Religion and Estrangement/No Contact.

I really enjoyed your post Skye, thank you

Smileless2012 Thanks!

HolyHannah, all the teachings for children that you list aren’t meant to be followed in isolation from the rest of Scripture. They’re meant to be read along with passages like Romans 12:18, “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” and “The prudent see danger and take refuge” (Proverbs 27:12). Also with passages that show followers of God escaping from danger. David fled from Saul when Saul tried to kill him, though Saul was his king and in authority over him. Joseph and Mary fled from Herod into Egypt. Jesus escaped when religious leaders tried to throw him off a cliff. Paul escaped from Damascus by being let down from the wall in a basket. It’s OK to protect yourself according to the Bible.
unholycharade.com/2020/03/30/sometimes-it-is-the-christians-duty-to-flee-from-danger/

If someone has done their best to ‘live at peace’ with an abusive parent, and they feel they are being harmed by contact with that parent and there is nothing more they can do to improve things, according to the Bible it’s OK to end contact as a last resort. God is not in favour of people being abused.

Surely it’s hypocrisy and the misuse of Christian teachings that can cause estrangement, not the teachings themselves.

Following the teaching of the Bible would lead to parents humbly recognising wrong or unhelpful things they have done, apologising and making amends; avoiding hypocrisy; and loving their children as well as they can with actions as well as words. Also following the passages in Ephesians and Colossians on not exasperating your children, which have already been mentioned.

Hypocrites were the only people Jesus spoke to harshly. God hates hypocrisy and the ill-treatment of the powerless. If you were powerless and ill-treated as a child, he was on your side. He loves you now. Don’t let the wrong actions of humans put you off him.

I think for children of abuse that ship often sails Skye. If people are hit with a belt often enough they may develop a strong fear of belts and that's fine as long as they don't need one to hold their trousers up. Meaning, People can live a good and moral life their own way.

Starblaze I agree, they can live a good and moral life (by human standards) their own way. But can they be right with God, and escape judgement for wrongdoing, their own way?

According to the Bible, there is no one who has kept the laws of God. Probably no one has even kept the Ten Commandments - especially the way that Jesus added to them in the Sermon on the Mount.
youtu.be/BvwdNHqrsTU

Who has never done anything wrong?

God is a perfect judge. He can’t just ignore wrongdoing that hurts others and the person who does it. But he is also loving, so he has offered a way out at his own cost.

It is a shame to miss out on salvation, and all the benefits of a relationship with God in this life, because of being put off by the wrong actions of humans.

(Ten Commandments:
www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NIVUK

Number 9, together with other Scriptures, includes all lying (except for reasons such as to save a life - not for selfish reasons) ).

The message of the Bible is not like a belt for someone who has braces. It’s like a parachute for someone who’s in a plane that’s about to crash.

It wouldn’t be wise to refuse to put on a parachute because you had been abused by someone using a parachute (say, to suffocate you or tie you up).

Skye I don't think you understand what I mean, the problem was never the belt, it was the abusive person using it. Trauma is not undone by simple explanation, or preaching I'm afraid and it's not appropriate in this case. People are able to choose their own way and your responsibility is to respect that.

Baggs, surely a person's beliefs are part of who they are. I am generally a 'live and let live' sort of person, but I cannot respect someone who holds religious or political views which are abhorrent to me. I agree with Hannah that this would include racism, homophobia and misogyny.

I guess it depends how you define abhorrent, petitfromage. I think I can still have some respect even for a human being whose beliefs I think are abominable. I think it gets more difficult to respect an individual whose behaviour has been abominable. Beliefs can change. Behaviour has happened and can be hard to forgive. But a human being is still a human being.

On a day to day basis, I don't find it hard to respect someone whose political or religious beliefs are different from mine and I wouldn't find it hard to respect the male clerics in your example even though, like you, I think they were profoundly wrong in their outlook. But then, I don't find that sort of prejudice abhorrent, only stupid and irrational in the modern world.

Beliefs can change and often do. Does that mean you are a different person if you change your mind about something, or just better informed/educated?

"Beliefs can change and often do. Does that mean you are a different person if you change your mind about something, or just better informed/educated?"(Baggs)

Yes. There is no essential person. A person is what a person does.
The procedure for identifying someone is to check dental records, documentation, DNA, or finger prints. Not beliefs or hair colour.

Skye, you're interpreting you're version of what's been written as if it were the gospel itself-

It's not-

It's the "wielding" of interpretations of the words that cause hurt, the fixed expectation of their meaning and that others see it and agree-

It's a successful tactic- But one has to ask what one is seeking to succeed at by proclaiming to know what God wants rather than inquiring what it might me-

My current personal inquiry: Did the writers get God wrong?

It's very possible that they projected their human hate onto "fog" and considered it fixed, as if it even existed to begin with, never considering what their own hate was dependent upon, therefore deemed it as acceptable, applicable and God-like-

//Skye I don't think you understand what I mean, the problem was never the belt, it was the abusive person using it. Trauma is not undone by simple explanation, or preaching I'm afraid and it's not appropriate in this case. People are able to choose their own way and your responsibility is to respect that.//

In my example, the problem was never the parachute (the Bible message); it was the abusive person using it.

I didn’t mention trauma or how to undo it at all. That’s a separate issue.

Of course people are able to choose their own way, and I fully respect their freely made choice to do that. I think God has given us free will to turn to him or turn away.

It would be a shame for someone to miss out on being saved by a parachute because they had bad associations with parachutes.

rosecarmel I’m not sure what you mean.

Skye if you were terrified of dogs, do you think me lecturing you on how wonderful dogs were would fix the issue or do you think it would be better that you see someone qualified to undo that trauma before I tried to persuade you to go sit in a room full of dogs.

Please understand you are not being helpful here.

Madgran the individual interpretation of it might .....someone who is following a religion might then use that as a reason for their actions and those actions might cause estrangement

Rosecarmel It's the "wielding" of interpretations of the words that cause hurt, the fixed expectation of their meaning and that others see it and agree

We seem to be in agreement Rosecarmel

Quite right Skye17. As I have often said on these threads, Jesus never promised perfection in this life, only the next. This is just the rehearsal, and He has told us what to do to be saved.

Within the context of Skye's beliefs she is sharing her interpretation with others.

She has acknowledged that we all have free will. Her words do not appear to be "lecturing" just heartfelt beliefs and those heartfelt beliefs, I would guess, are a "solution" for her.

They may well not be a solution for anyone else but I think she has the right to say them in a thread about "Religion". She is giving her perspective which may feel uncomfortable for some, too simplistic for others but is not unpleasant, rude or abusive as far as I can see

To be fair Starblaze, Skye17 wasn't lecturing you; she's simply putting her thoughts down like everyone else, and she's using a similar analogy (parachutes/belts/dogs) to illustrate her point of view. I'm sure she wasn't lecturing anyone; just discussing a very interesting subject.

Cross posts Madgran!

Starblaze I’m sorry my comment was unhelpful. I only meant to address your comment about people in general being fine without the gospel, not to address you personally. I should have taken into account more that you might have suffered abuse involving the Bible. Sorry. If you have, I can quite see that you would recoil from anything to do with it, and would need to heal before reconsidering its message. I have heard of spiritual abuse targets feeling that way. I wish you all the very best with that healing.

Thank you Toadinthehole, Madgran77 and Chewbacca.

Skye I find your posts interesting even though my views are different and I think you come over as deeply thoughtful and kind.

Madgran Thank you - that has quite made my day.

There is always room for how everyone feels, there was no negative tone to my comments and lecture is just a word about imparting information. I was just pointing out it may not be helpful in this particular instance to push it