Have you noticed that high church christians have a thing for corporal punishment?

[Guy-jin]

I don't see it that way, guy. Did you know that the number one concern of women in the world by a large margin is just finding fresh water for their family. We here in the USA live like Gods compared to most of the world. I am afraid that Jesus would simply tell us that "It ain't 'the good life' until everyone is included."

No, I believe he certainly wouldn't say that. That "good life" is reserved for heaven. On earth, we are subject to toil, suffering and misery.

And people with fresh water that flows freely from their faucets die of cancer everyday. I work to stop that, and to teach others to help others do the same.

I believe Jesus would say to me, "I am proud of you for doing what you can to make things better."

And I believe he would say the same thing to the woman who toils all day trying to find her family fresh water.

And I do not appreciate the implication that I am unaware that others suffer daily all over the world, nor that I am unaware that I lead a charmed life by comparison. I am well aware of those things, and that's why I try to set an example for others by doing what I can.

 

[JustAsking]

...And I do not appreciate the implication that I am unaware that others suffer daily all over the world, nor that I am unaware that I lead a charmed life by comparison. I am well aware of those things, and that's why I try to set an example for others by doing what I can.

No, I don't know enough about you to make that kind of implication. I only know that I usually agee with you word for word. I was just responding to what you said here below:

... In that sense, isn't obtaining personal peace the only real concern of an individual? In the greater sense, isn't suffering and misery something shared by all? ....

I found that to be a bit out of character. I don't think you really meant that that your only real concern is your own personal peace. Everything else you have said doesn't support that.

 

[2322]

What does Christ do with murderers? He forgives them:

Father forgive them for they know not what they do.

Jesus was unjustly killed and therefore, murdered. Even Pilate admitted he had no crime with which to charge Jesus much less a crime worthy of crucifixion.

Jesus was harsh in his judgment of others, particularly of the falsely pious to whom he was outright vicious, referring to them as, "hypocrites," and, "a den of vipers." Yet never did he advocate their persecution. For Jesus, final justice was the sole province of God:

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

The Old Testament clearly defines the fate of adulterers and harlots. They're to be stoned to death yet when this religiously legal form of punishment takes place in the presence of Jesus he halts it reminding us that it is not for us to judge life and death. While we may imprison to prevent criminals from committing crimes again, life and death is the will of God alone:

Vengeance is Mine sayeth the Lord...

but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Clearly an admonition that we should not set-up ourselves in place of God. Romans exhorts us to:

Do not be overcome with evil, but overcome evil with good.

Therefore if your enemy hungers, feed him.

It's rare we see this sort of thing but I was reminded of it very clearly with the Amish schoolhouse massacre.
One of the girls who was killed said before she died, "Remember, we must not think evil of this man."

Had this girl been Catholic she would be on the road to canonization as a martyr.

Not only did the Amish community reach out to the family of the murderer but they established a fund to assist them. Yes, the Amish established a charitable fund to assist the family of the man who murdered their children.

That is grace in action and word; it moves me tremendously. This is following Jesus.

And no, I'm not a former Christian.

 

[Guy-jin]

I found that to be a bit out of character. I don't think you really meant that that your only real concern is your own personal peace. Everything else you have said doesn't support that.

Sorry for misunderstanding you, then. I did find it odd, since yes, we pretty much always agree!

I didn't explain myself correctly. See if this makes more sense.

I think the only concern of the individual needs to be obtaining personal peace because the only way to obtain personal peace is through doing what one can to make the the situation better.

However, we can't expect ourselves to be able to, for example, provide fresh water for every family who doesn't have it.

So, what I mean is for us to be at peace, we ought to do what we can. We are incapable, as individuals, of solving all anguish in the world.

I think the disconnect is that my response to your post was in regards to the idea of judging others and acting on them in respect to committing crimes, when you were being more general than that. Basically, I read what you wrote as an example of how one could justify, say, a war to get rid of a terrible dictator and replace him with democracy because one judges that as being better. None of us are capable of knowing that such an act will result in making things better (in fact, evidence points to the contrary in many cases), and therefore, I do not feel that it's an individual's place to externally judge others. For example, many judge the current Islamist terrorists as purely evil. But do they see themselves as evil? Of course not. Does that mean they shouldn't be stopped? Of course not. But it does mean that we should consider solutions other than just killing or punishing them in the name of justice.

I realize I'm preaching to the choir. But that's the framework from which my response came. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[2322]

No, Guy-jin, if we were to truly acknowledge the horrendous suffering in the world, we'd be driven mad in anguish. We can do only so much as we can before we have to dissociate ourselves lest we become consumed by our own ineffectiveness in the face of tragedy.

 

[Guy-jin]

No, Guy-jin, if we were to truly acknowledge the horrendous suffering in the world, we'd be driven mad in anguish. We can do only so much as we can before we have to dissociate ourselves lest we become consumed by our own ineffectiveness in the face of tragedy.

One need not go mad in anguish to acknowledge the suffering of the world. In fact, that is completely counterproductive. One ought to acknowledge that suffering by trying to alleviate it in whatever way he or she can.

We can only do so much because it is only within our capacity to do so much. It has nothing to do with being "ineffective". Bringing a smile to someone's face isn't ineffective. Buying a meal for someone who's going hungry isn't ineffective. And working to cure cancer isn't ineffective.

Would that everyone had that outlook, people all over the world would be dying and getting disfigured by small pox. Far more of the world would be going hungry. And so on.

 

[2322]

At any one second in the world there are horrors taking place. Shift your existence for a microsecond and you'll hear and see it. Life is so terrible to behold in its totality that we can't bear it. The basest of our consolations are greed and vice, the more noble, love and beauty. I shame myself entirely for not finding the strength to be a saint. Maybe in my next life.

It's a bit ironic. As soon as I truly beheld this truth my hair went gray.

One need not go mad in anguish to acknowledge the suffering of the world. In fact, that is completely counterproductive. One ought to acknowledge that suffering by trying to alleviate it in whatever way he or she can.

We can only do so much because it is only within our capacity to do so much. It has nothing to do with being "ineffective". Bringing a smile to someone's face isn't ineffective. Buying a meal for someone who's going hungry isn't ineffective. And working to cure cancer isn't ineffective.

Would that everyone had that outlook, people all over the world would be dying and getting disfigured by small pox. Far more of the world would be going hungry. And so on.

 

[Guy-jin]

At any one second in the world there are horrors taking place. Shift your existence for a microsecond and you'll hear and see it. Life is so terrible to behold in its totality that we can't bear it. The basest of our consolations are greed and vice, the more noble, love and beauty. I shame myself entirely for not finding the strength to be a saint. Maybe in my next life.

It's a bit ironic. As soon as I truly beheld this truth my hair went gray.

And at any one second, people are doing amazing, wonderful things for each other. In a world with so many people working so hard to lessen the suffering that is naturally a part of it, how can you be anything but proud to be a part of such a wonderful race?

I admit, I'm a bit offended again by an implication that I'm not aware of suffering going on around the world.

Why must it be that someone can't be aware of the magnitude of suffering in the world and yet be hopeful because he sees that many people are out there doing what they can to make it better?

If I didn't have this type outlook, I would be unable to commit to a career where I have to watch people I know and am trying to save die regularly, and thereby be unable to alleviate their suffering and eventually cure their ailments.

Are you truly that pessimistic that you think your actions have no impact on the world?

 

[2322]

Don't be offended, please! No offense was meant. I find the suffering overwhelming though it doesn't mean you do. If you can face it then providence bless you. I wish I had that kind of strength. No doubt I'd be a happier person.

And at any one second, people are doing amazing, wonderful things for each other. In a world with so many people working so hard to lessen the suffering that is naturally a part of it, how can you be anything but proud to be a part of such a wonderful race?

I admit, I'm a bit offended again by an implication that I'm not aware of suffering going on around the world.

Why must it be that someone can't be aware of the magnitude of suffering in the world and yet be hopeful because he sees that many people are out there doing what they can to make it better?

If I didn't have this type outlook, I would be unable to commit to a career where I have to watch people I know and am trying to save die regularly, and thereby be unable to alleviate their suffering and eventually cure their ailments.

Are you truly that pessimistic that you think your actions have no impact on the world?

 

[Guy-jin]

Don't be offended, please! No offense was meant. I find the suffering overwhelming though it doesn't mean you do. If you can face it then providence bless you. I wish I had that kind of strength. No doubt I'd be a happier person.

Sorry for being sensitive to you and to JustAsking. I've been having waves of a migrane this evening, and it only subsided for good about a half hour ago. It sours my mood and makes me intolerable!

And I hope that you can see the good things happening all over the world some time, jason_els. But even if you don't, I hope you don't let the magnitude of worldwide suffering stop you from doing what you need to be at peace with yourself. I believe we all have the strength to have faith in humanity, even when it does so many deplorable things.

And I can already tell you from reading your posts here (which are outstanding) that you're having a positive impact on the world in your daily life as it is. So kudos to you for that.

 

[B_Italian1]

Italian,
This is a very good point. I think most people who have had loved ones murdered would respond pretty much as you say. They would be angry, irrational, and probably unwilling to forgive. That is just human nature.

That's what I am getting at--flawed, imperfect humans that we all are.

However, the fact that it is human nature does not mean it is right. Almost everything Jesus advocated was pretty much countercultural and very much against human nature. The kind of life Jesus requests of us in terms of unquestioning self-sacrifice is a burden that is almost too much for any of us to bear. The fact that it is difficult does not change the essence of that message. Jesus' message was so countercultural and so much against human nature that they nailed him to a tree.

I agree with what you say and it's true. We cannot bear the burden of living a perfect existence and it is so against our human nature. Jesus was considered anti establishment, a hippie of sorts, someone who went against the grain and when his following became larger and larger he was a threat to society.

So the fact that any one of us would be bent on revenge if our child were murdered has nothing to do with how Jesus would want us to respond. As for the proper response, Jesus would have us put our energy into creating a world where children are not murdered, rather than exacting revenge on any individual murderer.

And we can't create a world where there are no wars, no people killed, no poverty, only love and peace.

They should be! However, it's always about the mood, and the desired result at the time. Religion has always been used as a manipulative tool.
It always will be. Those who are greedy of their own agenda will always find a way to pervert anything...

You're so right about that. Fred Phelps pickets anti gay slurs at soldiers funerals. It makes no sense to most sane people.

There are very many examples of Christians forgiving those who murdered their loved ones, though. And in those cases, I have little doubt it is from Jesus that they garnered that expansive capacity for forgiveness.

Any person, Christian, Atheist, or whatever, is capable of forgiveness.

You say humans aren't perfect, and if you believe in Jesus truly, you know he was a human and perfect. The response you might give is, "but He is also God." But wasn't His place as God in the form of man to show us how we should live to attain godliness? That ultimately, a complete capacity for forgiveness, compassion and love would end up making saints of us all? That's what I've always believed.

Christians believe Jesus was a perfect God/man, and that's correct that following what He did would be a step towards sainthood for all of us. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, but I'm a realist. My faith is not as strong as others and I don't have all the answers. None of us do.

Jesus would forgive someone for wanting to take vengeance on his or her child's killer. But He would also be so proud if that person had been able to forgive the killer and show him or her the power of Christ's forgiveness.

That's an excellent point and I like it very much. You're looking at it from both sides.

I understand you feel that in the "real world", that isn't an option. You probably think forgiving a killer would eventually lead to having him set free to kill again. But is that that really a concern to a Christian? Is it so unrealistic to aspire to live a Christ-like life? If so, was Christ's life simply meant to exemplify that which humans are unable to attain, complete serenity and forgiveness? And if that's the case, what about other humans who have displayed such a capacity (the Dalai Lama comes to mind)?

No, I don't believe that forgiving a killer will eventually set him free. Some people could not find it in their heart to ever forgive a killer, whether that person got a life sentence with no chance of parole or the death penalty.
Forgiveness is indeed possible no matter how horrific the circumstances. I saw a documentary on killers who are visited in prison by their victims' families. I think it was on MSNBC, and it was amazing. A woman regularly visits the man who killed her daughter and she greets and leaves him with a hug and kiss each time.

I hope you won't get offended by this post. It's hard to find people of faith willing to discuss their beliefs openly. They seem to get offended on a whim and are unwilling to answer challenges to their faith, even if it's just an intellectual exercise and not intended to make them question their faith. So I hope you can see I'm being genuine and not overreact like that other individual to something that's harmless.

I'm not offended at all, and I'm far from an expert in Christianity. I'll leave that to the scholars. And it's healthy to question our faith.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, no matter how dim our view of humanity (mine is so dim these days:frown1, a little shines from a few dear souls who have lived throughout history. One of those was Mother Theresa. She didn't have an agenda. Her love for Jesus went beyond the Catholic Church and all of its agendas. What gives evidence to this? She never bashed anyone for refusing to embrace Christianity and her ways. "Love" was her way - her one and only way. If she helped a Hindu die, a Hindu funeral was given. She showed no more love to Christians and like-minded people than those who thought and lived most differently from her. She didn't care what you were and who you were. She loved the homeless HIV victims, the prostitutes, the hopeless dying souls on the street and all those shunned by "religious people." Why did she love them? Why did she care? Why didn't she judge? Why didn't she point fingers at them, telling them they were going to hell? Why? Because in her there was a heart like Jesus's, loving those most despised among men.

Although many people disagreed with her views on certain issues, I believe that she fundamentally understood what it was to have to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Truly, a few people throughout history transcended their humanity, and among them, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta.


Mother Theresa would have never pulled the switch, by the way:wink:

Excellent post, Bigbull, and that's why she's regarded as a saint by some, and the Catholic church is working towards her canonization.

Sorry Italian978. This isn't a personal attack on you but Christians can't have it both ways. Claiming to be a Christian while selectively ignoring the fundamental tenets of Christ's philosophy is lazy and dishonest. Its a cheap cop-out I've far too many so-called Christians invoke:

"Christ calls on Christians to forgive but I'm exempt because I'm not Christ."

It is not unique to Christianity. There are no perfect Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

 

[Drifterwood]

Well, as this is now a completely different thread to the one that I started, if you can't beat them, join them. Pun intended.

The Christian Church has never married it's position to both the rulers and the ruled. Arguably it owes its survival to the rulers who eventually embraced it.

However I personally believe that it is a spiritual message that rejects position and is far more ascetic and gnostic than has been handed down to us. This interpretation of the Christian message soon became uncomfortable and therefore heretical. People in power like to exercise the ultimate sanction. State religion endorses whatever they want, or they soon find a head who will.

 

[BIGBULL29]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. But, no matter how dim our view of humanity (mine is so dim these days:frown1, a little shines from a few dear souls who have lived throughout history.

One of those was Mother Theresa. She didn't have any self-promoting agenda. Her love for Jesus went beyond the Catholic Church and all of its agendas. What gives evidence to this? She never bashed anyone for refusing to embrace Christianity and her ways. "Love" was her way - her one and only way. If she helped a Hindu die, a Hindu funeral was given. She showed no more love to Christians and like-minded people than those who thought and lived most differently from her. She didn't care what you were and who you were. She loved the homeless HIV victims, the prostitutes, the hopeless dying souls on the street and all those shunned by men and many religious people.

Why did she love them? Why did she care? Why didn't she judge? Why didn't she condemn them all to to hell for their sins, their stupidity and their worthless lives - those awful self-destructed lives. Why? Because in her there was a heart like her spouse's, loving those most despised among men.

Although many people disagreed with her views on certain issues, I believe that she fundamentally understood what it was to have the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

Truly, a few people throughout history transcended their humanity, and among them, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta.

Mother Theresa would have never pulled the switch, by the way:wink:

I just had to edit that post. You can't edit after a certain time has elapsed. So, I reposted so I could edit. But, that's not the only reason why I posted again again on this thread.

I am very happy to see that others understand the essence of true Christianity - even on a site such as LPSG.:biggrin1::smile:

 

[dalibor]

What do you mean by "high church" Christian? This term is normally used only in the Anglican communion and refers to the more formalistic, Catholic influenced part of Anglicanism as opposed to the "low church" more Protestant leaning side.
To use "high church" to apply to anything other than Anglicans must be some new usage. But I don't know it. Can someone explain?

 

[Notthe7]

No, not everyone dollface...all the sane Texans live an hour up 35 from where you are. :wink:

Oh Hazelgod.. you're one of THOSE austin people.

I may have to BLOG this entire topic so I don't start a rant mid-thread.

Can I come visit you ? :wink:

 

[Drifterwood]

What do you mean by "high church" Christian? This term is normally used only in the Anglican communion and refers to the more formalistic, Catholic influenced part of Anglicanism as opposed to the "low church" more Protestant leaning side.
To use "high church" to apply to anything other than Anglicans must be some new usage. But I don't know it. Can someone explain?

Yes, I am from the UK, where the Curch of England (and Wales) is Anglican and has this sliding scale of high and low. The high end is more catholic (deliberate lower case c), they opposed the ordination of women etc etc.

In the UK, where I think we have a reputation for enoying flogging each other, corporal punishment does seem to be or to have been associated with the schools of the high churches, including the catholic ones. This reputation is probably outdated now, but seems to have been picked up to create a fetish genre.

I do think that there can be a link between the passion of christ and corporal punishment / self harm as portrayed by my favourite human being Mr. Gibson.