Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Some Random Musings.

In response to Some Random Musings. posted by pink101:

Can we ask why churches do what they do at the local level where they exist?
.
I think that can be a legitimate question, but not always a popular one. ;-) I think we can ask why churches do/don't take care of the needy, or take a stand on issues such as war, poverty, or the welfare of children/minorities/the aged, infirm, handicapped.
.
When we ask--today--what it means to follow Jesus, what answers will be forthcoming? Does it mean that we should live a priestly life always ready to drop to our knees in prayer? Or should we, like the Jainists, wear gauze breathing masks for fear we might cause some poor airborne insect to die? Must we be careful not to use any vulgar language? Does following Jesus mean we are to be prissy?
.
What I believe: following Jesus means loving, God, humankind, oneself, and the earth. Its not about warm fuzzies, but about responsibility, self-dicipline, compassion, and a host of other challenges. It has to do with who we are on the inside, not what we do for show.
.
Were the religious folk of Jesus' time enamoured of his ways? Or were they the ones who conspired to get him crucified?
.
Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Sanhedrin, yet he stood by Jesus (Mt 27:57-59, Lk 23:51). I don't think *all* of the "religious folk" opposed Jesus, nor do I think all people connected with religion today are anti-Jesus.
.
And, when it comes to churches today, do congregations choose new pastors based on their reputations for building new and bigger churches?
.
Church building can be a factor. In the church I used to attend, the congregation wanted ministers who wouldn't make them think too much, wouldn't challenge their established prejudices.
.
What does it mean for Jesus to be a role model? Will it get you crucified?
.
Maybe not literally, but you might not be the most popular kid on the block. (grin)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Some Random Musings.

In response to Some Random Musings. posted by paper_turtle:
.
What if you point out--to some hypocrits--that they act real nice; but, that, deep inside they're more like a rotting corpse on the inside of a grave?
.
Would that be following Jesus?
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Some Random Musings.

In response to Some Random Musings. posted by pink101:

Phil wrote:
What if you point out--to some hypocrits--that they act real nice; but, that, deep inside they're more like a rotting corpse on the inside of a grave?
.
Would that be following Jesus?
.
Jesus is reported to have done that. I wouldn't, unless it was an issue which affected me directly. Even then, I would probably refrain, because it would feel, to me, like sitting in judgment. How can I really know what a person's intentions were? And maybe sometimes I'm just as hypocritical (three fingers pointing back, dontcha know).
.
Instead, I might point out what I believe Jesus would have said, or what to me seems consistent with the greatest commandments--and leave it at that.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Self Righteous Bigots

In response to Some Random Musings. posted by paper_turtle:
.
So, you would take exception to Jesus when he spoke to the self righteously religious leaders of HIS day?
.
And, you would not speak in such a way to those who come here with self righteous bigotry and--occasionally--who post here?
.
I do so every once in a while and it doesn't make me the most popular participant here, does it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Self Righteous Bigots

In response to Self Righteous Bigots posted by pink101:

My experience has been that calling Joe Schmo a self-righteous bigot accomplishes nothing positive. Joe just gets defensive and retaliates. He does not pause to examine his soul (or his actions).
.
I think Jesus could say things like that because those whom he addressed could tell he saw them in their entirety--and loved all of who they were. (And that love probably scared the beejeebers out of them).
.
I also think those sorts of speeches were intended more for those listening in than "the scribes and lawyers". Jesus wanted people to know that he saw through their facade--and that his listeners (ordinary individuals) were capable of seeing truth for themselves.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - My Take On Jesus

In response to Self Righteous Bigots posted by paper_turtle:
.
Of course, this thread about following Jesus is yours as you opened it. You know what you want to discuss.
.
But, my take on Jesus is that his actions are not esoteric; they are right on top and easy to read. He came against the priesthood that was putting itself between humanity and God--keeping individuals from being at one with Our Father in Heaven. And, the priests were being legalistic with Jesus and he put them smack dab in their place with no punches pulled. That's an important point and not to be swept aside or overlooked. However, it--VERY MUCH--is overlooked by Christian teachers today who seem to push the idea of prissiness as having to do with being "Christlike" and so on.
.
Jesus laid in on the line. It's not a hard message to read. The Gospel of Matthew shows that.
.
That's my take on Jesus; but, it's your thread.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - My Take On Jesus

In response to My Take On Jesus posted by pink101:

.
Phil wrote:
my take on Jesus is that his actions are not esoteric; they are right on top and easy to read.
.
Sometimes, but not always. I think many times there are many layers of meaning in what Jesus said/did. That doesn't imply he was esoteric, only that there is often more there then meets the eye (or ear).
.
He came against the priesthood that was putting itself between humanity and God--keeping individuals from being at one with Our Father in Heaven. . . . That's an important point and not to be swept aside or overlooked.
.
Yes, but that's only part of his message, only part of the reason he came. Some of us simply are not confrontational.
.
But, more than that, I think its also important to consider the implications of not needing a middleman to get to God. The most important implication, as I see it is personal responsibility--and Jesus talked a lot about that. When he said, "No man is worthy unless he takes up his cross..." He wasn't talking about a literal cross; he was talking about taking responsibility for one's thoughts, words, and actions. AND since we are all One, we are called to be responsible for others, to care as much about others as we do ourselves.
.
For you, this means confronting the spiritual bullies you encounter. For me, this means saying little and letting my life speak for me (or, chosing to speak through my art and writing rather than being confrontational).
.
It means speaking the truth, but for me, I would prefer to speak in a way which invites dialogue. If that is impossible (because the other person simply will not hear), then I move on. When Jesus sent his disciples out on a mission he told them to shake the sand out of their sandals if people wouldn't listen. I take that to mean sometimes the best thing to to is just let it go.
.
In real life, I'm the person to whom people voluntarily tell their life stories (often more than I would choose to know). I think they do this because they sense I will just listen--not judge, not try to fix, not lecture, not confront. I might ask, once they're finished, what they think they should do. And very often they look inside and are surprised to discover they know the answer. See, I think Spirit is also listening, and Spirit gives the answer, but we have to be quiet and allow Spirit room to move.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - I don't get it

In response to My Take On Jesus posted by paper_turtle:

In another thread I have been told I don't know what Christianity is because I do not agree with certain points of doctrine to which others adhere.
.
I don't understand how any person can judge whether or not a person is a Christian--a disciple of Jesus--solely on the basis of doctrine. I totally don't get that, particularly here, on the 'net, when we do not see each other face to face, when we don't have a clue what another does in his daily life.
.
But even if we were face to face, there is no way I can crawl into the mind (thoughts) or heart (emotions) of another. None of us can ever totally know anyone. How then, can I dare to judge?
.
How then, can anyone say they know ME (or anyone else) well enough, on the basis of a few words alone, to determine my (or anyone else's) validity as a Christain?.
.
I totally cannot understand that.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - I don't get it

In response to I don't get it posted by paper_turtle:
.
Church, as far as I've EVER been able to discern is ALL ABOUT deciding who is and is not acceptable for fellowship and or sisterhood. I figured out, a long time ago, that it isn't for me. I don't need anyone else telling me when I am okay and when I am not..
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - I don't get it

In response to I don't get it posted by pink101:

The church I belong to now isn't like that. (I wouldn't be there if it was.) My impression is that (in general) most main-line churches are not doctrinaire.
.
I don't attend every Sunday, but I do participate in a women's study group there. No one in that group has ever called me to task for disagreeing with some point of doctrine.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle