Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Individual humans develop into having the character types and personality types they have (whatever the contributing factors are in how and why they develop into what they become . . . be it genetic factors, prenatal or postnatal anomalies, how they were raised, how their life experiences shaped their thinking, etc. etc . etc.) and, by-and-large, subscribing to this or that religious school-of-thought does not necessarily or assuredly alter their underlying character type. You would hope that it would but it appears that our shaping or formative influences are very critical in making us what we are. Hence, it isn't assured that because any particular individual takes on a Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or whatever other label will predictably result in a reinvented person imbued with the most redeeming human qualities. It's like some others have said here: People who are kind and charitable by nature will probably continue to be so regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society . . . and, conversely, people who are more inclined to be less charitable or even non-charitable or unkind or demeaning or whatever other lesser-charactered traits by nature will probably continue to exemplify such qualities regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society.
Being a senior now, I saw and experienced this first-hand in my years being raised as a Jew (and attending Hebrew school and synagogue on top of public school and then my adult years as a Protestant conservative evangelical born-again Christian who was a regular churchgoer and participant in the Christian life (and even considered to be a capable-enough preacher/teacher/apologist for the Christian faith). In the church (and synagogue) populations at-large over the years, there were enough examples of persons of lesser or even unredeeming character and then there were those that were quite decent persons and then there were those that were something in between these two polar extremes. My conclusion (in retrospect): People act out of their own foundational character and essential nature regardless of our assumptions of how they "should" be by virtue of labels such as Christian or Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, Muslim, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. I've even encountered those who would call themselves "humanists" (secular or ethical humanists, Unitarians, et al) who exemplified what we might deem to be "less-than-exemplary" character and behavioral choices . . . and then, of course, those amongst them that were quite the opposite of this.
IN SUMMARY: Saying to the OP that you may be placing expectations on people that they can't all live up to at all times (even though you think that they "would" or "should" by virtue of their Christian or Catholic identity and practices). It is simply a reality that people-at-large can't always be in a place and a capacity to accommodate all other peoples' needs, wants, or desires at all times or sometimes even at any time. We humans have our real and undeniable limitations, hangups, shortcomings, inabilities, and so on and so on and so on. And if there is, in fact, a God that created us all (which I'm not saying here that there is or isn't), this is the way that said God apparently chose to make us. That is, He/She/it purportedly has supreme power, knowledge, wisdom, and morality purity and hence could have done otherwise and yet He/She/It apparently chose to make us mortal humans variably limited in our capacities and capabilities to exemplify the most redeeming and meritorious character attributes and behavioral choices as a way-of-life. Why . . . when said (purported) God of (purported) unlimited powers and capabilities could have done otherwise??? The unanswerable question.
Individual humans develop into having the character types and personality types they have (whatever the contributing factors are in how and why they develop into what they become . . . be it genetic factors, prenatal or postnatal anomalies, how they were raised, how their life experiences shaped their thinking, etc. etc . etc.) and, by-and-large, subscribing to this or that religious school-of-thought does not necessarily or assuredly alter their underlying character type. You would hope that it would but it appears that our shaping or formative influences are very critical in making us what we are. Hence, it isn't assured that because any particular individual takes on a Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or whatever other label will predictably result in a reinvented person imbued with the most redeeming human qualities. It's like some others have said here: People who are kind and charitable by nature will probably continue to be so regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society . . . and, conversely, people who are more inclined to be less charitable or even non-charitable or unkind or demeaning or whatever other lesser-charactered traits by nature will probably continue to exemplify such qualities regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society.
Being a senior now, I saw and experienced this first-hand in my years being raised as a Jew (and attending Hebrew school and synagogue on top of public school and then my adult years as a Protestant conservative evangelical born-again Christian who was a regular churchgoer and participant in the Christian life (and even considered to be a capable-enough preacher/teacher/apologist for the Christian faith). In the church (and synagogue) populations at-large over the years, there were enough examples of persons of lesser or even unredeeming character and then there were those that were quite decent persons and then there were those that were something in between these two polar extremes. My conclusion (in retrospect): People act out of their own foundational character and essential nature regardless of our assumptions of how they "should" be by virtue of labels such as Christian or Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, Muslim, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. I've even encountered those who would call themselves "humanists" (secular or ethical humanists, Unitarians, et al) who exemplified what we might deem to be "less-than-exemplary" character and behavioral choices . . . and then, of course, those amongst them that were quite the opposite of this.
IN SUMMARY: Saying to the OP that you may be placing expectations on people that they can't all live up to at all times (even though you think that they "would" or "should" by virtue of their Christian or Catholic identity and practices). It is simply a reality that people-at-large can't always be in a place and a capacity to accommodate all other peoples' needs, wants, or desires at all times or sometimes even at any time. We humans have our real and undeniable limitations, hangups, shortcomings, inabilities, and so on and so on and so on. And if there is, in fact, a God that created us all (which I'm not saying here that there is or isn't), this is the way that said God apparently chose to make us. That is, He/She/it purportedly has supreme power, knowledge, wisdom, and morality purity and hence could have done otherwise and yet He/She/It apparently chose to make us mortal humans variably limited in our capacities and capabilities to exemplify the most redeeming and meritorious character attributes and behavioral choices as a way-of-life. Why . . . when said (purported) God of (purported) unlimited powers and capabilities could have done otherwise??? The unanswerable question.
Excellent post coincidentally elaborating upon mine in another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jencam
There are also Christians who have had a rough time of it themselves and having nothing to do with religion, learned to keep to themselves. People who have been taken advantage of, abused, etc. Christians encompass many different types of people with their own life experiences and challenges and traumas and so forth.
It's impossible to speak to why these people didn't invite you over for a meal, but I don't understand how that should have been known to them as something that you needed?
Friends had dinner at my house in the course of hanging out with me and visa versa but I don't remember anyone being invited to sooth someone in need the way you are describing.
We hosted two separate girls who needed a place to LIVE. And had anyone been hungry they would have been invited every night for dinner. Given lunch money along with me at school.
IDK. I'm having trouble understanding this.
They were all aware I was going through a trauma and was all alone. They had their warm little families. I honestly expected (never a good idea) that they would try to comfort me by at least inviting me over for a meal - and they didn't. So the first two, in addition to being questionable "Christians," were not even friends (as I had thought). The third party was just oblivious.
Individual humans develop into having the character types and personality types they have (whatever the contributing factors are in how and why they develop into what they become . . . be it genetic factors, prenatal or postnatal anomalies, how they were raised, how their life experiences shaped their thinking, etc. etc . etc.) and, by-and-large, subscribing to this or that religious school-of-thought does not necessarily or assuredly alter their underlying character type. You would hope that it would but it appears that our shaping or formative influences are very critical in making us what we are. Hence, it isn't assured that because any particular individual takes on a Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or Muslim or Hindu or whatever other label will predictably result in a reinvented person imbued with the most redeeming human qualities. It's like some others have said here: People who are kind and charitable by nature will probably continue to be so regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society . . . and, conversely, people who are more inclined to be less charitable or even non-charitable or unkind or demeaning or whatever other lesser-charactered traits by nature will probably continue to exemplify such qualities regardless of belief or non-belief labels affixed to them by themselves or by the larger society.
Being a senior now, I saw and experienced this first-hand in my years being raised as a Jew (and attending Hebrew school and synagogue on top of public school and then my adult years as a Protestant conservative evangelical born-again Christian who was a regular churchgoer and participant in the Christian life (and even considered to be a capable-enough preacher/teacher/apologist for the Christian faith). In the church (and synagogue) populations at-large over the years, there were enough examples of persons of lesser or even unredeeming character and then there were those that were quite decent persons and then there were those that were something in between these two polar extremes. My conclusion (in retrospect): People act out of their own foundational character and essential nature regardless of our assumptions of how they "should" be by virtue of labels such as Christian or Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hinduist, Muslim, etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum. I've even encountered those who would call themselves "humanists" (secular or ethical humanists, Unitarians, et al) who exemplified what we might deem to be "less-than-exemplary" character and behavioral choices . . . and then, of course, those amongst them that were quite the opposite of this.
IN SUMMARY: Saying to the OP that you may be placing expectations on people that they can't all live up to at all times (even though you think that they "would" or "should" by virtue of their Christian or Catholic identity and practices). It is simply a reality that people-at-large can't always be in a place and a capacity to accommodate all other peoples' needs, wants, or desires at all times or sometimes even at any time. We humans have our real and undeniable limitations, hangups, shortcomings, inabilities, and so on and so on and so on. And if there is, in fact, a God that created us all (which I'm not saying here that there is or isn't), this is the way that said God apparently chose to make us. That is, He/She/it purportedly has supreme power, knowledge, wisdom, and morality purity and hence could have done otherwise and yet He/She/It apparently chose to make us mortal humans variably limited in our capacities and capabilities to exemplify the most redeeming and meritorious character attributes and behavioral choices as a way-of-life. Why . . . when said (purported) God of (purported) unlimited powers and capabilities could have done otherwise??? The unanswerable question.
I agree that my expectations were the problem . . . I was very naïve in thinking that "being a good Christian" actually MEANT something . . . that was my thinking error.
As I had mentioned once before in another thread there was a time when this cat`s innards decided to quit working. In a different era, I would have keeled over dead, but thanks to modern medicine, antibiotics, a good surgeon, I survived but not without a long hospital stay and 3 operations
During this time, my wife pulled double duty working and yaking care of the kids who were very young at the time.
The church we had been attending offered and gave no help. None.
Now I know a friend of mine and another town had emergency heart surgery and was telling me how his church brought food to his family at home ,had someone come to take his kids to and from school, and was generally helpful in his time of need.
That of course has never happened to me nor would I ever expect it to nor would I ever think that I am entitled to it. But it would be nice had these church members offered a little help to my family
Oddly enough, I got an email from the priest telling me to read certain page of the Episcopal book of common prayer about healing and that he had heard I had been sick, but offered no follow up or anything.
Odd thing is when my neighbor had to have knee surgery and go to rehab for a month I made certain that I cooked an extra meal for her husband to eat and later for both of them when I found out how bad the food in the rehab was. I was never under obligation to do this I was just raised to believe that the right thing to do is to help our fellow humans in need I used to take him to the clinic at the VA Hospital whenever he needed a ride on occasion as well. Kind of the treat others as you would want to be treated thing. Which is not unique to any religion, but always must be a personal choice.
As I had mentioned once before in another thread there was a time when this cat`s innards decided to quit working. In a different era, I would have keeled over dead, but thanks to modern medicine, antibiotics, a good surgeon, I survived but not without a long hospital stay and 3 operations
During this time, my wife pulled double duty working and yaking care of the kids who were very young at the time.
The church we had been attending offered and gave no help. None.
Now I know a friend of mine and another town had emergency heart surgery and was telling me how his church brought food to his family at home ,had someone come to take his kids to and from school, and was generally helpful in his time of need.
That of course has never happened to me nor would I ever expect it to nor would I ever think that I am entitled to it. But it would be nice had these church members offered a little help to my family
Oddly enough, I got an email from the priest telling me to read certain page of the Episcopal book of common prayer about healing and that he had heard I had been sick, but offered no follow up or anything.
Odd thing is when my neighbor had to have knee surgery and go to rehab for a month I made certain that I cooked an extra meal for her husband to eat and later for both of them when I found out how bad the food in the rehab was. I was never under obligation to do this I was just raised to believe that the right thing to do is to help our fellow humans in need I used to take him to the clinic at the VA Hospital whenever he needed a ride on occasion as well. Kind of the treat others as you would want to be treated thing. Which is not unique to any religion, but always must be a personal choice.
That's it in a nutshell.
You can't make a blanket statement that "churches" do this or don't do this or do that or don't do that. It's up to people, whether inside or outside of a church.
I had a house fire many years ago, and people from the church I attended at that time were at my mother's house where I had gone to stay the next morning with some toys for my small daughter and a check for us to get some clothing since we only had what we were wearing and the information that someone would be around in the late afternoon with a prepared meal. I also got similar help from the town PTA, which raised money to help us, as well as people I worked with.
The part of your story where the priest told you to read the BCP about healing makes me want to look him up and smack him. That is shameful.
it's impossible to speak to why these people didn't invite you over for a meal, but i don't understand how that should have been known to them as something that you needed?
Friends had dinner at my house in the course of hanging out with me and visa versa but i don't remember anyone being invited to sooth someone in need the way you are describing.
We hosted two separate girls who needed a place to live. And had anyone been hungry they would have been invited every night for dinner. Given lunch money along with me at school.
It was deeply disappointing to me and made me realize what shallow, fake Christians they all were (and probably still are).
I am not a Christian, yet I try to help others in need, as frequently as I can, and definitely when I see a need.
I’m not a Christian - so I’d rather look at the question as ‘why don’t people help other people’, and I’d imagine you would have similar answers. There is good and bad in all of us - and we all make mistakes. But as someone who does not share the same beliefs as a Christian, I wouldn’t try to question what they do either, unless it is infringing upon someone else in a harmful way. Even then, I’d just hold them to the same legal standard of anyone else (in terms of helping, or not helping, someone).
Last edited by CorporateCowboy; 02-17-2019 at 10:29 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
