What is some "Common Christian Wisdom" that you've learned isn't true?

[Celticflower]

It's not my job to decide who gets in and who doesn't, it's my job to spread the Gospel.

I figure deciding who goes to Heaven or not is waaayyy above my pay grade.

 

[LazyGuy]

"The Lord Helps Those that Help Themselves" - Not only is this phrase not found in the Bible, it's contradictory to tremendous amounts of scripture that suggest a responsibility for believers to help those in need, regardless of their ability to repay us, or even their thankfulness for receiving it. The Biblical qualification for receiving help from a Christian, is having a need. Period. The quote itself is actually a Ben Franklin quote, and he was paraphrasing greek philosophers, who used it mockingly.

This is a commonly heard quote and it's very misleading. I think it's more biblical to say God helps those who are helpless.

Another I heard often is "a family that prays together stays together." A good-natured elderly brother insisted that he saw this in the Bible.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

This is a commonly heard quote and it's very misleading. I think it's more biblical to say God helps those who are helpless.

Another I heard often is "a family that prays together stays together." A good-natured elderly brother insisted that he saw this in the Bible.

My undergraduate education is in Psychology, which does not make me an expert in Psychology, but gives me a passing familiarity with the discipline. Enough to know that we can very easily be convinced something is true if we hear it enough. Similar to "The Lord helps those that help themselves", people hear it alot, and believe it is in the Bible.

I met a man once who immediately scoffed when he found out I was a United Methodist Pastor. He said that Pastors should be free to go where the Holy Spirit leads them and not be confined by the church sending them and telling them where to go. The obvious rebuttal here is "What happens if the spirit leads you to a church that doesn't hire you, or leads you to preach a message or act in leadership in a way that gets you fired?", though I chose instead to make it simple and say, "But I feel the spirit leading me to the appointment process in the United Methodist Church, and I believe that same spirit is at work in the cabinet". He was, surprisingly, content with that answer. He all but said "I hadn't thought of it that way". I was expecting some blowback but he was okay with it. Great! So the conversation continued, there were several with us. Someone else said "Where in the Bible does it say "The Lord helps those that helps themselves" and I said "Oh, that's a misconception, it doesn't say that". The man plopped his fist onto the table and says "What Bible are you reading? Yes it does!". He then revealed he had a seminary education and was a Pastor in a non-denominational association of churches (his words; isn't that just a denomination?) I said, "Oh, where?" and he started stammering, "In Matthew, or.. maybe John... one of the Gospels". About then another person in the conversation had "googled" it and found several links and said "Oh, John is right, it doesn't say that". Pretty soon the 'group' was in agreement that that phrase was non-existant in the Bible, especially as this non-denom Pastor was unable to cite it. He was obviously embarassed and resoluted to "Well, the exact words aren't there, but the message is." (I'd disagree- strongly- with that point as well. But, neither here nor there).

Point is, even someone with an education in the Bible can be caught up in a "big lie", because they've heard and repeated something so much, they never bothered to actually find out if it's true. Probably most of us have had that moment where we find out some sage piece of advice from our grandparent or parents that turned out to be bogus. But chances are we never went about 'fact checking' grandpa, we just finally stumbled upon something that suggested his advice was rooted in myth. We have to be careful about that as Christians, because we tend to go along with the "common knowledge" (the whole point of this thread!) and not really think critically. There are a lot of deeply and commonly held Christian beliefs that are utterly debunked by scripture (or, in this case, a lack of scripture! And an abundance of scripture that contradicts the point!)

The origins of the phrase, after all, were from Ben Franklin, a deist who doubted the divinity of Christ and is even quoted as saying that church and worship are manifestation of man and that "God is above such things". Ben Franklin, though he believed in God, was really anti-church. Likely this was fueled by the same mentality that led him to be a leader of the revolution; as the Church of England and England herself were hand-in-hand. He was also a 'watch winder' believer, which was a somewhat common ideology of the time that said that God essentially "set things in motion" but has since removed his hand from the earth. Though he grew up Puritan which have a strong belief in the Holy Spirit, his other writings, including his famous phrase mentioned above, seems to indicate that Franklin believed we're all we've got. God had dominion over heaven, and man earth. Thus "the Lord helps those that helps themselves" fits a deist who isn't sure if Jesus is real and is pretty sure God hasn't had anything to do with earth since Adam and Eve. But it doesn't fit a Christian. (And yes, Franklin WAS quoting greek philosophers who said it first; but, it's his variant of the phrase we're quoting and it's important to know the man behind the words).

We're getting into history now but, the founding fathers were not, largely, the deeply committed conservative Christians that many today seem to cling to the idea of. They had a variety of strange and wacky and downright weird beliefs (with some exceptions of course). Jefferson didn't believe in miracles, so vehemently he cut the evidence of miracles out of the Bible and published it as the "Jefferson Bible", and so forth.

 

[grandvizier1006]

My undergraduate education is in Psychology, which does not make me an expert in Psychology, but gives me a passing familiarity with the discipline. Enough to know that we can very easily be convinced something is true if we hear it enough. Similar to "The Lord helps those that help themselves", people hear it alot, and believe it is in the Bible.

I met a man once who immediately scoffed when he found out I was a United Methodist Pastor. He said that Pastors should be free to go where the Holy Spirit leads them and not be confined by the church sending them and telling them where to go. The obvious rebuttal here is "What happens if the spirit leads you to a church that doesn't hire you, or leads you to preach a message or act in leadership in a way that gets you fired?", though I chose instead to make it simple and say, "But I feel the spirit leading me to the appointment process in the United Methodist Church, and I believe that same spirit is at work in the cabinet". He was, surprisingly, content with that answer. He all but said "I hadn't thought of it that way". I was expecting some blowback but he was okay with it. Great! So the conversation continued, there were several with us. Someone else said "Where in the Bible does it say "The Lord helps those that helps themselves" and I said "Oh, that's a misconception, it doesn't say that". The man plopped his fist onto the table and says "What Bible are you reading? Yes it does!". He then revealed he had a seminary education and was a Pastor in a non-denominational association of churches (his words; isn't that just a denomination?) I said, "Oh, where?" and he started stammering, "In Matthew, or.. maybe John... one of the Gospels". About then another person in the conversation had "googled" it and found several links and said "Oh, John is right, it doesn't say that". Pretty soon the 'group' was in agreement that that phrase was non-existant in the Bible, especially as this non-denom Pastor was unable to cite it. He was obviously embarassed and resoluted to "Well, the exact words aren't there, but the message is." (I'd disagree- strongly- with that point as well. But, neither here nor there).

Point is, even someone with an education in the Bible can be caught up in a "big lie", because they've heard and repeated something so much, they never bothered to actually find out if it's true. Probably most of us have had that moment where we find out some sage piece of advice from our grandparent or parents that turned out to be bogus. But chances are we never went about 'fact checking' grandpa, we just finally stumbled upon something that suggested his advice was rooted in myth. We have to be careful about that as Christians, because we tend to go along with the "common knowledge" (the whole point of this thread!) and not really think critically. There are a lot of deeply and commonly held Christian beliefs that are utterly debunked by scripture (or, in this case, a lack of scripture! And an abundance of scripture that contradicts the point!)

The origins of the phrase, after all, were from Ben Franklin, a deist who doubted the divinity of Christ and is even quoted as saying that church and worship are manifestation of man and that "God is above such things". Ben Franklin, though he believed in God, was really anti-church. Likely this was fueled by the same mentality that led him to be a leader of the revolution; as the Church of England and England herself were hand-in-hand. He was also a 'watch winder' believer, which was a somewhat common ideology of the time that said that God essentially "set things in motion" but has since removed his hand from the earth. Though he grew up Puritan which have a strong belief in the Holy Spirit, his other writings, including his famous phrase mentioned above, seems to indicate that Franklin believed we're all we've got. God had dominion over heaven, and man earth. Thus "the Lord helps those that helps themselves" fits a deist who isn't sure if Jesus is real and is pretty sure God hasn't had anything to do with earth since Adam and Eve. But it doesn't fit a Christian. (And yes, Franklin WAS quoting greek philosophers who said it first; but, it's his variant of the phrase we're quoting and it's important to know the man behind the words).

We're getting into history now but, the founding fathers were not, largely, the deeply committed conservative Christians that many today seem to cling to the idea of. They had a variety of strange and wacky and downright weird beliefs (with some exceptions of course). Jefferson didn't believe in miracles, so vehemently he cut the evidence of miracles out of the Bible and published it as the "Jefferson Bible", and so forth.

I've had an eccentric grandmother who insisted that "the Bible says that you're an adult when you're 21." She, of course, is old and is probably thinking of something else.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

I've had an eccentric grandmother who insisted that "the Bible says that you're an adult when you're 21." She, of course, is old and is probably thinking of something else.

Ha!

Contextually, women tended to get married about the time they got their period (11-15, usually. Though while under Roman Rule, no younger than 12 as that was the age for marriage under Roman law,) and men once they were established in a trade (16 or so), plenty of exceptions and variations (and yes, not uncommon for a much older man to take a much younger bride). The typical age spread was 4-6 years so, in effect, 12 and 16 were married and having kids! 21, while not old, is an established adult in Biblical times! Some of the disciples were teenagers and, in the time, very much adults.

In Judaism, and thus the OT, one comes of age at 13 (boys, 12 for girls). Though the bar mitzvah 'ceremony' is pretty new, it is at 13 (12 for girls) that one is considered 'old enough' to be held accountable and thus required to follow God's commandments.

In short, 21 is awfully 'old'. If the Bible were to signify when someone was an adult, given the context of the 1st century (assuming NT), I imagine that number would be much lower.

 

[grandvizier1006]

And if we're going for things that people infer the Bible says (but not explicitly say), then I've got a long list of things the Bible allegedly "supports" that people take as fact without realizing that it's just their perception.
1. Capitalism
2. Communism
3. Nudism
4. Pre-marital sex
5. Polygamy
6. Polygyny
7. Rape
8. Slavery
9. Spanking your children
10. Genocide
11. Lying to protect someone
12. That God has a pretty darn good plan for YOU, specifically
13. That if somebody sins in a church you MUST kick them out

 

[grandvizier1006]

And as for this the Bible allegedly prohibits...
1. Women speaking in church
2. Interracial marriage
3. Non-missionary sex positions
4. Sex for pleasure between a married man and woman
5. Makeup
6. Tattoos
7. Piercings
8. Gambling
9. Drinking alcohol at all
10. Religious freedom
11. Religious pluralism
12. Sinners in church

 

[Dave-W]

And as for this the Bible allegedly prohibits...

You forgot:

Movies
Television
Owning a deck of cards
Owning a pair of dice
Short sleeve shirts
Dresses with hemlines above the ankles
Women cutting their hair
Men having facial hair
Smoking tobacco

 

[JCFantasy23]

Good list JCFantasy!

I'd add, "God will never give you more than you can handle...."

So this isn't technically true? That may explain why hearing this has always "bugged" me - I thought it was based on something biblical, but perhaps not? It did make me question stuff before since I have a lot of sympathies for the mental ill. It didn't line up with some of the questions I had, such as PTSD and war trauma, as well as other cases where people had breakdowns from tragedy or something going wrong with their bodies/chemistry. When I asked people their thoughts of it with this line, I'd get answers like they didn't turn to God enough or their faith wasn't strong enough then. It always confused me, so it's interesting this line was brought up. It's bothered me for years.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Yeah I think we're on the same page. I'm not going to limit God by saying "It's impossible for that person to go to heaven". For example, I had someone ask me, "Well, don't you believe Muslims go to hell?" The truth is, I DON'T know, because that's, as you say, God's business. What I DO know is what Christ has told us and has been recorded in the scriptures; which is the path to God that I believe is the path we're all called to; a path through Jesus Christ.

I agree with you and Dave. The bible is clear on how we are to come through faith in Jesus, but I would never presume to stand before a person and tell them with surety that God was damning an individual to Hell. I think it is wrong for us to claim to know an individual's fate with total confidence. We do not know if God will decide to make exceptions for some based on things we don't and can't understand, or how much the prayers or others may weigh in - it's dangerous to presume to know for sure and I try not to judge. I can't say for certainty that a person didn't repent, for example, on their deathbed and come to know Jesus there in a way I can't observe.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

You forgot:

Movies
Television
Owning a deck of cards
Owning a pair of dice
Short sleeve shirts
Dresses with hemlines above the ankles
Women cutting their hair
Men having facial hair
Smoking tobacco

Church organs, pianos, guitars, new music, old music. Something, at some point, in music; has been banned from church!

The thing about all of these "lists" is that the majority of Christianity supported or opposed some of these at one point. It's a harrowing reminder that we've got a lot to learn, and chances are, some of what we hold dear as "clearly supported/opposed by the Bible", might be viewed differently by the next generation of Christians.

So this isn't technically true? That may explain why hearing this has always "bugged" me - I thought it was based on something biblical, but perhaps not? It did make me question stuff before since I have a lot of sympathies for the mental ill. It didn't line up with some of the questions I had, such as PTSD and war trauma, as well as other cases where people had breakdowns from tragedy or something going wrong with their bodies/chemistry. When I asked people their thoughts of it with this line, I'd get answers like they didn't turn to God enough or their faith wasn't strong enough then. It always confused me, so it's interesting this line was brought up. It's bothered me for years.

The closest scripture I can come up with it is from Paul, when he says "I can do [endure] all things through Christ who strengthens me". Though the passage is often mis-represented to mean achievement, Paul was writing it from Prison so as to say "It's fine, I can handle it, thanks to God". We've already covered it in this thread but, point being, it seems Paul at least, believed he could endure any hardship through Christ. But, let's remember, Paul was speaking for himself. He had no problems speaking for God or all of Christianity elsewhere; but here he speaks only for himself. As an example of faith, not as an expectation for everyones faith.

Here's the thing though; he was still in Prison, and he'd still be executed later on. If faith genuinely can help us endure all things; then we have to understand there will still be things to endure. When people say "God won't give you more than you can handle" they often take it to mean God will "take away" the harshest parts. In reality, free will is free will. We don't have the freedom to choose God unless we also have the freedom to choose something else. That means people can hurt us, directly and indirectly. People build homes in floodplains and curse God when it floods, or stick their fingers in their ears about climate change and wonder why God didn't prevent the unprecedented record storm that destroyed their home. The reality is, Ben Franklin and his buddies were on to something with the 'watch winder' theory. While I don't believe it entirely (My own life and the lives and experiences of others is evidence of God having his hand on the world even today), I think there's "something" to an understanding that God's role in creation was to set things in motion; not be the puppet master. Calvinism suggests every moment is pre-ordained by God but I don't believe that.

So, in essence, it's tough. I DO believe Faith gives us the strength to endure hardship. But I also believe that even the most faithful people can endure hardships that go beyond their abilities. And I have no answer for that, except to remind us that we live in a fallen world where sin is ever-present.

 

[Dave-W]

Something, at some point, in music; has been banned from church!

True. I find most interesting the pre-renascence and renascence insistence on all church music being in 3/4 time to reflect the Trinity. There was even an early version of the Violone (gamba-family forerunner of the modern string bass) that had only 3 strings called a "church bass."

 

[Dave-W]

And I have no answer for that, except to remind us that we live in a fallen world where sin is ever-present.

That is so true.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

True. I find most interesting the pre-renascence and renascence insistence on all church music being in 3/4 time to reflect the Trinity. There was even an early version of the Violone (gamba-family forerunner of the modern string bass) that had only 3 strings called a "church bass."

"And this song of mine.. in threeee quarter time.. wishing youuu and yours, the same thing tooooo"

Yeah, there are a lot of "little t" traditions that are great; but have unnecessarily become sacred. 3/4 time is a brilliant example. But what about crosses and communion tables? Advent wreaths? Worship patterns? Pictures of Jesus? Sunday morning worship? To be clear; I think these are all good and have no desire to get rid of any of them, but they aren't set in stone or sacred. If there came a time where we needed to change one in order to better serve our mission; could we?

My Grandmother (a United Methodist Pastor) once moved the cross off of the communion table and placed an olive-wood recreation of the Last Supper in it's place for a Maundy Thursday service. She received backlash for taking "Jesus out of the church". Yikes! 1.) You CAN'T take Jesus out of church. 2.) He was literally sitting right there at the table Why isn't "The Last Supper" just as valid a symbol of Christianity as a bare brass cross?

Tirade incoming;

You also can't take "Christ out of Christmas". How about all of our CHRISTMAS traditions we hold sacred? When someone chooses not to say "Christmas", or takes snowflakes off of a coffee cup, or something else, it's declared as a component of the "war on Christmas". I have met militant atheists who want even to outlaw Christmas traditions, but those are few, far between, and radically dismissed by most thinking people. The truth is, people want to be inclusive, and that's not a "war on Christmas". But our traditions have soldered themselves in, quite unnecessarily!

 

[Dave-W]

How about all of our CHRISTMAS traditions we hold sacred? When someone chooses not to say "Christmas", or takes snowflakes off of a coffee cup, or something else, it's declared as a component of the "war on Christmas".

Yeah. Back in the 'Nam era many of my buds came back from that war in SE Asia with a phrase: "Willing to die on that hill."

Almost all of those traditions are not hills I am willing to die on.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Yeah. Back in the 'Nam era many of my buds came back from that war in SE Asia with a phrase: "Willing to die on that hill."

Almost all of those traditions are not hills I am willing to die on.

Seems many Christians relish the opportunity to charge a hill, any hill.

Hyper-sensitive, always-offended, constantly "persecuted" Christianity reminds me of Don Quixote fighting the windmills. They are largely combating things that have always been there, the attacks are futile and in the end; everyone just thinks you're nuts.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Seems many Christians relish the opportunity to charge a hill, any hill.

Hyper-sensitive, always-offended, constantly "persecuted" Christianity reminds me of Don Quixote fighting the windmills. They are largely combating things that have always been there, the attacks are futile and in the end; everyone just thinks you're nuts.

That's another issue that needs to be treated with care. A lot of Christians--myself included--are as spiritually weak and easily offended (most genuine believers are less offended) as the safe-spacers.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That's another issue that needs to be treated with care. A lot of Christians--myself included--are as spiritually weak and easily offended (most genuine believers are less offended) as the safe-spacers.

I think there's a difference between being sensitive, and looking for persecution.

I see many in the Christian community actively seeking persecution. Joshua Feurstein(sp?) is a fantastic example. He's a social media "star" who basically just makes vertical videos about what's offending him this week. His latest fiasco was telling everyone to boycott starbucks because a) They aren't allowed to say "Merry Christmas" (not true, actually. As a matter of fact, Starbucks has no requirements for what baristas and cashiers greet customers with. If they say 'Happy Hollidays', 'Merry Christmas' or 'Hi, welcome to Starbucks!' it's because they chose to, not because someone told them to), and b) Because they changed their Christmas cup this year. That part is true, they did. But they change it every year, it's different every year. This year it's just plain red. In years past, it had snowflakes or reindeer on it. Feurstein says this is the "war on Christmas". I say that snowflakes aren't Christian symbols, so removing them doesn't make it 'removing Christmas'. You CAN buy a nativity scene Ornament or Christian-themed Christmas gift bags at starbucks though; I suppose he didn't know that.

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Actively seeking ways to be offended so that one can wear the badge of honor that is "persecution".

 

[Celticflower]

I am dismayed by how easily people get offended these days. When did humans become so thin skinned? And, other than unwarranted attention, what do these people gain? I'd rather just roll on by than proclaim that every other thing "offends" me. I haven't got time for such nonsense.

 

[Citanul]

[QUOTE="DaveW-Ohev, post: 68959356, member: 354693Short sleeve shirts[/QUOTE]

That's one I hadn't heard before. What reasons are given for the Bible prohibiting short sleeves?

And if that were true I'd be in big trouble given that the majority of my shirts are short-sleeved and I think I only have two with long sleeves...