in accord with the spirit of compassion and love for the divine.
That Jesus wanted us to understand that we are all in this together, and that together we could make anything happen. There is no "us versus them," there are no enemies; those who limit or oppress us are lost in their own nightmare and suffer their own limitations, and there is always hope of helping them to wake up.
That Jesus wanted us to stand together in solidarity and love in the face of brutality.
That Jesus refused to cower in the face of persecution, and was killed for challenging injustice.
That Easter is a clear sign from God that resistance against wrong and limitation is not futile -- that living in perfect love and perfect trust is the key to victory over death and fate.
That Paul wanted us to understand that the Resurrection is a promise that God is on our side when we work to transcend the limitations of fate.
That Paul wanted us to play our part in the reconciliation whereby God will become all in all.
crossposted to my journal and crossposted to
convert_me
If I was a Christian, this is what I would believe.
That Jesus believed in us.
That Jesus wanted us to see that no matter what we had experienced or done before, that we could rise above it by living in accord with the spirit of compassion and love for the divine.
That Jesus wanted us to understand that we are all in this together, and that together we could make anything happen. There is no "us versus them," there are no enemies; those who limit or oppress us are lost in their own nightmare and suffer their own limitations, and there is always hope of helping them to wake up.
That Jesus wanted us to stand together in solidarity and love in the face of brutality.
That Jesus refused to cower in the face of persecution, and was killed for challenging injustice.
That Easter is a clear sign from God that resistance against wrong and limitation is not futile -- that living in perfect love and perfect trust is the key to victory over death and fate.
That Paul wanted us to understand that the Resurrection is a promise that God is on our side when we work to transcend the limitations of fate.
That Paul wanted us to play our part in the reconciliation whereby God will become all in all.
crossposted to my journal and crossposted to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
no subject
no subject
no subject
That's based on my own studying and experiences, and obviously yours may differ, but I'm not making blanket statements about an entire religion.
no subject
Stop any Christian on the street and ask her what Christians believe, and she is most likely to list many doctrinal points I omitted, and may or may not get around to adding anything that I listed above.
For example, that average Christian would start with doctrinal points such as: Jesus is Lord; God is a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; Jesus was raised from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion in accordance with the scriptures; the Bible is the word of God; and so on.
I do not believe any of those things. I also know, from direct experience, that the average Christian will insist that I am not a Christian. She is likely to say that Quakers aren't, either.
no subject
Well, yes. That just goes to confirm what was said earlier about the creeds being enumerations of the distinctive points of Christianity as opposed to, say, Buddhism or Islam; likewise, the question "What do Christians believe?" carries an implicit rider of "...compared to anyone else?". Most Christians believe that Providence is the capital of Rhode Island, too (assuming they've heard of the place) but that doesn't make it on to a list of distinctive things believed by most Christians because so does everyone else. The danger is assuming that what's distinctive is exhaustive.
no subject
So the list itself is not new or innovative. For the most part it is not disagreeable to Christians.
But what I think is revolutionary is to assert that points such as the ones I raised constitute the defining message of Christianity. If so, that message is not Christian-specific, but is one that anyone of any faith or creed can get in line with.
What I have concluded is this: Jesus and Paul thought that "religion" (doctrine and ritual) was a trap that prevents us from seeing the spirit and humanity in everyone around us. Therefore their message bore not a new set of beliefs, but instead metanoia followed by orthopraxis.
no subject
What makes someone random? Do I not count as a Christian; I am an example of one you might come across in a street and who'd answer 'yes' were you to ask me 'Are you Christian?'. I wouldn't say many of the things that you think an average Christian would say when asked what Christian believe, nor do I believe all of them.
I live in a very religiously conservative area and yet I know of NO Christians who do not consider Quakers Christian. I would only say that you're not Christian because you yourself don't identify as Christian. Were you to say you're Christian, I'd take you at that.
no subject
I am very careful and precise when making general statements. Every general statement I've made in this discussion has disclaimers and qualifiers:
"typical doctrinal treatments of Christian teaching"
"she is most likely to list many doctrinal points I omitted"
"Doctrinal debates within the church have focused on those issues and largely ignored the issues I've listed here"
I *know* these are generalizations and that therefore there are exceptions to every one of them, but it's not always possible to avoid making generalizations, and it is just too awkward and unwieldy to include parenthetical comments ("excluding exceptions") every time. I assumed that this was just a natural part of rhetoric and debate.
If you feel that my generalizations are inaccurate, that is another thing. It may be so; my generalizations and conclusions are based solely on my extensive experience of discourse with Christians. It could simply be that the Christians with whom I have dialogued represent a skewed subset. I honestly do not think so.
I did not mean to discount your perspective, and I apologize if that is what I seemed to be saying with my comments. I can only go on my experience, and depend on people to correct me if I am wrong.
no subject
By qualifying your statements in this way, you're making them unfalsifiably, aren't you? In which case it's not possible to have a debate. Even within the bounds of philosophical discourse it becomes undiscussable. You said "a", I've given you "b". So far as I can understand you've come back as saying "yes, I did qualify that it was only largely a, which allows for instances of b. but it's still largely a."
I don't invalidate that your experience has been such, and that the generalisations fit those that you've come in contact with, but I disagree that they fit Christians as a whole. I do feel as if you're, perhaps unconciously, invalidating mine, though, based on your language. I feel as if the "extensive experience of discourse with Christians" bit was thrown in as if to imply that I've had less, and therefore don't know what I'm talking about. I'm not even attempting to correct you or your experience, as I don't necessarily feel that you're wrong (nor do I think that there IS a 'wrong') merely give you my own, which does not agree with yours, for consideration. But you've said you "honestly do not think so.", and so ends the conversation.
no subject
That wasn't my intent, honestly. I truly did not think that those statements would cause contention.
So far as I can understand you've come back as saying "yes, I did qualify that it was only largely a, which allows for instances of b. but it's still largely a."
If my conclusions are based on skewed experience, then I'm wrong and require correction.
I feel as if the "extensive experience of discourse with Christians" bit was thrown in as if to imply that I've had less, and therefore don't know what I'm talking about.
I realized after clicking "post" that that came across as snarky, and for that I apologize.
I honestly didn't mean to imply that you don't know what you're talking about -- I only wanted to explain somehow that I have had a lot of conversations with many different people who call themselves Christians, and my conclusions about what Christianity is and what Christians believe and do is based on those encounters.
Truly, if I am wrong, I would be happy about that, because it would mean that I am not the 'refugee' I have come to feel that I am.
no subject
Since it came up in the thread you linked to, I will mention that I use belief to mean "something I've accepted as true based on any mixture of my own experience, studying, instinct, perception, etc-- which necessitates that no other person will have the same 'beliefs' as I do. This means, by definition, there is no reason for me to get upset if people don't believe as I do. We're blind, and and everything is an elephant (http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/curriculum/socialstd/grade7/india/Blind_elephant.html).
I do think that the Christians you've talked to are primarily the more conservative ones, and they tend to be the more vocal, simply because the most mindful of liberal Christians will not discredit your relationship with God.
no subject
You must not live in the land of Southern Baptists then. A frighteninly large percentage of Southern Baptists will tell you that Quakers are not Christian, that Catholics are satanic, etc.
no subject
no subject
A very definite difference, unfortunately.
Having lived most of my life in an area where rabid Southern Baptists either are the majority (or definitely make enough noise to make themselves sound like the majority), I find it easy to comprehend how a person can come to feel that most Christians in general are more interested in doctrine than in the actual teachings of Jesus himself. These are places where the major emphasis of Christianity, due to the loud rabid ones, seems to be placed on messages of eternal punishment for those who deviate the slightest bit from the creeds; where the importance of being "born again" far outweighs the importance of compassion, charity, and good works. It is disheartening and divisive to say the least. Even the non-rabids become a little more rigid under the attack, an understandable human response, as they cling more tightly to the creeds of their specific denomination as a defense against a very real attack.
Extremists of any sort are definitely toxic.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Quakers used to get branded and run out of town on rails a few hundred years ago, so I think the idea that they sre heretical non-Christians isn't new.