Christians: Where do you draw the line?

[Scuba Pete]

yes, yes, yes. I understand your aversion. But why not an aversion to the wrong approach, rather than to the thing itself? Many people misunderstand Christ, and use his name to effect evil. Why not have an aversion to Christ, too?

Philippians 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. NIV

Perhaps this quote will help clear up THAT misconception.

 

[sojourner]

Philippians 1:15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. NIV

Perhaps this quote will help clear up THAT misconception.

Killing people in the name of Christ isn't the same thing as preaching Christ out of envy. No, it doesn't clear up the misconception.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're not suggesting that killing someone in the name of Christ is rational or supported by scripture, are you?

 

[sojourner]

You're not suggesting that killing someone in the name of Christ is rational or supported by scripture, are you?

**sigh**
No. I'm suggesting that your reasons for dismissing ceremony and tradition are invalid by using the following as an example:

You agreed that sacraments and symbolic ceremony were intended to set us free, but contended that, often, they were misused to bind people, just as the Law had. Therefore, you do not espouse them.

I countered with the fact that Jesus intended to set us free, yet many people have justified committing atrocities in his name. If, therefore, that's the criterion by which you dismiss something, i.e. that it can be misused to harm someone, shouldn't that criterion cause you to dismiss Jesus? Since it would be ridiculous to think that you would dismiss Jesus, just because some "misuse" him, it should also be riduculous to think that you would dismiss a time-honored Christian tradition, just because it could be misused.

Further, I am saying that baptism with water, celebrating the Eucharist, as well as other forms of normalized Christian expression are supported by scripture, are valid and helpful means of helping people to enter into the mystery of God with us, and should be approached with reverence -- not simply dismissed out of hand for some silly reason.

 

[Scuba Pete]

No. I'm suggesting that your reasons for dismissing ceremony and tradition are invalid

My dismissal of ceremony and tradition are biblically based. I have shared scripture after scripture showing that your Christianity is up to how the individual wants to serve Jesus. Trying to codify someone's heart goes against the entire concept of grace.

 

[sojourner]

My dismissal of ceremony and tradition are biblically based. I have shared scripture after scripture showing that your Christianity is up to how the individual wants to serve Jesus. Trying to codify someone's heart goes against the entire concept of grace.

Once again: That's not what I'm doing. We don't "codify" hearts. We recognize, as the Body of Christ, the grace that is evident in a newcomer's life. There's nothing wrong with that. Even the father waited by the door, and then ran to meet his estranged one, and recognized his grace with a party. It's Biblical. We can't help it if some want to misuse that (or even misunderstand what it is we're doing).

BTW, not to start another argument, but I'm of the opinion that the community is far more operative in Xy than the individual. Part of our call to Christ is a call to community. Therefore, an individual's intention to serve should include, not only his own spiritual well-being, but the selfless act of considering the well-being of the community.

 

[Scuba Pete]

A call to community is fine... a call to conformity is not. We should be trying to OUTDO one another in love rather than trying to make everyone worship in the same manner. Traditions are fine AS LONG AS they don't inhibit free expression.

 

[sojourner]

A call to community is fine... a call to conformity is not. We should be trying to OUTDO one another in love rather than trying to make everyone worship in the same manner. Traditions are fine AS LONG AS they don't inhibit free expression.

Oh, I agree completely! No one should become entitled by virtue of baptism, or church membership. No one has license to tell someone else that their particular expression is wrong. I have absolutely no problem with that. that's why I've always picked a bone with the folks who try to use the "how can all these different denominations be true, if they're not the same?" argument. Difference does not indicate division.

That's why I said that I didn't mind you dismissing the intent behind the ceremony. I agree 100% with your post here.

 

[Ephramsdaughter]

A Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared, 'The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it' ( Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 121).