Christianity and social issues/current events

Mac - if this is too burdensome, just ignore the request. But for those of us who aren't Christian but are interested in learning more about the debates between and within denominations, is there any quick glossary or guide to the various main denominations that would crop up in this thread? I'm familiar with Episcopalian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, Protestant, Lutheran, Baptist, Fundamentalist. And within Catholicism, I'm familiar with Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans. But I only know one or two word phrases that keep them distinct in my mind.

Any kind of useful thumbnail sketch of these and others that you might suggest to would help those of us who probably won't and can't comment but still want to read along?

MacAllister said:

Jill--if you find one, I'd love to know about it, too! I'm not a Christian, either--but am ever-curious.

Just from a historical perspective, Christianity has had so much to do with shaping Western civilization and politics, that as a writer, reader, and thinker, I'd be a fool not to investigate the hows and whys, as much as possible.

Anyone else know the answer to Jill's question?

Click to expand...

Mac - you've spurred me on! Especially if I know I'm not doing it just for myself! Let me see what I can find.

MacAllister said:

What do ya'll think--not so much about the issues themselves, as I'm NOT trying to burn Betty's nice room down--but about the differences in denominational approaches to those issues?

Click to expand...

I think every organization has the right to decide what's acceptable behaviour for its members. However, that's where the buck stops. I'm a strong believer in the separation of church and state. Religious organizations should not impose their views on society.

mommie4a said:

Any kind of useful thumbnail sketch of these and others that you might suggest to would help those of us who probably won't and can't comment but still want to read along?

Click to expand...

Try here:

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/comparison_charts.htm

I don't know how accurate it is - I just googled for it. You might find others. It's limited to denominations in the US, as well. For a more "worldly" view of Christianity, this site might be useful:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rel_comp.htm

Thanks! Very helpful indeed.

Another reference resource to compare/contrast religions

www.beliefnet.com of course!

MacAllister said:

The interesting thing about the separation of Church and State, as suggested by the framers of the constitution, is that it remains a source of argument as to whether the Establishment clause of the Constitution was designed specifically to protect religion from the Government, vice versa, or both.

Click to expand...

I'm not American, so what the constitution intended doesn't matter to me. I just believe that religious organizations shouldn't impose their views on society because usually when they do, they have no rationale for doing so except "because that's what our organization believes."

As for whether a society should impose its views on religious organizations, that's a tricky one. I would say sometimes it should when there is clear emotional or physical abuse, or when it's certain that someone will be harmed if the state doesn't do anything. For example, Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in receiving blood transfusions. If a child with JW parents has a disease and must receive blood transfusions or s/he will die, should the state step in? Should the state step in if a religion teaches that it's okay to beat children black and blue? I would say yes, but I'm willing to entertain rational arguments to the contrary.

What do ya'll think--not so much about the issues themselves, as I'm NOT trying to burn Betty's nice room down--but about the differences in denominational approaches to those issues?

Click to expand...

MacAllister,

Interesting question, one that has plagued Christianity since Christ ascended. I've found that usually everyone has a preconceived opinion and belief which is usually not up for reconstruction. That's why I usually don't get involved in discussions about Christian issues when it involves the different denominational scraps over the questions you raised, MacAllister. You may have a difficult time drawing conservative Christians into the discussion because Christians have a very different viewpoint of spiritual issues than do non Christians and it has to do with the overall worldview differences. Let me add some food for thought, much of which you are probably already aware. I have no bone to pick and am not out to change anyone's mind. Here's what I see as a major underlying problem.

First, there is the distinction between "Christians." Many people call themselves Crhistians because they have adopted the Christian religion as their preferance over other religions. Much like one would choose a bank or a college or something like that. They only are Christians by default.

The second group Christians by denominational distinction and are more active and participate in the religious activities of the particular denomination they have chosen, whether Catholic, Luthern, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian etc. Their allegiance is to the denomination and the church and tend to have a variety of beliefs and world views, often adapting other "non-Christian or non-traditional" views and incorporating them into their Christian worldview. They are Christians by religion. It is in this group where most of the differences of opinion on social and governmental issues arise.

The last group are Christians by committment to the Person of Christ. They can belong to any denomination, any race and any culture. They view the world as subject to God and Christ irregardless of the religious and governmental preferances of a society or nation. This group considers all mankind in subjection to God and His word is the final authority over all. What it says in the Scripture applies to all humanity, not just those who believe in Him or his son or his written word. So they do not believe they are imposing anything of their own beliefs upon society but merely upholding the truth as it is spelled out by God. (this tends to give the fundamental Christians a very bad rep) It is in this group that you have problems with the interpretative issues and doctrinal differences. The fundamental belief in the depravity of man, virgin birth, incarnation of Christ, death and resurrection of Christ, ascention and immenant return are the warp and weave of this belief system but the scraps and fights come over the smaller doctrines. That's why there are so many fundamental Christian denominations, Baptist, Methodist, Assembly of God and the list is a mile long. Within this group is a large segment who holds no allegiance to any denomination at all and simply are independant Christians. They have an allegiance to God alone, many of these are not even members of a church. (refer to thread "Reasons to leave a church for more info on that hot controversy).

I think your question, MacAllister, cannot be answered by Christianity as a whole. There is too much debate even among Christians themselves on these issues. They can't even get along with each other over these issues.

As to the church and state issue, there are as many opinions to that from both sides as their are hairs on a rabbit. When I want to know what the "Christian" take or action is on an issue, I tend to look into Jesus life for the answer. He never go involved in politics. He never imposed himself on the Roman government nor did he expect his followers to become activists. But there are issues worth fighting over and those who feel called to do so need to step forward. It's a fine zig-zag line between church and state, one that will go on as long as there is government and church.

Well thought out answer, Dr. Rita!

To be sure the three groups are in no way inclusive of all Christians or Christianity but a general lumping together of types. As with any "tag," there are those who are in a sub group of their own. It's a very broad spectrum. God Bless, Mac.

For example, Jehovah's witnesses don't believe in receiving blood transfusions. If a child with JW parents has a disease and must receive blood transfusions or s/he will die, should the state step in? Should the state step in if a religion teaches that it's okay to beat children black and blue? I would say yes, but I'm willing to entertain rational arguments to the contrary.

Click to expand...

The reason I would agree, and say yes, is because I think the child (who cannot decide, being a minor) should be able to choose their own destiny - life or death.

The parents shouldn't choose death for the child, based on the parents views. If the parent needs a blood transfusion and doesn't get one based on religion - that's their right.

Scientologists, I believe, have a list of medical procedures they will not allow.


Wouldn't it be a shame for a parent to deny their child the right to live based on their religion, and then, years down the road........discover a different religion?


A little off the topic ....but I once knew a Penecostal man - and they believe that women should not cut their hair. This guy worked as a hairdresser by profession.


Isn't that ironic? And, his wife and children were not allowed to cut their hair. But it was ok to make a living cutting other (sinners) hair.

HMM.

eldragon said:

The reason I would agree, and say yes, is because I think the child (who cannot decide, being a minor) should be able to choose their own destiny - life or death.

The parents shouldn't choose death for the child, based on the parents views. If the parent needs a blood transfusion and doesn't get one based on religion - that's their right.

Click to expand...

If this applies to all living children, why shouldn't this be true for the baby in the mother's womb? Should a mother have the right to chose death for an unborn child?

If this applies to all living children, why shouldn't this be true for the baby in the mother's womb? Should a mother have the right to chose death for an unborn child?

Click to expand...

In that case - the unborn embryo or fetus cannot survive without the mother's approval.


An unborn embryo or fetus is not a separate unit, it's part of the woman carrying it.

Abortion is a sticky, sensitive issue. Nobody that has to have one is doing it for fun. It's a time of horrendous stress.

If a girl (woman) has the baby.........and she didn't want it....where are the people to help her? The only thing that matters is whether or not the fetus is allowed to survive the birth. Whether or not the fetus is healthy, loved, wanted, or able to be supported, is irrelevant.

And then, as soon as the baby gets married ......the parents have no right to decide whether she lives or dies. (Terry Shiavo).

If this applies to all living children, why shouldn't this be true for the baby in the mother's womb? Should a mother have the right to chose death for an unborn child?

Click to expand...

You know - nothing is easy.

I volunteer at a nursing home, and know several people that would be better off dead. We're talking no quality of life. NONE. I spent an hour with my friend Janice yesterday. Her husband shot her in the back of the head about 5 years ago.


She spent the hour silently crying (she can't talk or make any sounds).....was covered in urine (can't afford diapers), and choking on her bile (has a constantly dripping trach). She is paralyzed and spends her days lying in bed. No visitors - save a few volunteers.


I swear - everytime I'm with Janice - I wish I could end her misery - in some way.

Mac: I agree with everything in your post.

eldragon: You have a heart of gold.

I guess I'm part of the third group that Rita mentioned. As for the "don't force your beliefs on society", I have mixed feelings about that. For one thing, I do not believe that minors have the right to make most choices on their own, since they are not old/wise/responsible enough to decide many things for themselves. Minors cannot marry, drink, enlist, or be held liable for contracts they've signed unless their parents agree. They cannot have sex with someone much older than themselves. They cannot decide how many hours they will work, or whether they have to go to school or not. So, keep in mind I am talking about adults (whatever that is defined as - that's another kettle of fish! <grin>)

On the one hand, I don't think anyone should be forced by the government or by another grown-up (husband, boss, whatever) to attend any particular church or a church at all, if they choose not to. This, as I see it, is what the separation of church and state really means: freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.


On the other hand, of course we force our beliefs on society! A murderer believes that his needs and desires are more important than the value of a human life and that it's permissible to take a life, in order to get what he wants (money, freedom from annoyance, removal as an obstacle.) I disagree. So does society. So does the Bible, what I consider the Word of God, which is where my disagreement comes from. God sets the value of a human life and the conditions under which it can be taken, and personal convenience isn't one of them. And if someone comes along and takes issue with me trying to stop him from taking a life, too bad. Even if society someday says murder is Ok (and no, I'm not gettin into the abortion issue, thanks, not now), it's not. It is wrong. That is a Truth, capital T.

Rapists believe that they can use sex to overpower another human being, against that person's will, based on nebulous things like "She was asking for it", "I couldn't help it!" "Look how she's dressed or where she was walking!" and so on. I disagree. So does society. So does God. So, if someone comes along and attacks your sister or your neighbor and then says, "Don't force your beliefs on me, I think I ought to be allowed to have sex with anyone who catches my fancy, regardless of what you think or they think", what do you say? "Oh, well, sure, go ahead, far be it from me to force my beliefs on you..." I doubt it.

A child molester believes that a child is a legitimate sexual partner. I disagree. So does society. So does God.

The problem comes in when society thinks something is OK or that it doesn't affect society, so it's no one's business (adultery, for example), and God says it's not OK. Do I think adultery ought to be against the law? Yeah, I actually do, although I'm not going to lobby for laws against it. That's one of many laws that would be pretty hard to enforce! But it does affect society, through the breakdown of the marital bonds and the family, and it's Truth, with a capital T. Do not commit adultery.

So, when someone says she doesn't believe religion ought to affect a society's laws, I say, where do you think moral law comes from? Either there's an objective standard of right and wrong that stands outside of mankind's wishes and desires and societal fashions - in which case it is, it must be, the root of all law - or there is not, in which case no one has a right to tell anyone else anything about what is right or wrong, and everyone's rights will only be what they can grab and hold at the end of a fist.

And if you agree that there is an objective standard, where did it come from?

(Eldragon, I'm so sorry for your friend's pain, and your own grief. How awful to have someone who should have loved and cared for her treat her so.)

freedom of religion, not freedom from religion

Click to expand...

People must be able to choose no religion. There are implications from this.

The problem comes in when society thinks something is OK or that it doesn't affect society, so it's no one's business (adultery, for example), and God says it's not OK.

Click to expand...

And religious groups are free to set the rules they expect their members to obey. They can't force those rules on everybody.

Betty W01 said:

So, when someone says she doesn't believe religion ought to affect a society's laws, I say, where do you think moral law comes from?

Click to expand...

Not religion, that's for sure. If everyone was an atheist, do you think we'd be living in a state of anarchy? No, we wouldn't. Atheists respect their fellow humans like everyone else does. Intelligent people recognize that in order for humans to live together in some degree of harmony, there have to be rules, and for the same reason, they do their best to follow those rules. Religion doesn't have to enter into it.

And if you agree that there is an objective standard, where did it come from?

Click to expand...

I don't agree that there's an objective standard.

Stem Cell Research

I have a different take on this social issue of the day. I have written a short piece, but I don't know if I can include it here -- basically, scripture teaches that "the life is in the blood", an embryo does not have rudimentary blood cells until many days after conception. If the life is in the blood, and there is no blood, then there is no life, so embryos without bloodcells could be made available for research because they have no life.

Is there a way to embed an already written article here, or do I need to create a new thread?

Thanks

Doyle, start another thread, and paste the URL in here.

Brinkett, the freedom not to choose religion is in freedom of religion. Currently, it seems to be interpreted as freedom to not pay any attentiion to religion, whether it is important to someone or not, though, and that's not what that meant originally.

And of course you believe in an objective standard. Why is murder wrong? Why is rape wrong? Why can't we all do whatever we want, with no regard for anything except the rule of the fist and full purse? You say, "Intelligent people recognize that in order for humans to live together in some degree of harmony, there have to be rules, and for the same reason, they do their best to follow those rules." OK, who sets the rules and from what moral standard?

Ooops, thunderstorm - gotta go!

I think abortion is one of the great shames of humanity. That said--I also absolutely support a woman's right to choose.

Click to expand...

Mac, I've never seen/heard anyone express this position so concisely and so correctly. I agree with you 100%!

Denominational issues can be very minor, or very significant. I am a Presbyterian, but there are two kinds of Presbyterianism and they do not play well together; one difference: one allows women to be pastors and elders, the other doesn't.

Such a difference can have severe implications when it is applied to societal issues, assuming members of both really believe what they claim to believe.

Yet, when it comes to church doctrine, both are very similar; indeed, they are also similar to Episcopaleanism and Anglicanism. It is a very difficult discussion to have fully; maybe it would make a nice book...any takers?