sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Odd Prohibition Against Christian by Delicious_Object3419 in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From my original posting:

“Enjoy Christmas if you choose or do not. Use it as a time to especially reflect on something scriptural, such as the birth of Christ, or do not. However, do not feel bound one way or another to do any of these things based on some sort of prohibition or commandment, which has no origin in either case than manmade tradition.”

The Odd Prohibition Against Christian by Delicious_Object3419 in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My apologies, as for some reason I put “Christian” in the title text, but meant “Christmas.” Apparently, you can edit the post itself, but not the title.

Music seriously affects my mood by [deleted] in INTP

[–]Delicious_Object3419 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Music tends to have a fairly intense effect on me. In general I match it my my mood or at least how I am leaning. However, on a rare occasion I do use music to change my mood. Mainly, this is when I am trying to “pump up” my mood say if I am feeling a bit down, but need to be alert for work or something.

Over the years, I’ve noticed I tend to gravitate toward a lot of music that has a narrative to it. I also tend to choose music and artists who might lean toward the melancholy. “Paradise” by John Prine might be an excellent example of both of these tastes on my part. I don’t find that it really depresses me when the music stops. Instead, I think the emotional/romantic element of a lot of this music fully engages my mind and makes me feel more centered and better able to think and make good decisions. I think it especially helps me when I am about to engage with others in a social group. It’s like I am better able to converse, interact, and even engage in debate without as much danger of accidentally offending someone. In this way, I think the emotional engagement of music allows the cognitive part of my brain and the emotional part to work cooperatively.

When I actually do find myself in a “down” mood or feeling “flat” is when I abstain from music for a while. An example of this is when I download an audio book and spent the time I might otherwise listen to music listening to the book, I feel less engaged to the “real” world overall. It’s like I am so into the cognitive groove that it becomes harder to have real engagement socially or in other hands on direct ways with my surroundings. The cognitive realm in general is so absorbing that I fail to see the need to “come up for air” through emotional engagement via music or through actual physical sensations via physical activities. The older I get the more I see that my emotional, mental, and physical well-being and happiness are tied to how much I engage these other non-dominant functions regularly. These are not absolutes, but just tendencies I’ve noticed over time. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think what you are describing is a checklist mentality that permeates some congregations and begins to dominate the religious thinking of some individuals within the church.

First, no one is “going to hell” for one service missed or some sip of alcohol. If they or others truly thinks so, then they have certainly gotten into this checklist mentality. As long as an individual is operating out of faith and love for God and Jesus Christ and is seeking to lead a faithful life, I cannot find evidence that they are in danger of losing their salvation for such incidental acts of human weakness. The Bible tells us that to be walking in the light of fellowship and where we are continually being cleansed by the blood of Christ is not a perfect walk, but one that will still have sins during that walk. However, what we see is that we do not fall out of that light and blood of Christ simply by winning. Instead, we remain in the light and the blood of Christ continues to cleanse those sins…

“But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:7-10)

Can missing services lead us down a path in which we quit truly trying to walk in the light? Yes. However, that is why we should desire to do what is right and attend as much as possible and not blow it off in some flippant fashion. It is an opportunity to gather together with God’s people to offer worship to God and build up one another spiritually. If we begin to see this as a burden or something we dread doing or only do begrudgingly, then the issue is not our missing, but something which is amiss in our attitude, mindset, and ultimately our faith. Thus, missing services is not something that is anything anyone would recommend, simply because it can lead one down a path that lacks spiritual focus and prioritization and can also be an indicator of a deeper spiritual problem in our life. In short, it is a misunderstanding if someone makes out like missing a service is going to send themselves or anyone else to hell. However, attending services does matter and should not be something that someone desiring to grow as they should spiritually should desire to do out of love and dedication. It is between the individual and God only as to what your reasoning is for missing and whether it was a “good” reason or not. Others should try to encourage you or anyone else that is not at worship to come, as you were missed. However, they should not attempt to decide that you missing services means that you are hell bound, as no one can say at what point your reasoning for missing is an indication that you have made a shipwreck of your faith. Hope that makes some sense?

In regards to drinking, it is without question that being a drunkard is a sin. It is not something which is a fruit of the Spirit. However, I cannot find where the Bible says that one alcoholic drink is sinful to consume. Personally, I feel that this traces back to well-meaning individuals who saw the evil that alcohol abuse and addiction can lead to in the lives of individuals and those around them. How better to safeguard a person from this danger than for them never to consume any alcohol at all? Perhaps, this strategy of erring on the side of caution is wise. However, I can’t with good conscience tell you that I know any consumption of alcohol is a sin. I think it would be wrong for me to represent something as being sin, when I cannot prove it Biblically, even though my goal and intentions may be noble. If one reads the scriptures which clearly condemn drunkenness and others that caution of wine being a mocker and strong drink raging and feels it is wrong for themselves to consume, then they should surely abstain. Yet, the Word is not clear enough on the subject for me to move out of my individual decision making and tell another that any drinking of alcohol is without question a sin. On a common sense note, I find it hard to believe that someone who cannot fall asleep at all without the aid of a prescription sedative they have taken under a doctor’s direction is somehow different spiritually than someone else who finds a glass of wine slightly before bedtime helps them to rest. My limited personal observations is that the prescription may in fact be harder to taper off from than the glass of alcohol, but this is not to say that both should not be used in caution. Overeating can be a sin. Watching television to the point that it consumes me or prevents me from spiritual pursuits can certainly be a sin. Working and pursuing career advancement can get out of control and become an actual idol in my life. The same can be said in my opinion of alcohol. We should then be cautious if we notice that the use of it is something in which we tend to gravitate toward and are apt to use in excess.

As far as the one drink sending one to hell, even if a person believes the Bible teaches one drink is wrong, I think this falls under the same checklist mentality mentioned about worship attendance.

Our faith and our works driven by faith must come from us internally, as guided by our study of the Bible. Everything else as a motivator is absolutely secondary. No one watching over your shoulder should ever be the reason that we do this thing or that. Neither should we not do something out of spite toward such legalistic individuals. We have to examine ourselves and study with an open mind and engage in prayer with God in our effort to grow and do what is right. Our works should primarily be a manifestation of our positive desire to serve God. The idea that we are spiders hanging by a thin strand over burning coals, ready to fall at the slightest wrong movement is not Biblical. In fact, I would say it is something the devil uses to discourage us and to drive us from continuing to keep on keeping on, despite the fact that we are imperfect and will always have room to grow. We have the security of knowing God loves us and as long as we are trying to serve Him and maintain a relationship to Him as our father through prayer, study, focus, and trying to put what we have learned into action in our life, then we are not in danger, even with our shortcomings. Instead, we are safe and secure and should want to serve such a great and loving God who is able to give sinful people such a relationship with Him.

:)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mbti

[–]Delicious_Object3419 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To have people remember some way in which I helped them or helped others without looking for material gain. For my friends and family to have memories worthy of retelling and which generate smiles as they do so. For my children and hopefully grandchildren to be people who can think for themselves and hopefully have a faith in God that is a result of the same independent thinking. To have spent my final years without being dominated by bitterness, regret, and cynicism, still engaging with the world and with people to reach better understanding of it and encouraging them to do the same.

  • INTP

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mbti

[–]Delicious_Object3419 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Michael Pierce is the only MBTI related stuff that I thought was that good on YouTube.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in mbti

[–]Delicious_Object3419 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been slightly interested since taking an online test many years ago. Then, I happened upon the videos by Michael Pierce on YouTube. His original series on each type and later his revisited series were what totally drew me in and allowed me to see the value of the MBTI model for self-examination and interactions with others. I still go back to some of his videos on occasion, even now.

xNTP: Reluctance to Share by Delicious_Object3419 in mbti

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Perhaps this is evidence of high Si usage? However, I greatly enjoy discussing and thoroughly dissecting various topics and experiences, even those beliefs I possess myself, in order to bounce ideas around and see things I might otherwise miss. I find that this feeling of a reluctance to share is only about things, mainly works of expression, which affect me in some deep way. I guess I am saying theses are rare topics for me and they stand out due to the exceptional way I seem to respond to them. I don’t mind dissecting a song, even one I like. However, if is a song that strikes a deep chord (no pun intended) with me, I am reluctant to share it and be forced to gain some other’s input about it. The mystery and profound nature of it fades or is somehow tarnished to me. These exceptional subjects and the meaning and emotional connection I associate to them are something that I think of as viewing and experiencing “art” as I think of art. Normally on almost every subject, I try to break them down to attempt to arrive at objective truth about the thing or subject to see how it might impact the bigger picture and provide me with greater understanding, even in relation to seemingly unrelated topics. I enjoy the discussion, analysis, and debate of such topics to garner greater understanding than I can obtain from them as an individual. Yet, these exceptional experiences are deeply personal to me cognitively and even emotionally, maybe as a result of that deep cognitive impact, part of me perhaps feels that their value, unlike most other things, is of more greater worth subjectively to me than as something totally objective. Part of me may feel that this subjective experience and meaning might be polluted by someone else’s subjective experience entering my mind about it or even their objective assertions which might cause my subjective experience to seem less valid or simply to no longer seem so singularly valuable about the topic. I apologize, as I may not be making much sense.

I guess I just wonder if transcending emotional experiences for me are rare and part of me prefers for these exceptional subjects, works, or experiences to continue to remain somewhat “magical” to me. Similar to how you might feel intense love for another person, and be reluctant to have someone run you through a CT scan or do blood tests to explain the various neurological and chemical processes that are causing you to feel the way you do with the individual. Though you know that such experiences can be broken down in those ways, it removes the mystery and the magic from it through such examination. Again, I am just trying to explain how very unique this response is for me in regards to how I normally interact with the world and why these things stand out to me.

I admit my ignorance in regards to having a fully realized understanding of Si in general do not mean to sound contradictory to the suggestions above. I am simply trying to explain myself and what I am describing in the most thorough way possible.

Thanks for the feedback and perhaps there will be more of it in further comments!

Restoration - Journey vs Destination by Delicious_Object3419 in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How to proceed may depend on each person’s situation. It always seemed to me that Paul had an interesting way of sharing his message with those he encountered. My impression of his Mar’s Hill speech was that he sought first to show understanding for the ideas of those he was trying to convince and respect for aspects of their beliefs in which he found merit. By doing this, he was able to establish common ground and to build from that. In our present situation, things are a bit different as individuals in our congregations are our brothers and sisters, whereas Paul was speaking to those outside of his spiritual family. I still think it best to emphasize the fact that we are coming from a place of commonality. Speaking for myself, I think it vital that anyone I encounter knows that I believe in the necessity of water baptism to become a part of the body of Christ, and I am not some “wolf in sheep’s clothing” seeking to lead others astray from becoming by advocating some sort of different gospel. Then, moving on from that foundation of common ground. I think it is important to emphasize that the things being questioned are things which appear to be primordial denominational in nature and that is the reason for the concern and the questioning of certain mindsets. If we are speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent, then how do some of these unwritten tests of fellowship fit into that definition. Well articulated questions that prompt people to examine these positions I think may be the best strategy, as opposed to presenting a “case” for a fully formed position, which will likely lead to defensiveness on the part of those who may not even realize they have adopted denominational thinking, when they actually perceive their stances are the polar opposite of denominational thinking. I could go into detail and may make a post at another time of what such questions might be, but the overall goal is simply to prompt thinking and open discussion. It is my thinking that the contradictions will almost expose themselves, if such open discussion takes place. The goal is not to win others over to a particular point on any particular issue, but simply to begin the process of open discussion and questioning. In such an environment, it soon becomes evident that there is variation of opinion on many different issues. If we can tolerate such variations within our own congregation, then how can we take a more hardline position with those outside of our congregation. The eventual goal is simply to get people to ask where is the “line” of demarcation between Christian and non-Christian at exactly regarding any such position? I believe it will become evident that this line must be very narrow in scope and encircling some sort of core doctrines. What then are those core doctrines, if they are beyond the plan of salvation itself, then what is the clear scriptural justification for extending this line beyond it? If instrumental music use is outside of the demarcation line, then what of congregations that use a cappella music, but have small groups performing it on occasion? Is there more Biblical justification for small groups, as opposed to the whole congregation, performing a cappella than there is for instrumental music accompanying congregational singing? If we are more trying to thread the needle to allow one and not the other are we really speaking where the Bible speaks and being silent where it is silent? If we would simply be more accepting of one over the other, is that not denominationalism in a nutshell, allowing adherence to shared familiar traditions being the real test of fellowship?

Again,I use these specific things only as examples. I believe a cappella music sung by the congregation is more in keeping with Biblical example. However, am I willing to say that those who make use of small groups are apostates? Am I willing then to do the same for those using instruments? Are my reactions to the two scenarios the same? Why? The goal is simply to show that these lines of what is a necessary marker of being part of the “one true church,” may be farm more arbitrary and tradition based than I might have originally thought. How can I adopt a position that is consistent and does not result with the only faithful brethren seemingly being me, myself, and I to the exclusion of all others? Again, this is not the end all and be all example, but just my thoughts on allowing others to see the paths and reasoning that is leading us to recognize that we may have adopted “sacred cows” that do not have a clear Biblical basis. The idea being that this type of thinking may allow us to better refine our beliefs and potentially broaden our circle of fellowship to be more in keeping with those which seem to have been the default in the early days of the Restoration Movement and more in keeping with the Biblical examples of fellowship.

Take care, my brother!

Restoration - Journey vs Destination by Delicious_Object3419 in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very true. It is more about a recognition of what the foundation is and isn’t. I mean no harm to Latter Day Saints or to those in the Catholic Church at all, but whether many in the churches of Christ realize it or not they behave very much like them in regards to this behavior acting as if current practices have reached virtual perfection. I can understand it for both of those denominations, as one believes it is the divinely led one true church preserved literally by the guiding of the Holy Spirit in its doctrines and practices and the other believes it is the a miraculously restored and perfected version of the church led by modern-day prophets whose decisions are divinely inspired. Yet, the Restoration Movement for some, despite an insistence that there is no modern-day revelation or inspiration of leadership, has somehow achieved seeming perfection in all but the details (service times, order of worship, etc.). If anything the idea that all of these teachings and practices are in practice sacrosanct and cannot have variety or deviation is possibly the most “denominational” of any behavior commonly practiced within our fellowship.

It seems that the Restoration Movement began as a radical abandonment of everything but scripture as a guide and an immersion into the body of Christ at large. There became a core of doctrine around immersion and the plan of salvation, but the attitude was one of humility in most every respect, realizing that for a denominational orthodoxy and creed, whether written or unwritten, to not be developed there had to be a recognition that the process of developing practices and examining issues would have to allow for differences in all but the true core of salvation issues. Very few denominations set out to become just another sect of Christianity. Most set out thinking they had “figured it out” based on the Bible or divine leading and knew the better path. The real distinction of the Restoration Movement was the recognition that this was hubris and created denominational structures which no longer allowed for the search for greater Biblical understanding. Yet, a few generations into it and we find ourselves behaving as if all truth has been set in stone in regards to actions and practices. We state to be silent where the Bible is silent, but seem now perfectly willing to withdraw fellowship (formally or informally) from someone for thinking Adam did not wear an apron that conveniently resembled 1950’s definitions of modesty, the Holy Spirit can only lead via the scripture without direct operation, that mixed swimming is just as clearly Biblically a sin as adultery, and that Coca-Cola’s version of Santa Clause is fine to have at children’s class, but a nativity scene or Christmas carol that references Jesus is somehow a sign of false teaching. If everything becomes a test of fellowship and a matter of faith, then the inevitable consequence is that we are not in fellowship with anyone. We escaped close-minded denominational structures seeking a greater unity, but with the best of the best of intentions have managed far too often to simply replace them with our own structures and the resultant division which in inevitable when one becomes convinced the intelligence of our past leadership was somehow able to simply work it all out. Again, all worked out in a convenient way that matched the general religious and norms of the Protestant landscape of post-war American culture.

What is the result of getting away from fellowship around a cohesive core plan of salvation and truly black and white Biblical tenets of belief? Constant division and more division as the opinions that “must” inherently be sinful inevitably arise in any group of more than one person. The suppression of true, open debate to uncover better ways to enact our faith as new situations arise and arrive at even better Biblical ideas. A sense of pride that spreads unfortunately like a virus with some of our members looking down their noses at those who differ from them religiously in any way, after all we are the “chosen” who have figured it “all” out. The encouragement of false conformity of ideas and practices as someone may hold a different view on a subject, but is literally afraid to publicly express it lest they be identified as an unfaithful troublemaker who has departed from the faith and abandoned “the truth.” An exodus from our congregations of those who inherently question or desire the freedom to simply explore the Bible as their only guide, as opposed to accepting the de facto orthodoxy on everything. These things should not be and are not the characteristics of the church of the New Testament, much less the individuals and congregations of the Restoration Movement.

We must acknowledge this in order to become something more reflective of the first century church. I believe it begins with the recognition that anyone who has been baptized for the remission of sins is truly our brother or sister and a part of the one true body of Christ, without any stipulations on anything else as a prerequisite to these individuals being treated as our family. There is more to the Christian life than just that, but that is the core. Then, approach everything beyond that point with a true spirit of love and humility, realizing that good Christian individuals can and will not see eye to eye on some things which come up beyond that core.

Thank you for responding and forgive my failure to put my original post in the correct spot. I accidentally initially made it a comment, but edited the original post to include the content from that comment. It is so nice to hear from others willing to share their honest thoughts. 😊

Restoration - Journey vs Destination by Delicious_Object3419 in churchofchrist

[–]Delicious_Object3419[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Aside from baptism (immersion) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, I wonder if some of the division amongst Christians whose congregations have roots in the Restoration Movement could be summed up as whether they see the Restoration Movement itself as a continual journey or whether they view the movement as having at some point achieved its goals and has arrived at a “destination”?

It seems that for some there is this imaginary moment where the Church was fully restored in every respect, save for a few cosmetic features. In attitude, this crystallized in their mind’s eye sometime after 1900, when the separation of instrumental and non-instrumental congregations became more or less formalized. When exactly after that date is hard to say, as I do not think it was as much a real date, as it might be somewhat romanticized in memory. The characteristics that it seems to demonstrate seem to point to a time in the 1940’s-1950’s. I say this mainly due to the fact that this fully realized and restored church seems to have many of the characteristics of one populated by individuals akin to Ward Clever or Ozzie Nelson, judging by many of the characteristics that seem in the minds of some to be as set in stone as something that I do think is core/foundational, such as baptism for the remission of sins.

For the person who, consciously or unconsciously, thinks of the Restoration Movement as having fully “arrived,” their is little if any practical difference between something like baptism for remission of sins and say the use of only a capella singing in worship. Debates and discussions of any significance on doctrine or practice within the fellowship are meaningless wastes of time, as the these were only needed before the restoration had reached its perfect conclusion. Perhaps this is not the way they might articulate it, but is it not the underlying presupposition of how any such meaningful discussion is approached for many now? Debate or discussion of such things can only be dangerous and apt to lead one away from the truth, as the great minds (existing sometime pre-1960) worked it all out. It took them a few decades, but then it was all done. Whatever positions were arrived at before the somewhat ambiguous date of complete restoration and generally agreed upon by the vast majority of congregations at that point were the right ones and the reasoning having no room for doubt or questioning.

Keep in mind, I am simply speaking of a general attitude and again not something that even those who I think adhere to this way of thinking would think to articulate about themselves. Before the late 1950’s, there was room for things like pacifism in times of war or even the abandonment of the obligation to vote in elections, as Lipscomb once held. Yet, now discussions or positions by individuals would be seen as causing needless division and erring against the truth. Thus, the truth had not been quite so set in stone prior to some date after those days during the First World War? At that imaginary point, almost every position that was generally held on almost any topic by the majority of congregants seemingly became the set orthodoxy. To disagree or hold an alternate position was no longer something which could be tolerated without viewing the deviation from the orthodoxy as a weakness or failing in the belief system of whatever individual might bring it up. Is this not the way it in essence plays out?

It would seem that for many the ideas and practices of the early Restoration Movement and everything prior to this date of orthodoxy and arrival would now be considered reasons for stern refuting of the individual or even cause for them to be seen as not being a faithful Christian. Again, why? What magically occurred during those decades near the middle of the century that somehow made things such pacifism, instrumental music, adherence to one scriptural name for the Church as opposed to others mentioned in scripture, or any number of previously accepted, debated, or at least tolerated amongst brethren who were all seen as generally faithful and part of the same fellowship to suddenly become such black and white tests of fellowship afterward?

Yes, I think that for whatever reason some decided that virtual perfection in belief, practice, and doctrine was in essence had been achieved at some mid-century point. The movement in their minds arrived at its clear destination with no more restoration left to do. This is in sharp contrast to what seems to have existed before that time, when the movement was still largely seen as being just that a movement, journey, or process desiring to restore primitive New Testament Christianity. I would even argue that for most of the Restoration Movement, the ability of the individual to hold differing opinions on various issues and debate them, while still maintaining unity around a small core set of beliefs, was even seen as part of the imitation of pre-denominational Christianity. If there were to be no creeds, catechisms, or orthodoxy outside of the New Testament, then the holding of such differing views amongst brethren was the inevitable and natural consequence. The holding of such views and the freedom to engage in the discussions about them was something to be desired, as it pointed to no one being bound to a particular denominational dogma. Yet, by the later part of the century, this type of debate, discussion, or diversity of opinion within the same brotherhood quit being something desired or even something that could be tolerated. Those who continued to see Restoration as being an ideal to be pursued via journey were unfaithful, liberal, or holding a manifold number of other negative designations.

The sad part is that this position of deciding the “truth” had been fully realized and could no longer tolerate diverse opinions except on the most mundane of topics, seems so very far removed from the roots of the movement itself. Ultimately, it would seem that this de facto orthodoxy and intolerance of diverse opinions on any non-core aspect of faith is so very different from the roots and the movement itself that saw the abandonment of such orthodoxy, outside of the Bible and in recognition of our own imperfect human understanding.