The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

We do our service in the evening. Ashes at that service. No burger king line to dine and dash so to speak. I suppose you could get the ashes andrun but they come in the middle of the service.

I, too, have found the lines paradoxical. The sermon is always about doing the right thing without outward sign but then they give you an outward sign. I understand the purpose is a personal reminder but I think the [Church's] motivation is driven by the symbolism- the thing the scripture says not to do. If the church were to follow the Scripture they would find another way. Having said all of that- I have a smudge on my forehead too.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

then you* don't really need to walk around displaying them at 4 PM if they were placed there at 8 AM, eh?

The average person's natural afternoon routine typically doesn't include taking a shower or sticking your head in the sink. On the other hand, I don't think people avoid washing their head the next day to keep ash on their forehead. So I would expect ash to be there the day and not the next due to simple routine.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

We do our service in the evening. Ashes at that service. No burger king line to dine and dash so to speak. I suppose you could get the ashes andrun but they come in the middle of the service.

I, too, have found the lines paradoxical. The sermon is always about doing the right thing without outward sign but then they give you an outward sign. I understand the purpose is a personal reminder but I think the [Church's] motivation is driven by the symbolism- the thing the scripture says not to do. If the church were to follow the Scripture they would find another way. Having said all of that- I have a smudge on my forehead too.

My own take is that the Church is challenging people to think long and hard about how to address moral dilemmas we all face from time to time: there are two different "right things to do" here that are inconsistent with each other. How do we figure that out? and there is no "official" guidance to tell you one way or the other.

I have tried to be very careful to keep my comments in the realm of "paradox" and asking questions.

it seems to me that there are several ways to maintain moral "consistency":
-- the "evangelist": by wearing ashes all day, I remind others of their eventual mortality and encourage them to make very moment in their lives matter (the ashes are a symbol, not only for me but also in service to others as well).
-- the "literalist": if I get ashes in the morning before I go to work, I stop in the restroom and use a paper towel and some water to wash them off, they are a private matter between me and my faith and are not intended to be on public display for all to see.

It's not the act itself in this case it is how one arrives at the decision.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I never used the term "hypocritical": I [meant to] say that it presented the believer with a paradox: the anointing with ashes is a humbling event, to remind us of our fallibility and mortality. At the same time, in the context of the Gospel message that immediately preceded it, we are challenged to reflect on how we then carry ourselves after the reminder.

For example, just about every Church has an option in which you can go in, be anointed, and leave again, without attending the service. People line up in droves for that once a year who might rarely if ever attend a weekly service.

I actually overheard a priest once complain out loud about "CAPE" Catholics, those who only show up for service four times a year.



Christmas, Ash Wednesday, Palm Sunday, Easter

Alright, I'll spend a bit of time...taking a different perspective. This just for discussion purpose.

The premise that displaying ash is a paradox is based on as you say... the anointing with ashes is a humbling event, to remind us of our fallibility and mortality. While this pretty much true...I'd say that humble is defined as humble towards God. A Google search came up with:

The ashes are meant to remind Christians about human mortality, while also showing the individual's desire for repentance and mourning of their own sins.

Although many aspects of Christianity point towards addressing others, this approach says nothing regarding being humble towards others. As a result, visibility of ash is not addressed at all. So I guess I'd say the Church is taking a different definition than what is being advanced here and there's reason to believe they have a valid POV.

Frankly as a Christian, I would have never even thought of proactively washing ash off my face as that seems like one would be ashamed and could seem disrespectful as it is a personal activity between God and the worshiper. But then again, I'm a pretty big Christian that hasn't participated in that particular activity for many years (primarily because that's a church driven activity).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Frankly as a Christian, I would have never even thought of proactively washing ash off my face as that seems like one would be ashamed and could seem disrespectful as it is a personal activity because God and the worshiper.

I'm not sure why one would, anyway. At my church growing up you were given the explicit choice whether to come up and get the mark or remain in your pew, and it was made just as explicit that you remained in fellowship with Christ whichever way you chose. It was a practical way of acknowledging that if you were, say, a public school teacher, there were sociological associations with the mark that paradoxically get in the way of the relationship with Christ because it made the mark a sign external to you, which defeats the whole purpose.

In general the Church doesn't do a very good job at reconciling doctrine with real life, but that was an instance in which they showed remarkable maturity.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I love coming in here and seeing different viewpoints. It makes me think in a way I might not have and look at things with a different perspective.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

In general the Church doesn't do a very good job at reconciling doctrine with real life, but that was an instance in which they showed remarkable maturity.

There's a fair amount of validity to 'the Church doesn't do a very good job at reconciling doctrine with real life'. A large part of the deal is that the Church and its activities/approaches are very old. They were invented with in all likelihood different objectives. That doesn't mean they're bad, they're just not designed to advance the ultimately doctrinal objectives.

Other Christians may disagree...but I believe this gap is driving a slight decline in the faith to begin with, but moreover a huge shift from small denominational churches to large non denominational churches. This shift gets worshipers 1) to a place with reduced focus on what is seemingly to many - less relevant 'rituals' and 2) to a place where there is a large, active community who's interest/purpose is to facilitate that reconciliation between doctrine and real life that really takes the experience to another level.

I love coming in here and seeing different viewpoints. It makes me think in a way I might not have and look at things with a different perspective.

Agreed.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Frankly as a Christian, I would have never even thought of proactively washing ash off my face

Jesus said, "Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them ....
when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that your fasting may be seen not by others.
[emphases added

I realize that the following is a debatable interpretation, and why I used the word "paradox":

Replace the word "fast" in the quote: "when you are anointed as a reminder of your mortality, it is a reminder for you alone. wash your face afterward so that your anointing may not be seen by others."

As I said, retaining the visible sign of anointing all day can also be seen as a service to others because it helps remind them of a useful life lesson as well. No one single authoritative "right" answer either way.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I realize that the following is a debatable interpretation, and why I used the word "paradox":

Replace the word "fast" in the quote: "when you are anointed as a reminder of your mortality, it is a reminder for you alone. wash your face afterward so that your anointing may not be seen by others."

As I said, retaining the visible sign of anointing all day can also be seen as a service to others because it helps remind them of a useful life lesson as well. No one single authoritative "right" answer either way.

Good find on the passage...and I acknowledge the relevance. Obviously in addition to its interpretation, there are also many passages that point to the value of communicating one's Christianity to others. Either way, it is a point worth recognizing.

IMO it again highlights the likely validity of a non literal Biblical interpretation. If the Bible was meant to be literal, why would there be mixed messages? And there are quite a few. I don't believe we have to be a lifelong Biblical scholar in order to figure out what its all about.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So what about other outward Christian symbology? Cross jewelry, fish on the back of the car, crucifix tattoos, etc? Seems like the smudge would be the least problematic of these if God really wants a literal ban on such overt indications of belief.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

So what about other outward Christian symbology? Cross jewelry, fish on the back of the car, crucifix tattoos, etc? Seems like the smudge would be the least problematic of these if God really wants a literal ban on such overt indications of belief.

Well, I think the point is the Pastor/leader is preaching no outward signs and then putting one on that is the juxtaposition. There are some faiths that absolutely frown on all of those things you mentioned. I have had patients who have gotten tattoos and the parents/ their faith place have shunned them, they have been chastised publicly, etc.

This kind of discussion is what makes me struggle with those who are literalists. There are so many places in the Bible where an instruction given is contradictory to what was written in the other place. This is why I cannot look at it literaly but more situationally

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

If the Bible was meant to be literal, why would there be mixed messages? And there are quite a few. I don't believe we have to be a lifelong Biblical scholar in order to figure out what its all about.

"There is a time and a place for everything under the sun."

a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot, a time to kill and a time to heal, a time to tear down and a time to build, a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing, a time to search and a time to give up, a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear and a time to mend, a time to be silent and a time to speak, a time to love and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace.

Different messages for different times. We are not meant merely to meekly obey, that is a betrayal of free will.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

if God really wants

God does not "want" anything, "wants" are a limitation imposed by human fallibility, God transcends "wants."

We are each given talents, skills, a sense of right and wrong, and free will, and an injunction to "go forth, be fruitful, and multiply [the value that these gifts create for others] as we love our neighbor as ourself."

It is not the wearing of the signs it is how we wear the signs. The same person wearing the same sign might be saying "stop and think, other people matter too, not just your momentary gratification of superficial impulses" or they might be saying "look at me, aren't I cool?". We cannot know; "who are we, to judge others?"

 

[LynahFan]

God does not "want" anything, "wants" are a limitation imposed by human fallibility, God transcends "wants."

Don't play childish word games.

"Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." -Romans 9:18

Go far enough down that path and you'll soon be arguing that there's no such thing as God's "will," either.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

My FB page is lit up by people who are pooing on the Supreme Court Justice after his death, those who think he is the best thing since sliced bread and those reminding the first 2 types that Politics is not the sole reason to judge a person/ it is wrong to forget he was a child of God. (Sometimes all in the same post/thread)

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

My FB page is lit up by people who are pooing on the Chief Justice after his death, those who think he is the best thing since sliced bread and those reminding the first 2 types that Politics is not the sole reason to judge a person/ it is wrong to forget he was a child of God. (Sometimes all in the same post/thread)

Sorry, but your friends have much to learn if they think Scalia was the Chief Justice.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Sorry, but your friends have much to learn if they think Scalia was the Chief Justice.

multitasking is not good for accurate posting.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

"There is a time and a place for everything under the sun."

Different messages for different times. We are not meant merely to meekly obey, that is a betrayal of free will.

That is of course in general true...that a literal interpretation could offer differing perspectives for differing circumstances (as would a non literal interpretation). But a literal Bible gives little insight under which circumstance one apparently conflicting passage is relevant and when the other is. When broadly speaking does it make sense to offer peace and forgiveness...and when should Sodom and Gomorrah be laid waste? Individual humans are ill prepared to make this choice.

IMO the Bible is a much less effective guide as literal and excels as non literal. And why its apparent to me that Jesus came to set the record straight and being God, had the wisdom and authority to reorder priorities. With these qualifications in place, the Bible achieves absolute masterpiece status which makes sense coming from a God believed to be perfect.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

No link handy, haven't had a chance to follow up, no details (nor even verification, yet...). I heard that Pope Francis was open to letting married women at risk of contracting Zika use contraception?

 

[unofan]

No link handy, haven't had a chance to follow up, no details (nor even verification, yet...). I heard that Pope Francis was open to letting married women at risk of contracting Zika use contraception?

He said preventing pregnancy "could be the lesser evil" in this situation. Apparently there's already a precedent for this: some nuns in certain parts of Africa at high risk of being raped are allowed to use contraception as well.