I am confused

I think being loving to all is a huge part, but often that seems to be smothered under: if you act such and such a way you're damned--whether it be whom your heart follows or whom your soul follows.

I am pagan, my parter is Jewish, my oldest friend is Catholic and we love and respect each other.

AMCrenshaw said:

Is open-mindedness a part of Christian doctrine?

Click to expand...

Which "Christian doctrine"? During which era? Christianity is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, so in reality there are as many Christian doctrines as there are Christians. Some will inevitably be more open-minded than others.

And what do you mean by "open-minded"? Certainly Jesus was not quick to condemn people, but he did condemn some -- the buyers and the sellers in the temple for one.

And even with those he refused to condemn, he didn't accept all their behavior as good.

When Jesus sent the crowd away with his famous "He who is without sin may cast the first stone", said to the woman, "Who condemns you?" She said, "No one, Lord". To which he replied, "Neither do I. Go and sin no more." He wasn't open-minded about her sin. He called it sin. He was open-minded about her, refusing to condemn her.

I don't know about it being part of any "doctrine," but certainly a part of "practice," (or at least a part of SOUND practice).

"Open-mindedness" is a very modern concept. Perhaps we should define it first and then see if it lines up with Biblical truth?

To me, the piece quote sounds like self-serving reasoning. "I feel/think/act a certain way. A group of which I'm a part feels this way is a sin. But since I feel/think/act this way, those who dislike it are therefore closed-minded."

Christ was not open-minded about sin. He called it by its name. When he cleared the temple, he called the money-changers thieves. He didn't say, "Now, look--these folks have a right to make a living!"

It's the zeitgeist, the spirit of the time if you will, that insists we must all be tolerant and open-minded, when doing so would deny the tenets of our faith. The spirit of other times did not honor this mindset. When was the last time you even heard the word "sin" in public discourse?

Sign me, Out of Style

I have yet to ever see one of these things end well. Just saying. Carry on.

Condemn the sin, but lift the person.

Click to expand...

The majority of the problem is within the sinner and their inability to be honest with themselves and others as a result of being actively engaged in the particular sin. When the sin is brought to the sinner's attention, it is met with much initial resistance. This kind of caring about others is what sinners refer to as being condemned. Condemnation is the false accusation given to the sinner to use for purpose of making excuses and justifying their sinful behavior.


Sincerely,
Gehanna

AMCrenshaw said:

Let us call open-mindedness the ability to let go of one's own notions of the way people should be.

Click to expand...

I guess I don't see why I should abandon my notions in favor of other people's notions. That's sort of an abrogation of my responsibility to think and reason. What if my notion of how people should be is that they should love each other. Must I let go of that notion in the spirit of open-mindedness? I don't think so.

One can be both a sinner and a child of God. Indeed all of us are. The Bible says: "For all have sinned an fallen short of the glory of God" and "...in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." I don't see any dichotomy there.

Amen Roger J Carlson.

I like saying Amen. I'm also thinking about using the words Verily, verily before everything I write and say from now on.

Needed to add that I wrote what I wrote about sin, sinners and condemnation from the personal experience of being a daily sinner.

Verily, verily Sincerely,
Gehanna

I'm am atheist with strong secular humanist leanings. I'm hardly an expert on Christianity or any other religion, but an admirer and observer of religion as part of a broader struggle for humanity to find its decency and purpose.

From that perpsective you can apply 'open-mindedness' to the investigation of many kinds of truths: physical truths (what the world is physically like), the more immediate spiritual truths (morality, relationship, belonging, life purpose), and the more estoteric metaphysical truths (afterlives, moral account-keeping and so on).

From my view, Christianity is not a single unified faith, but a faith- and values-based movement with some internal differences. That differences seem to have appeared during the lives of the apostles, and have diversified and broadened since.

Along the way, Christians have gradually changed their minds about physical truths (albeit sometimes much slower than they might have), and metaphysical truths (the interpretation of moral account-keeping practices has changed substantially, along with diversity in views on faith-based vs deeds-based virtue), but I think that the fundamental spiritual values - the aspirational values - haven't changed much. Christians of different denominations still find it easy to recognise one another and talk.

My personal experience of Christian friends is that they're very quick to adopt anything new that's consistent with their spiritual values, but far more cautious about accepting novelty that challenges those values.

Christian appreciation of science seems to move moderately quickly (again with the caveat of some reactionary conservatism which I consider to be noisy exception rather than the rule); Christian appreciation of more esoteric metaphysics moves slower (but perhaps only Christians care about that), and Christian notions of spirituality seem to change slowest of all.

Is this a good thing? A bad thing? I think it depends on your personal perspective. Taking a long and historic view, with all the upheval in the world, I think that humanity is very blessed to have continuity of beliefs that emphasise kindness and love. We wouldn't be much of a species without that, I reckon. I'm personally grateful to each and every one of the billions of quiet Christians who have helped to keep our world steady and striving for compassion. (If you're a Christian reading this, you're one of them, so thanks! )

In the shorter view, but also looking more prospectively, I sometimes wonder whether my Christian friends don't need a more inclusive, flexible and longer-term spirituality than the one they currently have. Christian morality still hinges on notions of 'sin' and 'forgiveness', and I wonder whether those notions aren't rusting a bit in a modern, multicultural world. It's indicative for instance, when the Pope starts talking about environmental pollution as a 'sin' - that Christianity is increasingly struggling to adapt to a world that has moved far from the time in which its messiah once walked. (If carbon emission is a 'sin' then what is the 'repentance' for it? And wherein is the 'forgiveness'? And what about industry practice that creates birth defects three or four generations later, after those responsible are dead? My eyes begin to cross.)

In fairness, I'd rather have 'sin' and 'forgiveness' than have no morality, but I suspect that we humans could actually produce a better moral code than that today if we tried - one that incorporates intergenerational morality for instance, and collective cultural and environmental responsibility and not just the intragenerational, personal morality on which Christianity is founded.

I don't personally see why some key Christian values couldn't be at the core of it, but I suspect that such a morality might need to reach beyond personal sin and personal forgiveness. If there's a challenge to 'open-mindedness' facing Christianity today, I think it may lie there. My personal suspicion is that traditional Christian morality holds tenets that are neither necessary nor sufficient for a moral and humanitarian life in today's world, that Christians are becoming increasingly aware of this tension, and at some level, it's bothering them profoundly.

/e *puts on a blond wig* and says, "Generally speaking, I thought all atheists were skeptics."

Gehanna

Gehanna said:

*puts on a blond wig* and says, "Generally speaking, I thought all atheists were skeptics."

Click to expand...

Probably we are, but maybe it's not always clear what that means.

In my last post, I divided truths into physical, 'immediate spiritual' and 'metaphysical'.

My personal perspective is that physical truths stand for themselves - we just have to be honest about what we've explored and what we've actually seen. Skepticism there just means show, don't tell.

'Immediate spiritual' truths (to do with morality and relationships and belonging and community and responsibility to one another and to the species on our planet) -- these are something I believe that humans must explore together, based on compassion and understanding. Good ought to be visible as good. Bad ought to be discernable as bad. Respect and love ought to be something we can all recognise, regardless of dogma. To be honest I find more in common with theist friends than many atheist friends in such discussions. But here again, skepticism just means show, don't tell.

Metaphysical truths? Depending on what they are, I treat them as either part myth, part superstition or part ideological framework in which spirituality can form. As an atheist my personal approach is not to bother with them (I don't need Heaven to exist for me to want to be kind), and not to let them cloud physical and spiritual truths (I don't want to be told that the world is flat, or that kindness is a sin because of the way I did it, or that there's no point caring about the environment because God will sort it out), but otherwise I don't mind what other people believe. Here my skepticism is just an Occam's Razor sort of approach: don't load up on more ideology than you need to do your job as a compassionate human. But realistically, that may vary from person to person.

To me as an atheist 'open-mindedness' means recognising the likely prospect that my theist friends are more moral and decent and loving creatures than many of my atheist friends, and that despite their (to my mind) high levels of metaphysical clutter and occasional physical/spiritual confusion, the major religions have been (and still are) very much worth having around in our world - even if I never join one. I doubt that we could have had civilisation without them.

You'll have to excuse me. I get cocky when I watch a good western. Just finished watching 3:10 to Yuma.



Gehanna

Since you're using the Sermon on the Mount as the basis for your terms and arguments, let's look at the word "judge" in context. The type of "judging" he was condemning was specific to the Pharisees and the way they shut the gates of heaven to the masses. They used the law not as a way to help people understand God and draw closer to him but as a way to show them how they could never reach God. They left out the message of faith and the heart and judged solely on people's actions, only insomuch as it made they themselves look better. That's the "judgment" that Christ condemned.

But Christ also exhorted his followers to use their judgment and discernment, first on themselves, but also on others. He said if someone is determined not to listen to you, it's okay to just stop talking to them and have nothing to do with them (in several instances). He also said we should remove the plank in our own eye so that we can help others remove their specks.

That's the paradigm from Scripture - help yourself, help others out of love, don't force help on someone who won't accept it. Christians are closed-minded about veering away from that paradigm, yes. Closed-minded about loving others and journeying along the path to maturity with them, no.

I believe the Holy Spirit can help us see clearly to a degree necessary for helping others once the speck has been removed from our own eye. Granted, people must want help in order to receive it from another. This does not mean I refrain from pointing out a danger/sin to a friend. If I held my tongue when I saw another at risk then what am I but a worthless person and no friend at all.

Sincerely,
Gehanna

The OP reminds me of what a Baptist preacher used to say quite often: You can hate the sin, and still love the sinner.

But to be honest, that same preacher didn't readily do what he preached.

The point I'm making is, in Christian doctrine, there might be something to be said for open-mindedness, but on the part of a lot of Christians themselves, open-mindedness is not an easy thing to practice.

Also, I think one problem a lot of us have, is we dissect the words of Almighty God and make them say things, many times, that they never were intended to say. I'm all for literal translations of the Bible, but sometimes we need to look at the spirit of the words, more than we do the letters. In fact, Paul said something about exactly that: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -- II Corinthians 3:6

So a lot of Christianity's problems can be traced, IMO, back not only to closed-mindedness, but also to looking at the letter of God's Word, instead of the spirit. One thing Christ taught that so many Christians do not get, is that we must live according to the spirit of His Word, and not according to the letter of the law. If we live by the spirit, then we will be keeping the laws of God and being what Christ commanded us to be. But if we try to keep rules and regulations, we will fail miserably.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

The OP reminds me of what a Baptist preacher used to say quite often: You can hate the sin, and still love the sinner.

But to be honest, that same preacher didn't readily do what he preached.

The point I'm making is, in Christian doctrine, there might be something to be said for open-mindedness, but on the part of a lot of Christians themselves, open-mindedness is not an easy thing to practice.

Also, I think one problem a lot of us have, is we dissect the words of Almighty God and make them say things, many times, that they never were intended to say. I'm all for literal translations of the Bible, but sometimes we need to look at the spirit of the words, more than we do the letters. In fact, Paul said something about exactly that: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." -- II Corinthians 3:6

So a lot of Christianity's problems can be traced, IMO, back not only to closed-mindedness, but also to looking at the letter of God's Word, instead of the spirit. One thing Christ taught that so many Christians do not get, is that we must live according to the spirit of His Word, and not according to the letter of the law. If we live by the spirit, then we will be keeping the laws of God and being what Christ commanded us to be. But if we try to keep rules and regulations, we will fail miserably.

Click to expand...

I see that the need for my words here has already been filled.
Amen.

mark

AMCrenshaw said:

Let us call open-mindedness the ability to let go of one's own notions of the way people should be. So that whether or not someone is a THIEF! we can see one of God's children behind the mask of sin. I think it's fair to say that even with the Book, we know little of Good and Evil in comparison to God's knowledge. Besides, why should we judge? Why should we ignore the splinter in our own eye?

Click to expand...

I don't see scriptural support for Christians to be 'open-minded'; rather I see it saying that we should be "Christ-minded":

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:5, NIV)

The word tolerance bothers me. It sounds begrudging from the start. "OKayyy, I'll tolerate you. But don't...."

Click to expand...

The word is ambiguous; many people seem to think that the loving, Christian way to be is to tolerate (ie. accept) everybody else's belief system as equally valid to their own. That would be pretty disingenuous, though, wouldn't it? I mean, I wouldn't be a Christian unless I thought Christianity was the most valid choice. In fact, the gospel I believe in, the one that is foundational to Christianity, is that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. It's a rather 'intolerant' gospel, actually. It not only claims to be 'a' valid choice, but 'the' valid choice:

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

(John 14:6; Acts 4:12, NIV)

That said, it doesn't follow that all Christians must be intolerant people. I can only speak for myself, but I am very tolerant of anybody's right to choose their own religious faith; our nation was founded on that principle. I won't compromise my beliefs in the name of so-called tolerance to act as though I don't believe the Gospel--but I'll surely defend your right to have your own beliefs.

My original comment was: Christ knew intimately each person as a member of One Body. As Christians, is this something we should do? Is this even a fair thing to say?

Or. When he says "look neither here, nor there. But behold, the kingdom of God is within you," is he talking about only a few people? Or all people. Must we see all people as having that in common, so that we do not flirt with offending God, the spirit hiding subtly within the cadaver?

What I am getting at, I guess, is that if we look at a person and see a Child of God rather than a Sinner, we love them if we love God. And when a Child of God is a sinner, we must try very hard to lift them. Condemn the sin, but lift the person...

AMC

Click to expand...

Well, the only problem with this is that Christ did not view all people as members of one Body. He said that all those who believed on Him were members of one Body (John 17:6-26). The apostle Paul also says this repeatedly in his epistles (Romans 12:4, 5; 1 Corinthians 10:12; 1 Corinthians 12; Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 3:15).

Neither does the Bible say that all people are children of God:

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

(John 1:10-13, NIV)

And Romans 8 says this:

1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death...

15For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

The New Testament speaks of the gifts of the Father to His children--those who've accepted the Son--as justification, regeneration, and adoption. Simply put, this means we're not just freed from the condemnation of sin, but we're given new life--the life of the Holy Spirit within us, and we're given intimate relationship and access to God the Father ("Abba" is Aramaic for "Daddy"). This is the amazing grace of the New Testament message.

Open minded: Judge not, lest ye be judged.