I think we would agree on many more things than otherwise. I sensed many
so-called Christians were not genuine because many absolutely seemed to be
Christians just one day of the week (at most) dressing up, attending church
and having Sunday dinner beginning with a prayer of thanks. After that they
were indistinguishable from secular people in the community that they lived
and worked with. They did not talk about their faith, or the Great Questions
such as life after death. It was only the unmanly men who talked about Jesus
and only the straight-laced school-marm type of old women who spent most of
their time in church-related activities. I think it is completely
ridiculous. Remember the movie, "The Ten Commandments?" I think the man of
God as depicted by Charleton Heston was a good example of what a masculine,
unashamed man should be like. The wimpy leaders of the Roman Catholic Church
have made men feel feminine about witnessing their faith. It is contrary to
all sensibility. I believe traditions and holiday observances are good for
people who need that to nourish their faith. I do not need it. My faith is
not dependent upon crutches, constant (vain) ritual and dressing up in
Sunday clothes. That is what the Bible refers to as the milk, it is what the
immature follower of Christ need. I seek the meat of the matter. I seek
truth even if it means discarding vain ritual, vain traditions of men,
observances of days and times. And I am completely proud of the fact that I
love God and that God, truth and righteousness are the focus of my life.
On 8/16/08, Commentatrix <commentat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Growing up and going to a Methodist church I sensed that most of the
> > congregation I was a part of did not believe in Jesus, God, or life after
> > death.
> I wonder how you "sensed" all that?
> I would be very surprised if the majority had no belief in God
> (however defined) at all. I would not be surprised that people were
> less firm about, for example, what life after death actually entailed.
> It is interesting that the mainstream Anglican tradition (to which I
> belong) has long had a kind of approach which says that "here is what
> the church holds to be true" but then generally lets lay practitioners
> a fair degree of freedom in their actual private beliefs : a typically
> English compromise between the Protestant view that religion is a
> matter of personal conscience and the Catholic view about the central
> importance of tradition.
> > A person is not a Christian simply because they refer to themselves
> > as, or because they go to church, or follow mere religious traditions and
> > observances.
> Obviously. The "mere" word is a putdown though. (A bit like calling
> religion "mere" myth etc. as many are want to do.)
> There is a lot to be said for traditions and observances - especially
> when people know what it is they are doing and why and as part of an
> historical spiritual community. But even when they don't they can
> sometimes be useful anyway. For example, their are many atheists who
> self-consciously style themselves as cultural jews and follow many of
> the traditions of that faith like observing the Sabbath and Pesach so
> on because they see value in those traditions.
> C
--
Ambassador From Hell
