I can't even recognize the Christianity I see

[Strivax]

Error edited

 

[graceandpeace]

I really cannot recognize a lot of the Christianity I see on the internet and say "They practice the same faith I do". I really can't anymore.

I honestly feel more kinship with merely spiritual people or the average not particularly religious person, than I do with the average "born-again Christian". Let's be honest, they wouldn't accept me as a Christian anyways.

It's almost like religion is making people worse, how could Jesus be happy with any of this?

Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing, by joining a church. I wake up nervous and I feel fake sometimes, like a bad dream I'll wake up from.

I sometimes pine away for just being like what the Dalai Lama says, "My religion is compassion". That would be so much more beautiful than the ugly tribalism I see. And I'm losing my sense of inner peace.

Maybe I need to get beyond the theoretical stage, and start living out what I say I believe. Perhaps I am too nice, and I just need to avoid interacting with certain people for my own sanity.

I know how you feel.

I took a break from this site in part because of some of the ugliness I've seen & the despair I've felt since the election, though my spirits have lifted somewhat. I was skipping every so many services because I just really couldn't understand.

I'm getting better. I have made some caring friends in my church, & I've stopped caring at all about what other Christians may think of me.

I hope you find peace.

 

[placebo99]

Thank you for your honesty OP.

I actually came on this thread because the other ones I posted on were testing my patience; I wouldn't even necessarily place myself in the "Liberal" camp. Nevertheless, a lot of people on here are spiteful and take themselves way too seriously. Finding the middle ground seems to offend them even more. I have decided to visit the site less often because I end up just being angry and wound up instead of finding any real fellowship (this in turn leads to me posting some very terse material).

As many here have said, compassion is key. When politics takes precedence over love, you know true Christianity has left the building.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm fairly confident I have a handle on what Christianity is meant to be about. But in the darker moments, I worry it's the hateful, spiteful, tribalist Christians who are right, and I want no part of their religion.

About 8 years ago, iirc, I became convinced that they're right. Not in sense of having the good way but in the sense of having the historically correct interpretation of Christianity. My own Christian identity blew up in pieces with that realization and has not recovered since.

 

[Silmarien]

About 8 years ago, iirc, I became convinced that they're right. Not in sense of having the good way but in the sense of having the historically correct interpretation of Christianity. My own Christian identity blew up in pieces with that realization and has not recovered since.

Ehh, I don't see how they possibly could. You'd need to go all the way back to the original Jewish context to have a claim to the most historically accurate interpretation, and then about 75% of their theology would collapse.

Not that the Jewish context is necessarily roses and kittens, but even Paul stressed the importance of compassion when not busy ranting about the people who, incidentally, kept on arresting and beating him. So I can forgive him some of his frustration and bitterness.

 

[Armoured]

About 8 years ago, iirc, I became convinced that they're right. Not in sense of having the good way but in the sense of having the historically correct interpretation of Christianity. My own Christian identity blew up in pieces with that realization and has not recovered since.

Welcome home

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I know how you feel.

I took a break from this site in part because of some of the ugliness I've seen & the despair I've felt since the election, though my spirits have lifted somewhat. I was skipping every so many services because I just really couldn't understand.

I'm getting better. I have made some caring friends in my church, & I've stopped caring at all about what other Christians may think of me.

I hope you find peace.

So many Christians were very relieved when Trump won, even those who did not vote at all (never do),
and some were even elated;
why would anyone despair ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

About 8 years ago, iirc, I became convinced that they're right. Not in sense of having the good way but in the sense of having the historically correct interpretation of Christianity. My own Christian identity blew up in pieces with that realization and has not recovered since.

Would you like to recover without prejudice ?
God willing of course.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Welcome home

Hey, I already said this ain't not my home! I'm just crashing the party

Ehh, I don't see how they possibly could. You'd need to go all the way back to the original Jewish context to have a claim to the most historically accurate interpretation, and then about 75% of their theology would collapse. Not that the Jewish context is necessarily roses and kittens, but even Paul stressed the importance of compassion when not busy ranting about the people who, incidentally, kept on arresting and beating him. So I can forgive him some of his frustration and bitterness.

I didn't mean the Fred Phelps - types, but rather the David Wilkerson - types. The arrogant, harsh biblebashers resemble pharisees more than Jesus, but then again some of the hellfire-preaching fundies with their narrow worldviews do have pretty sound biblical/historical reasoning with their theology. As much as I hate it, I can't honestly call it unbiblical or unchristian in historical sense. In my case that led to a realization that if I can't reconcile with it, it's a symptom of me being something else than a Christian. This was years ago, I've moved quite few steps on that direction by now.

I'm having a bit of a dilemma here, I really don't want to promote something I don't think is right, by going in too much detail in my reasoning back then. Not to mention that would be against the board rules too. I was just recounting my experience as others were talking about something similar.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

As much as I hate it, I can't honestly call it unbiblical or unchristian in historical sense. In my case that led to a realization that if I can't reconcile with it, it's a symptom of me being something else than a Christian.

This is true of everyone in the whole wide world who is not a Christian, btw.
It is even written in Scripture >
paraphrased: "The same GOOD NEWS GOSPEL,
that is the aroma of life to those who are saved,
is an aroma of death to those who are condemned"

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

2 Corinthians 2:15-17J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

14-16a Thanks be to God who leads us, wherever we are, on his own triumphant way and makes our knowledge of him spread throughout the world like a lovely perfume! We Christians have the unmistakeable “scent” of Christ, discernible alike to those who are being saved and to those who are heading for death. To the latter it seems like the very smell of doom, to the former it has the fresh fragrance of life itself.

16b-17 Who could think himself adequate for a responsibility like this? Only the man who refuses to join that large class which trafficks in the Word of God—the man who speaks, as we do, in the name of God, under the eyes of God, as Christ’s chosen minister.
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS)

Bible Gateway passage: 2 Corinthians 2:15-17 - J.B. Phillips New Testament

 

[Silmarien]

Hey, I already said this ain't not my home! I'm just crashing the party



I didn't mean the Fred Phelps - types, but rather the David Wilkerson - types. The arrogant, harsh biblebashers resemble pharisees more than Jesus, but then again some of the hellfire-preaching fundies with their narrow worldviews do have pretty sound biblical/historical reasoning with their theology. As much as I hate it, I can't honestly call it unbiblical or unchristian in historical sense. In my case that led to a realization that if I can't reconcile with it, it's a symptom of me being something else than a Christian. This was years ago, I've moved quite few steps on that direction by now.

I'm having a bit of a dilemma here, I really don't want to promote something I don't think is right, by going in too much detail in my reasoning back then. Not to mention that would be against the board rules too. I was just recounting my experience as others were talking about something similar.

I don't know the name. Was he a Calvinist or something along those lines? I decided to take a second look at Christianity a few months ago after thinking it was toxic and horrifying for years, and running across Calvinism was... definitely a stumbling block. Because it is pretty well supported by Scripture.

For me, it's not an issue because I've come to feel like it probably always was the inevitable conclusion of Scholasticism, and I reject the whole school of thought beginning with Anselm. Which... has some interesting ramifactions for me, since there's a church for that and it's a little bit extreme for me and my barely existent faith right now, haha.

What direction did you ultimately end up going in? (I'd seen you mention in it older threads before.)

 

[Jack of Spades]

I don't know the name. Was he a Calvinist or something along those lines?

David Wilkerson was not a calvinist, he's pentecostal or charismatic Christian or something like that. He's just a internationally well-known preacher and a Christian author and plenty of people consider him a prophet. He is worshipped by fundies for his tendency for hell-fear mongering and judgemental preaching that focuses on sin.

I decided to take a second look at Christianity a few months ago after thinking it was toxic and horrifying for years, and running across Calvinism was... definitely a stumbling block. Because it is pretty well supported by Scripture.

For me, it's not an issue because I've come to feel like it probably always was the inevitable conclusion of Scholasticism, and I reject the whole school of thought beginning with Anselm. Which... has some interesting ramifactions for me, since there's a church for that and it's a little bit extreme for me and my barely existent faith right now, haha.

Calvinism is a rather logical conclusion, but I think it runs in the same problem as all versions of salvation - doctrines: The Bible is completely contradictory when it tries to tell how one goes to heaven. Trying to put all that contradictory stuff into one logical theory, just ends up leaving something out of it and kinda misses the exact impression that the Bible, as a whole, gives. imho.

I think the exact theological theory on salvation is probably the most mysterious and blurry thing in the Bible as there are so many conflicting verses about it.

What direction did you ultimately end up going in? (I'd seen you mention in it older threads before.)

I've become something vague, I find inspiration in many places. At first I tried to convert into neopaganism but that didn't really work (curiously, plenty of pagans are totally fine with that conclusion...). I find it difficult to label what I am, as I'm influenced by so many religions and philoshophies that's it's getting difficult to put a name on the end product really.

I usually just call myself "mystic", as personal spiritual experience has always been important to my religiousness, so that is at least descriptive, vague as it might be.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't know the name.

As far as I know more people were healed, delivered, set free from demonic possession (literal and visible to everyone present, for years in some cases in some persons lives - not subtle, not quiet, but very real) ,
set free / healed of alcoholism and drug addictions,
from religion, (lawyer types, men in suits alsom, unable previously to relate and to associate daily with the poor and downtrodden) ,
many over decades, many thousands or tens of thousands,
set free to a new life from prostitution, gambling, cursing,
cutting, depression, anxiety, etc etc etc
even
though his sermons were not 100% perfect! ( but no one else in the usa for 50 years has had such an effective true healing ministry (AND the GOSPEL GOOD NEWS OF JESUS STILL BEING the MAIN FOCUS) as far as I know)

 

[hedrick]

Because it [Calvinism] is pretty well supported by Scripture.

I disagree.

I'm from a traditionally Calvinist denomination. But today Biblical scholars who understand the background of Paul and other writers will generally tell you that the traditional form of Calvinism overstates things. Yes, God is ultimately in charge. But that has to coexist with human responsibility. The Bible maintains both of these together.

Calvin's thought technically does allow for human responsibility. However in places he says that God set out from before creation to damn certain people. Or at least he seems to say that. I think it's hard to make a Scriptural case for that, since the Bible says many places that God doesn't want anyone to be lost. This is the kind of thing that puts most people off from Calvinism (though more moderate forms avoid that).

Most Christianity throughout history has maintained both God's omnipotence and real human choice. Christianity was known for emphasizing free will for the first few centuries. Augustine moved things more in the direction later taken by Calvin. But by the middle ages it had pretty much gone back. Among Protestants today I think a Wesleyan soteriology is more common than Calvinism. Catholics similarly will say that human free will and God's grace and omnipotence coexist.

 

[Silmarien]

I'm from a traditionally Calvinist denomination.

I was wondering about that, actually! I'd read that Presbyterianism had Calvinist roots and it was... a bit shocking. (I grew up Presbyterian but refused to get confirmed and never learned any denominational theology. Now I just need to learn the Anglican and Orthodox stuff.)

But I mean "well supported" in that I can see where it comes from. I don't understand why people would read Paul while ignoring the psychological impact of what he was living through and the nature of his vocation, not to mention the Pharisee background, but there's always an answer to everything. It's all based on theological foundations I think are wrong, but that doesn't seem like an argument worth having.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I don't understand why people would read Paul while ignoring the psychological impact of what he was living through and the nature of his vocation, not to mention the Pharisee background, but there's always an answer to everything.

I think ignoring those things is related to the concept of biblical inspiration. If one believes that whatever Paul writes, is in fact inspired by God and therefore it's really God's opinion, rather than Paul's, then the personal history of Paul becomes rather irrelevant. He's just the guy who wrote it down, but not really his words.

Naturally, if we see The Bible without assumption of divine inspiration, then what you say makes every sense in the world to include those viewpoints and speculate about what goes on in Paul's head. I personally suspect some impact of Greek philosophy in Paul's thinking. Paul himself recounts having talked with "Greeks who seek wisdom", I think his emphasis on the battle of spirit versus flesh could very well be borrowed from Greek philosophers, rather than from Jesus who doesn't very much talk about such a thing.

I find it rather interesting that Paul, being a recovering ex-pharisee himself, is actually the one biblical letter - author who is the most opposed to Judaism. He draws much sharper line between the way of Jesus and the way of Jews than the other apostles in their letters do.

The one thing about Paul I can't help wondering, is that if Paul had known while writing his letters what a fuss people would make of them later on in history, calling them "word of God" and making laws based on them etc. - would he have chosen his words more carefully?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I find it rather interesting that Paul, being a recovering ex-pharisee himself, is actually the one biblical letter - author who is the most opposed to Judaism.

See how hard it is to see the truth without divine revelation.

Jesus and Paul and most of the disciples at the time were fully Jewish. They were not opposed to Judaism. Settle back and wait - it's a long, long unfolding of revelation. (no, not here on this thread)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

OP QUOTE=]I really cannot recognize a lot of the Christianity I see on the internet and say "They practice the same faith I do". I really can't anymore.

I honestly feel more kinship with merely spiritual people or the average not particularly religious person, than I do with the average "born-again Christian". Let's be honest, they wouldn't accept me as a Christian anyways.

It's almost like religion is making people worse, how could Jesus be happy with any of this?[/QUOTE

 

[Silmarien]

I think ignoring those things is related to the concept of biblical inspiration. If one believes that whatever Paul writes, is in fact inspired by God and therefore it's really God's opinion, rather than Paul's, then the personal history of Paul becomes rather irrelevant. He's just the guy who wrote it down, but not really his words.

Well, I don't think the idea of divine inspiration requires plenary verbal inspiration--I'm fine saying Paul was divinely inspired, what with the mystical visions, but he specifically goes on about mankind's inability to fully comprehend these things. You'd think insight into his own incomplete understanding would mean he wasn't literally being dictated to.

But yeah, the whole issue of hermeneutics is just... so very difficult. I resisted Christianity for years because the idea of a set of stories from one ancient people somehow being fundamentally different than the mythology of anyone else was so very bizarre, so it took a while to realize that the basis here was not actually the Jewish mythology itself. And now comes the pressure to accept very specific interpretations. I'm fine with tossing my skepticism out the window and saying "Maybe something big actually did happen," but my critical reasoning isn't following it. I probably ought to read some more of C.S. Lewis's religious writings--I used to be vaguely annoyed with him for abandoning the Glorious Atheist Cause and going over to the Dark Side, but... oops, haha.

The one thing about Paul I can't help wondering, is that if Paul had known while writing his letters what a fuss people would make of them later on in history, calling them "word of God" and making laws based on them etc. - would he have chosen his words more carefully?

You'd hope so, but it could probably go either way!