Christians favor the "rogue" over the "dull faithful clod". So why do they pretend?

reply to post by AlreadyGone

Free from religion is maybe not what is intended. One can do all kinds of naughty things - even murder and go to war under the banner of religion.
I would say the problem for religion is the opposite.
It claims to set men free.
But free from what?

reply to post by halfoldman


Y'know, I just love your threads.
Shemhamforash my brother.

I'm guessing religion gives you freedom from having to think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions.

Note as well the adjective "dull" used with "clod" to describe the faithful. Not only is there an assumption that a faithful person is boring and stupid, but there's also the implication that the now neutral (or even positive) term "rogue" is a person of excitement. Ah yes, persuasive writing 101, not masked very well. Kudos for artistic interpretation being made of an otherwise real situation, however.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by Northwarden


You can't go through an investigation of gay issues without becoming gay...?
Are you serious with that...?
Cause if you think it's BEHAVIOR that makes a person gay and not their inner desires, well I'm afraid I have some news you're not going to like.

Originally posted by saint4God
Note as well the adjective "dull" used with "clod" to describe the faithful. Not only is there an assumption that a faithful person is boring and stupid, but there's also the implication that the now neutral (or even positive) term "rogue" is a person of excitement. Ah yes, persuasive writing 101, not masked very well. Kudos for artistic interpretation being made of an otherwise real situation, however.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by saint4God]

I'm not sure whether my source, Jaques Barzun, can be termed "Creative Writing 101" (Professor and Dean of History at Provorst, author of 30 books and receiver of Gold Medal for criticism from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, of which he was twice president).
I must agree however that the thread (myself included) immediately slipped towards the anti-religious experience, which is not really the context, but shows how some issues are interpreted at various times.
Perhaps the turn from "rogue" to "saint" in religious narrative is not really surprising, considering that it focuses on issues of "rebith" and "salvation", and Christianity is not unique in this (the ISKCON books are very similar). I mean, people's lives are said to be testimonies in themselves.
What one notes in history is the change of political position (St Paul turning from persecuter of the new Christian sect to apostle) or St Augustine turning from Manichaean (and confessing prayers like: Dear Lord make me chaste, but not today). How some of the changes expected from conversion today mirror those of the past is really a point of interest.
The problem one finds is that people born into something that is restrictive and focuses on "radical salvation" may face a dilemma, because they lack the pre-salvation "rogue" narrative. Some navigate this successfully or go on a non religious adventure (I think what the Amish call a "rumspringer") before they re-dedicate themselves, and others apostate for life.
What is of concern is that converts to any system, political or religious are often more radical than those born to it - or at least that's one perception. The Pauline Doctrine on women and gender is for example argaubly more restrictive than Christ preached.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I'm not sure whether my source, Jaques Barzun, can be termed "Creative Writing 101" (Professor and Dean of History at Provorst, author of 30 books and receiver of Gold Medal for criticism from the American Academy of Arts and Letters, of which he was twice president).

Not creative, persuasive. There is a huge difference. Many persuasive writings are far from creative. Congratulations to Jaques' career, I'm sure his family is proud, but not sure how someone's resume' is relevant to this discussion.

I was not born nor raised Christian, I converted on the heals of Satanism and suicide (yay for me right?). Rather 'dramatic' I'm sure seen in the eyes of an outsider, but I can tell you my faith is weaker than those who have not seen and yet believe. An enigma? Not at all, as my proof has removed a part of faith, though there's still plenty faith to be had. Christ states similarly here:

"Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." - John 20:29

God knows I needed my proof to believe, but I have deprived myself of full blessing because of my stubborn reluctance.


[edit on 26-4-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

The background on an iconic figure of Western criticism was warranted. Calling any writing "101" implies to most people that it's ameteurish. However, I think that when one uses literature as a source any extra info should be useful in any case. I should have mentioned the "resume" in my original post already.
I'm a bit perplexed by what you've seen which the "clods" have not, and why their blind faith is better than your "experienced faith".
You are very gracious towards their naive position. But what "full blessing" have they got that you don't have?

Originally posted by halfoldman
Calling any writing "101" implies to most people that it's ameteurish.

Not amateur, but basic. It doesn't take a literary degree to see that the adjectives selected were crafted as such to paint a positive picture on one side and a negative side on another. In other words, the writing in and of itself is steeped in bias, which detracts from the point the author is trying to make as I see it.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I'm a bit perplexed by what you've seen which the "clods" have not,

What "clods"? I don't recall anyone using or implying this word.

Originally posted by halfoldman
and why their blind faith is better than your "experienced faith".

Unseen faith (rather than blind which is quickly abandoned when questioned or tested), is rooted in a deeper trust and understanding beyond my comprehension. I need the 'sissy stick' of proof (to use a billiards term) in order to support my faith. Those who do not, those are the skilled professionals.

Originally posted by halfoldman
You are very gracious towards their naive position. But what "full blessing" have they got that you don't have?

Surely they're not altogether naive, there's a better sense of what's going on that I was/am unable to tap into. A natural aptitude to know the truth without having to test, prod, confront, deny, or dissect. For me, I have to touch the pot to know that its hot (despite every warning and deduction that tells me it is), which leaves me with scortched hands. I'm grateful however, that I managed to walk away with only scortched hands.

This conversation is getting interesting, thank you for that.

[edit on 27-4-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

As for the source book in my OP, "From Dawn to Decadence" , I suppose I was hoping that somebody might be prompted to have a look at it. Nowadys with all the linking and "instant proofs" so much good and even epic literature is falling away. I could swear that somebody from your faithful position would then have an instant argument in accusing me of mis- or bad quoting.
Of course everybody will take from any writing what they regard as useful. But Barzun also dispels many myths on religion, such as the false notion that the Puritans were drab people who banned music and art (quite the opposite), or that Calvin's Geneva was an oppressive place because of religion. His ultimate point in the tome (I'm only half-way) is that we cannot judge past ages because our own has moved increasingly towards decadence and intellectual absurdity.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Nowadys with all the linking and "instant proofs" so much good and even epic literature is falling away.

I agree with that, there's not enough developmental reading, rather it is pushed aside for quick hits.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I could swear that somebody from your faithful position would then have an instant argument in accusing me of mis- or bad quoting.

I wouldn't seek to dismantle anyone, only raise a flag if I know for sure there was mis/bad quoting going on. I don't see where you've misquoted the book, but am rather addressing a concern about the narrative.

Originally posted by halfoldman
Of course everybody will take from any writing what they regard as useful.

This is also true, we are consumers by nature, but also due to mortality. We don't really have time to learn it all

Originally posted by halfoldman
But Barzun also dispels many myths on religion, such as the false notion that the Puritans were drab people who banned music and art (quite the opposite), or that Calvin's Geneva was an oppressive place because of religion. His ultimate point in the tome (I'm only half-way) is that we cannot judge past ages because our own has moved increasingly towards decadence and intellectual absurdity.

Well said overall, though don't think we've reached intellectual absurdity, just temporal distortion based on a need to summarize massives amounts of information into single books or paragraphs. For example, if I say "WWII Germany" the flashes of Hitler come to mind, not the farmer there who was trying to feed his family and wanting nothing to do with the Nazi party....and that wasn't even that long ago. Apologies for veering of the discussion course, but I'll try to tie this in with a personal interpretation of my own:

Christians favor the faithful servant of God over the waffling wanderer:

Who better to exemplify the words and actions of Christ than the participant in complete model thought, speech and action? Whether it's helping their neighbor through a difficult time or delivering food to the needy in an urban soup kitchen (James 1:27), the dedicated servant knows well the number of needs in search of providence. A citizen of the heavenly kingdom is prepared at all times for they know that Jesus' return can happen at any time (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32)

Our waffling wanderer, falling out of grace strays far, leaving a trail of problems along the path (Galatians 5:19-25). What dice the dabaucher rolls by having a dismissal of faith for the mere chance that at the end there will be rescue! Will there be rescue at all? (Matthew 7:21) God only knows, but in the meanwhile there is a hole where they could be taking their place in the representation of good in their community. As time ticks on, the evil one laughs at the benefit of personal gain (Matthew 13:19). Trust, therefore is difficult to earn among a fellowship post-confession, but the faithful who have stood by the chair of God for countless days know full well it is what is necessary to be given and what it means to be forgiven.

Of the servant and wanderer, which have I exalted? Why? Now ask which of the two the originally posted author exalted and most importantly why?

[edit on 27-4-2010 by saint4God]

reply to post by saint4God

The "sissy-stick" of proof? Are you really saying that just accepting things by word-of-mouth is superior to having your "hands scorched" by proof? I mean I respect your position, but that goes against even most evangelism which encourages people to "give the Lord a try" and so forth.
Do you guys really use terminology like "sissy"?
If people are better for believing without proof we might as well throw 5 centuries of painstaking Christian scholarship away.
I mean I know you probably want to say that people can be born into faith (which doesn't mean they don't have all our human struggles despite this, but they are also under tremedous pressure to put on the expected behavior).
You actually second the point I was making on how before/after salvation narrative and testimony embeds faith privately and publically. Thats good enough for me.

reply to post by saint4God

The post above was written before your longer post appeared, so I'm sure how relevant that is in this light.
Well, Barzun's book begins in 1517 with the founding of the Protestant faith (it wasn't called or even recognized as such at the time). (Yeah and most of them were peasant "clods" to the church and royalty, because they were kept pretty ignorant.) All the people were already born into Christianity, and the notion of "secularism" did not exist and was not a public possibility at the time. Luther merely criticized certain teachings concerning inulgences and money-making. He saw himself as a loyal Catholic while doing so.
Christianity was then already the state religion since about AD 385, and simply because people were born into for generations didn't make them good Christians, especially not a lot of the clergy. The system sure made people docile and the holy-men seem oh-so holy. But what ever argument one uses to defend entrenched church power and the "super-human" faith of those born to faith - it's all a house of cards. Otherwise why does every Christian sect have scandals and schisms?
Sure, one can say that person is a bit more experienced or so, but to do much more always leads to dissapointment and even mass-desertion. Christ Himself instituted no prieshood or divisions amongst Christian men, and he who is least is actually the most.



[edit on 27-4-2010 by halfoldman]

[edit on 27-4-2010 by halfoldman]

Originally posted by halfoldman
The "sissy-stick" of proof? Are you really saying that just accepting things by word-of-mouth is superior to having your "hands scorched" by proof?

Apologies again as I'm sure by now it seems I'm meticulously parsing words, but it certainly isn't the intent. I didn't mean "just accepting things by word-of-mouth" but rather having an innate sense of the truth, being so knowledgeable of one's own self that knowing deep down there is indeed a God and secondarily that Christ was sent to redeem the sins of a believer. It's like watching a child who has never played a piano before, sit down and bang out Moonlight Sonata just by hearing it once. We all possess the ability, some are more in-tuned with it than others. I was so hard-headed (and hearted) that I had to be driven to the edge of life itself before accepting what had been there the whole time.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I mean I respect your position, but that goes against even most evangelism which encourages people to "give the Lord a try" and so forth.

Any start is better than no start. I like ATS because I can have meaningful discussions with other hard-headed individuals like myself

Originally posted by halfoldman
Do you guys really use terminology like "sissy"?

In billiards, not in Christianity. The "sissy stick" is a term for the bridge used in pool. It's not actually sissy, it's what it is called or view by onlookers.

Originally posted by halfoldman
If people are better for believing without proof we might as well throw 5 centuries of painstaking Christian scholarship away.

For the weak, proof. For the uncertain, a sign. For the strong, innate faith.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I mean I know you probably want to say that people can be born into faith (which doesn't mean they don't have all our human struggles despite this, but they are also under tremedous pressure to put on the expected behavior).

I don't believe people are born believers, but I do know a number of believers who think they were.

Originally posted by halfoldman
You actually second the point I was making on how before/after salvation narrative and testimony embeds faith privately and publically. Thats good enough for me.

Cool. I like your post after this one and haven't anything I could add to it.

reply to post by saint4God

Cool, well you've actually shown me a lot.
I think what inspires my threads is to find debate as we've had. I'm sure there's much I'm overlooking and it will give me future pleasure to read over it again. It is sad though that in almost all current US-styled Christian bookshops and media there's nothing on history (unless it's on debunking the Da Vinci Code, or similar stuff). I think this kind of de-conxtualization creates a hostility between faith and academia that is not really necessary.

PS. Oops so "sissy-stick" is pool lingo. Point taken!

Every culture favours the rogue...it allows man to evolve and grow into knew areas of consciousness.

Remember at one time, not long ago, mankind at large had a very limited idea of "public".

Now we have evolved and we all have this idea...as a symbol of some sort. And we do have a common symbol for this idea.

This is known as a cycle or a dance.

The idea that mankind somehow is attracted in mass to various symbols which represent innate knowledge or ideology.