Great post MithLuin
The following captures my conception of sin, or rather the human condition:
Mith wrote:Oh, no worries of ever achieving perfection in this life. You may strive away to your hearts content. And still never quite get there.
...in so far as being in a perpetual state of imperfection, and therefore separate from God, is understood as sin. I'm not worried so much about triffling acts of disobedience among children since, as
Vison would surely agree, making mistakes is one of the ways in which we learn.
Christ tells us to come to him
as children *(as opposed to
when we are children) with all that being in that stage of life implies, apart from age, heh.
Attaining a state of holiness, the Sabbath rest, or Heaven (through salvation) is likened to exchanging the corruptible with the incorruptible. I do not think that is something that happens in natural life, saved or not.
Some Hindus practice Yoga to reach Samadhi aka the "Seedless State." The idea is to achieve, through meditation, a state of conscious nothingness. Attaining this state is based on the idea that the moment anything at all is held in one's mind, awareness of self and one's carnal nature prevents them from experiencing the Divine.
Some Muslims believe that humans are not even worthy to hold a thought of Allah in their mind.
I'm not pointing to other traditions to highlight similarities or for authority here... just saying that the idea that humanity is fundamentally flawed, even without intending to be, is not a new, nor very startling revelation. (Though mileage may vary.)
Which brings me to this:
Mith wrote:Christianity is so encouraging and cheery, isn't it?
and then back to the passage from Matthew 10 that
Lord M posted some pages ago.
As it turns out there are several, if not many several, discourses available online dealing with the "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword..." sayings. Of the ones I have read they all emphasised that the sayings of Jesus there were intended for his disciples. However the teaching does extend to anyone who believes they are called to leave it all (I mean all) behind and follow Him. He was pointing out what disciples of his day could expect if they chose to preach the gospels: not that they should bring a sword instead of peace (ie cause war and strife) just that they would be persecuted and hated as he was
by some.
This teaching does extend beyond their day, as can be noted throughout history, but also at present by casting an eye to what is happening to
Coptic Christians in Egypt. For that matter, one need look no further than this thread to see the potential -- though we have overcome it for the most part -- for ire to be raised just talking about this stuff.
So, Lord M, my understanding is this: there should be nothing, and no one, a would be disciple loves more than God. Living that way, understandably, can be far from peaceful on an interpersonal level. Stories of family strife and collapse are legion in the lives of people where one becomes a follower of Christ but others do not. Whole families can become followers but at that point they cease to be a family unto each other but become members of the greater family of believers.
Not everyone is called to leave it all (and everyone) behind. For the great multitude of believers the sayings at the end of the next chapter (Matthew 11:28-30) speak of the peace Christ offers:
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
It is in these sayings that I find encouragement in the face of the others about persecution, but also the many challenges that life holds -- owing or not to my tendency to make stupid decisions
Just a few general notes:
I do not think "my religion is better than yours" is an appropriate approach to Judaism from the perspective of Christianity. From what I have read so far the former informs, and indeed is wrapt up in, the latter; and
The idea that we should love God more than anything or anyone does not derive from Jesus, but from Abraham. That was the point of the story
Vison alluded to a few times. There was obedience, yes, but also it was intended to demonstrate that Abraham loved no one before God. Of course, as we know, God did not intend for Abraham to harm his son and stopped him before he did so. (That's my take on it anyway.)
The idea is also wrapt up in the many stories about idolatry in the OT. Interestingly one's religion can also be an idol. It seems to me that a substantial part of the objections to belief in God stem from cases where people, or a group of people, in the name of religion, do things that are reprehensible. What I have found in going to the Bible for an explanation in such cases is that the person or people (and sometimes an entire congregation or church body) acted in a way that was not supported by scripture. At least not other than the most rudimentary, often twisted and meanest reading of such.
I think too that we can all agree that many people have difficulty separating the idea of God from the idea of religion. One of my favourite bits of dialogue from Kingdom of Heaven (set during the Crusades) captures this nicely:
Hospitaller: I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here
[points to head]
Hospitaller: and here
[points to heart]
Hospitaller: and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.
ETA: Ah yes, almost forgot, none of us has been spared the humiliation of inadvertently ruffling the feathers of someone else. Though I note, thinking here of Anth but also of others, that I have not measured an ounce of vindictiveness nor spite since joining this thread. It is wonderful that we can gently correct each other and take correction in these often perilous waters.
edit: at asterisk changed "not when" to "as opposed to when" and added "that" before "being" in same line.