Red or Blue Pill? A Challenge for Church Lifers
by Danny Bell
by Danny Bell, October 9, 2014
This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. – Morpheus.
In 1999 the cult film The Matrix1 was featured in cinemas across the world, portraying what could be an alternate reality of life as we know it. The plot deals with humanity’s being taken over by artificial intelligence that destroyed the real world and created a false simulation existing in the minds of those who were enslaved to the Matrix.2 Those who are controlled believe everything they see, do, touch and feel is real. One human city exists, however, deep underground. It is called Zion, and those who are freed from the Matrix reside in it.
Neo, the main character in the movie, is offered the choice between a red pill or blue pill. The blue pill would allow him to remain in the fabricated reality of the Matrix, living the illusion, while the red pill would lead to his escape into the real world and the truth about everything. The movie seeks to show that the pills represent choices we make between embracing painful truth or remaining in blissful ignorance.
Using the Matrix as a metaphor, I see uncanny parallels with western church culture and its relevance to Lifers3 – those who have grown up within the safety and comfort of its walls with unquestioning loyalty. The Matrix and other alternate reality films such as Pleasantville4 always follow a similar line, where people are living in a bubble but when change is brought to bear, it’s not without trauma. Lifers can have a resemblance to those who would choose the blue pill. They are born into matrix-like structures and usually express grave fears about upsetting the delicate balance already in place. Typically, they rise up and protest against new ideas that threaten their security, and these passive “nice” people can suddenly change and turn rabid on their opponents, as cracks appear in their normally benign personalities.
In the Matrix, the answer lies in taking the red pill – an antidote to become free from the system and fear of the real world. Blue pill poppers (lifers) don’t understand such freedom because they have a limited capacity to think outside their environment or empathize with anyone not of their persuasion. The red pill is painful to swallow and cuts across ambitions, career, status…..dealing coldly and frankly with anyone who takes it. It makes sense to lifers to oppose whatever threatens the environment where they are catered for in tastes, social needs and religious styles. The red pill frightens them and represents a big risk, but it is the “pearl of great price” that requires giving up everything to obtain an authentic life.
Red pill poppers, on the other hand, are a different breed and are often seen as rebellious within church communities. Many have had time outside the church in that wicked, wicked place called “the world,” and because of their experience don’t conform easily.5 They can smell freedom and know what it feels like to be totally unfettered from rules, even God’s rules. There is a distinct difference in how red pill poppers and lifers do their Christianity.
In the Matrix, though, it is not the rebellious who are of concern, but the placenta-loving hordes that have enslaved themselves to what keeps them warm and cozy in a lullaby on continuous playback. In their world of order and conformity, they are passive partakers of whatever the system feeds them, and like mindless soldier ants, they attack whatever agitates the colony to repel it.
In the history of the church, many red pill poppers have been change agents, suffering within matrix-like systems, battling danger, scorn and even death. They would argue that living in, at times, a painful reality is better than playing along in a false world of peace that delivers only temporary comfort and gratification. Their lives are not ruled by a how to win friends and influence people6 approach, but a “thus saith the Lord,” which usually means going against popular church culture.
There are many examples in scripture that describe a matrix culture. Jesus often argued with the church elite in his day over tradition vs real worship. One time, blue pill leaders questioned Jesus why the disciples were doing things differently and not washing their hands like the other conformists. Jesus’ reply was swift and cutting:
Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions – Mark 7:6-8(NIV).
Jesus nailed it in that last sentence. They were plugged into their own concocted world and failed to see the big picture. The blue pill poppers, the lifers, had become too familiar and dependent on the system of rules and teachings for their own selfish emotional fulfilment. They had worshipped the church, its buildings and its benefits instead of the One who gave them those things. They worshipped the gift and not the Giver.
Over and over Jesus tried to free religious people from this form of idolatry that enslaved and blinded people to reality and duty. In his parables he labored to bring out that – if they were not careful – the stranger, the centurion, the Samaritan, prodigal son, foreigner or even the slave….the red pill poppers (dare I say it), would go into the kingdom ahead of them. In most of the parables and the encounters Jesus had with those outside “the system,” he found greater faith, appreciation and more wisdom than among those on whom he had bestowed all of his blessings.
If you are a blue pill popper, and church life has become your god, where you regularly avoid the discomfort of plain duty, choosing to hide behind a facade of religion, then reality will bite harder in the end than if you took the red pill and were done with it. If we throw off our fears and risk all in an effort to be real and authentic with ourselves and God, we will experience a great roar of freedom in our hearts, and then, unplugged from the Matrix, join the rebellion in Zion.
1https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx-9QRDwzLw – but note, this is not available in the United States
2The Matrix was an incubating machine that the artificial intelligence created where all humans were plugged into unconscious, living perfect lives in their minds.
3 Lifers are generally those who have never left the church system. They have never rebelled or had time in the world but from cradle to grave have always been immersed and dedicated to the system that has raised them.
4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrEAfkY9ods
5There are some who come from being non-Christians that do morph into lifers in an incredibly spectacular way for reasons unexplained. These usually have so immersed themselves in church culture that it is hard to tell them from genuine lifers after conversion.
6https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People
'Jesus often argued with the church elite in his day over tradition vs real worship.'
Very interesting Danny.
I would say Jesus actually went out of His way to be offensive to others! Jesus' sayings have now lost their punch, because we are so used to them, but many of Jesus' saying would have been completely outrageous to His audience. For example, the beautitudes would have sounded completely bizarre.
Probably the best example though is when a whole bunch of disciples left, because they misunderstood Jesus' statement about eating His flesh and drinking His blood. And then there are the myriad of parables, which Jesus never quite explained to His audience – just left it hanging there in the air – so that the disciples had to ask Him about their meaning later in private.
Have you ever thought about why Jesus was so deliberately offensive to others? So far from the meek and mild way we often think of Him? Was it perhaps, as you rightly are trying to explain, to shake people out of their cliched and insular ways of thinking?
Do you think perhaps Jesus' message is that it is more important to think for yourself than know the dogmatic answers. That is the fundamental difference I see between Christianity (or rather what Christianity should be) and Judaism and Islam. Those other religions tell you what to do – Christianity tells you how to think. Unfortunately, even today, especially within the Adventist Church, many many people want to live a life being told what to do, rather than the much scarier approach of applying what Jesus taught in how to think.
Sorry, was unable to log on for about a week so delayed responses coming.
Agree wholeheartedly Steve…you are spot on in my humble opinion.
Danny,
That's a creative way of framing perhaps the greatest challenge in modern Christianity!
I praise God that he offered me a "Red Pill." My life has never been the same since. So, what are we to do with the 'lifers?' I offer a couple suggestions. First, separate from them. Form new "red pill" congregations where we who want to serve God instead of tradition can grow spiritually and thrive. That was my experience ten years ago because I found myself part of a community of people who were determined to not let traditionalism drown their relationship with God. But not everyone has the blessing of having a sufficient number around them to do that.
Second, I would suggest that we simply must out-live the 'lifers.' Unfortunately, continuing in such a situation threatens to leave a person whose faith is crying-out for revival drowning under the weight of traditionalism. It is an ugly, spiritually devastating situation.
Most of all, we need to be praying for revival. Not the "old-time revival" going back to someone's imagined way things were when Ellen White was around because even then the church had problems. But they knew they were on a path where God was taking them to something far better. We need to stay focused on discovering that better place God wants us to be before He takes us Home. We can find that place if we allow Him to strip-away our traditionalism and build a new, direct connection with us.
Correct Steve….well said.
This is an interesting treatment, Danny. And yet, somehow, it sort of doubles back on itself, as William describes what seem to be some sort of extreme tradition, if not a retreat into an ultra-radical fundamentalist mysticism.
I think I see what you are saying Joe. In my time in the adventist church – nearly 40 years, I see traditionalism gaining ground and becoming mainstream…..as someone said…..you could get a person from the 50's and they could walk into the church and be right at home…
Being a very dramatic nation (Hollywood and all) the US possesses a very "digital", on-and-off view of issues and people, especially in matters of right and wrong, good and evil. Only recently do we seem to be accepting that most people are neither "all good, or all evil" and roost somewhere "in-between" as well as on scales of abstract vs concrete thinking, sensual vs. spiritual thinking, imaginary vs science-based ideation. We're not "one or the other," or as this article suggests, born of "blue pills or red pills". I suspect we're all concentrated somewhere near a purple center, where we are very adventuring in some arenas of thought, highly inhibited and guarded in others.
The problem is that dramatically speaking, it doesn't really make sense to talk about "a million shades of purple" so for purposes of entertainment, we retain the red-vs-blue nomenclature, which tends to enhance the overstatement of a person's psychological profile. In fact the "reds" and the "blues" have so effectively enclaved themselves in separate arenas (both physical and mentally) that it's very uncomfortable (and boring!) to come out of the closet as a moderate (horrors!) Certainly a "moderate" must be a poster child for Laodicea, one who really for any number of reasons tends never to categorize him/herself as a true traditionalist or a true progressive. Let's gleefully eat "them purple pills" that encourage us to stay within the social family of faith, while fearlessly exploring a wide range of points of view. I have found that those who live this way, and raise their families this way, tend to enjoy a greater breadth of thought and imagination and speak more "world languages" (both literal and cultural) than those habituated to Adventist cloisterism. Certainly some Adventists are by nature more outgoing than others, gifted differently, but we should also recognize that standing apart from society at large exacts its spiritual toll, just as much if not more as growing up in a perverse, secular environment of world-centeredness.
We're not "one or the other," or as this article suggests, born of "blue pills or red pills. – Edwin
In scripture however Ed, there is this distiction. Light vs Darkness…..evil vs good……hot vs cold…….Jesus said you are either with me or against me and if you are not with me you are against me……..I do belive there are some grey areas but esentially in Christs world there is no fence sitting.
for purposes of entertainment, we retain the red-vs-blue nomenclature, which tends to enhance the overstatement of a person's psychological profile
Not so sure Ed. The reason I used this metaphore is I feel it exactly identifies the situation in our churches. There are those within the bubble who think by attendance and being good adventists they are saved and there are those who have had a wakeup call from Jesus and see alot of stuff ging on that the "Blue pill poppers" cannot see. Of course there will be the odd exception and I have seen this but generally, the Matrix is a good metaphor.
The problem with this analogy, Danny, isn't that it is wrong, but that it really doesn't identify or challenge anyone personally. Using "lifers" within "western church culture" as a straw man, you seem to assume, with no real evidence, that there is some group of churched people who are blindly loyal to the church, and have never really questioned the church or made the faith of their parents their own. I suspect that few Adventists or Christians would acknowledge that they fit into this category. Thus, in typical liberal fashion, your analogy serves the primary purpose of providing a moral vehicle for those who love to criticize the church, to bask in self-adulation: "We thank thee Lord that we are not as other Christians." Is it just possible that those who condescendingly sneer at benighted rubes you call "lifers" are blue pill poppers themselves?
I could, as felicitously, offer an analogy to secular elites creating ideological machines to construct a utopian collective in which humans can be made submissive and content – free from striving, war, and inequality. Distrust of freedom is common to most ideology, whether liberal or conservative.
Culture always poses the risk of encapsulation, forced conformity and rigidity. Nowhere is this more evident that in the matrices of secular universities. Whenever one encounters and embraces aspects of, or the entirety of, an alternative culture – religious or ideological – there is a heady feeling of liberation from a matrix. Rather than using the imagery and theme of the Matrix to condescendingly stereotype and condemn honest, sincere people whose commitments and beliefs offend us, wouldn't it be preferable to acknowledge that we all are seduced by the security and comfort of "The Matrix" – that we all are blue pill-poppers?
Scripture teaches us that in the real world, there is no Zion. We don't need machines and artificial intelligence to deceive us because we are all our own agents of deceit. There is God's Matrix or Satan's Matrix. Indeed, Jesus did challenge the Matrix in which the Jews of His time were living. But He didn't challenge it with open-ended philosophical inquiry, navel gazing, or Socratic dialogue. He used His life, the Jewish Scriptures and prophetic voice of the Old Testament to invite His listeners to live in a different Matrix – The Kingdom of God.
The problem with this analogy, Danny, isn't that it is wrong, but that it really doesn't identify or challenge anyone personally. Using "lifers" within "western church culture" as a straw man, you seem to assume, with no real evidence, that there is some group of churched people who are blindly loyal to the church, and have never really questioned the church or made the faith of their parents their own. – Nathan
Wow, I dont know what to say Nathan. Are you honestly saying that there is no resemblence today in churches to this analogy? In scripture it is clear that there were those who lived church life whom Jesus called "blind" and had a rabid taste for tradition over reality. Are you saying that history does not repeat and that this could never eventuate in our churches today or before the end? Jesus fortold it would happen as it happened in his day – history repeats and if we cant see this happening, I wonder if we are in the "bubble" ourselves? I would not expect that any adventists who are BPP's would see or even admit they are so – blindness is not called blindness because people can see but because they cant see.
Culture always poses the risk of encapsulation, forced conformity and rigidity. Nowhere is this more evident that in the matrices of secular universities.
So its ok for the "secular" world to experience this phenomna but not the church? Isnt that one eyed Nathan and described the very thing the article seeks to expose. The "wicked wicked world" is the problem…not us!
Rather than using the imagery and theme of the Matrix to condescendingly stereotype and condemn honest, sincere people whose commitments and beliefs offend us, wouldn't it be preferable to acknowledge that we all are seduced by the security and comfort of "The Matrix" – that we all are blue pill-poppers?
There is no condemnation in the article Nathan, merely a challenge to lifers to perhaps recognise they may be "plugged in" and blind to their true condition….the door is always open to change….maybe I didnt make that point clearly enough. I believe there are many sincere people in the adventist church but could not say that all are. I believe there are many honest people in the sda church but could not say that all are.
As you said in your last sentence: "He used His life, the Jewish Scriptures and prophetic voice of the Old Testament to invite His listeners to live in a different Matrix"……..thats the line I sought to convey too in the article. However if we delve deeper into the scripture it was not so simple as that. Jesus challenged his hearers also and used common terms and illistrations that his hearers were familiar with to "wake themn up" and realise that they were making the church (matrix), their god and not him their god. Zion was a figurative position of those who "woke up" and found the "Pearl of great price" and were determined to exchange the comfort of the matriarchal teet for the reality of salvation with all of its costs and enter the Kingdom which is here now…
Read what I said, Danny. You are responding to arguments that I didn't make as if I made them.
I wasn't trying to defend the "lifers." I was just pointing out two things: 1) I don't think anyone would see themselves as fitting within the caricature the you posit. Your challenge to "lifers" pretty much falls on deaf ears if you don't better define your target. 2) Non-lifers are as prone to popping the blue pills as lifers. Ideological and cultural bubbles abound across a broad spectrum to encapsulate every human mind and heart.
I would submit that being deeply grounded in one's faith, while no guarantee, improves the odds of finding Zion. I just don't see how a "rebellion" story somehow improves the likelihood of someone who has grown up in the church choosing the red pills. The notion that we have to rebel against the values we inherited and sow some wild oats in order to find Zion strikes me as nonsensical and unBiblical. Quite frankly, I find that "lifers" who have personal rebellion stories to spice up their testimonies or sermons are often the most fundamentalistic and rigid believers. And the "lifer" rebels who do not return are just as fundamentalistic and rigid in their non-belief. Existentially challenging all the values and beliefs one inherits and has been committed to may well be the hallmark of an extremist more than a red pill-popper.
I wasn't trying to defend the "lifers." I was just pointing out two things: 1) I don't think anyone would see themselves as fitting within the caricature the you posit. – Nathan
Ok, I t seemed like you were defending them and the church as if it should not come under scrutiny. It matters not if anyone sees what I am saying or listens but I must say it. What if all men/women in Gods church throughout history decided not to say what they felt needed to be said becuase nobody would listen? I thibk the target is pretty well defined as many see what I am saying clearly enough and some even get angry….that shows at least somethigs gettibg through. Of course there will be many who will ignore it and continue taking the blue pill – thats what happend in the movie. It still behoves me to try however just like in the movie….
Non-lifers are as prone to popping the blue pills as lifers. Ideological and cultural bubbles abound across a broad spectrum to encapsulate every human mind and heart.
Very true Nathan but while the analogy may stretch into other arena's of life…my target audience was church culture.
I just don't see how a "rebellion" story somehow improves the likelihood of someone who has grown up in the church choosing the red pills. The notion that we have to rebel against the values we inherited and sow some wild oats in order to find Zion strikes me as nonsensical and unBiblical.
Well we must be each reading a different version of scripture Nathan as that is exactly what I think the story of the Gospel is about. Its not about rebelling against good values but bad ones. Jesus exposed those in the church culture of his day who's values were selfish and ambitious…choosing to relax and enjoy the social & material comforts of a churchified lifestyle that has prestige and recognition as opposed to facing the heat that comes with deciding to live an authentic one. Sowing 'wild oats' was never a part of the article.
Quite frankly, I find that "lifers" who have personal rebellion stories to spice up their testimonies or sermons are often the most fundamentalistic and rigid believers.
Thats just it….lifers dont have rebellion stories and if they do, like I said to Chris below…….they usually flip right out and go away from God especially if this happens after adolescence. I think what you may mean are the red pill poppers which I see happening – it happened to me…….came in hot but when the honeymoon wears off reality sets in and the picture becomes clearer.
I think both Ed and Nathan have pretty well sized this one up. It categorizes people with either red or blue labels. It depends who you are against as to what label they will get. Granted, like many of us who get frustrated with governmental and church policies, we wish some things could change, and people be more important than ideologies and tradition. But putting everyone into two main categories is hardly the answer. (There were even believers among the Pharisees.) I can see discussing issues and specific incidents, but it is a bit of a puzzle to figure out what this is referring to as nothing is defined.
It categorizes people with either red or blue labels. It depends who you are against as to what label they will get. – Ella.
As mentioned above Ella, so does scripture do this. There are a myriad of themes in the bible with only two paths or two contrasting positions….I have simply folowed this model in the article.
Yes, Danny, interesting points. As others have noted, I'm not sure it is as simple as you say.
It all depends on what perch one is making their judgment from. I would consider you a blue pill popper from my perch! But then, If your analogy is pertaining to within the fish bowl – which seems to be your intent – I may not even feature.
I also don't like you suggestion that "reds" have often spent time in the world. What, to give them perspective? I have not lived in the "wicked world", yet I'm way outside the fish bowl you seem to be drawing your reds and blues from.
It is worth keeping in mind that there are perhaps other ways that one can "red pill". Study? Open-mind? Courage? Willing to follow evidence? Are these not perhaps even more honourable ways to "red pill"? What if they take one into a "real world" entirely outside the fish bowl? What if they take one to a world that is not a "wicked" world, but a world free of the god's of religion? Perhaps even freer than the imagined freedom of being a rebellious non-conforminst inside the massive fishbowl. A bowl one can only see how big it is not when outside it cognitively (not behaviourally).
It seems to me people who step outside the bowl by freeing themselves from God's laws as you describe (rebellion/denial), are never really seeing the bowl as it is – they are more likely blinded by their masked guilt such that the bowl always appear bigger – almost hauntingly so. This is why so many who depart church come back conservative if/when they do.
True freedom imho does not come by "ditching laws" etc. It comes from understanding what humanity really is. Ditching God's laws will never bring peace if one deep down believes they ought be kept. Ditching laws which one knows are not laws at all is a whole different story.
There are a whole bunch of "oughts" outside the fishbowl. One's compelled by the dignity and value of what it means to be human and to live in the context of life with other humans. Living those oughts with compassion and respect is red pill stuff.
But, that's all from my perch…
It all depends on what perch one is making their judgment from. I would consider you a blue pill popper from my perch! But then, If your analogy is pertaining to within the fish bowl – which seems to be your intent – I may not even feature. – Chris
Interesting Chris. thas why this is an opinion article…we all have them. Not sure how to answer you mate except to be frank.
I would say you are one of the ones in the Matrix in transition. You have rejected the "blue pill" culture and flipped out of the bowl (unplugged) but are now in a kind of no-mans land confused and hurting. You see Zion as part of the Matrix but you are not a red pill popper either (by your own admissions in other responses on AT). but then again maybe you tried to swallow the red pill and it went down the wrong way and you are choking on it?….joke.
Like any analogy it breaks down if we apply too much presure to it. The Matrix served my thoughts as I tried to explain the inner workings of church culture. I dont expect you to agree or disagree Chris but spiritual things are spiritually discerned and you have chosen to opt out of the process altogether. I applaud you attempt to free yourself from that which you saw as harmful but fear you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and if I may be so bold as to say that this is what I have seen in my 40yrs in the adventist church – that lifers who reject the Matrix run a much higher risk of rejecting the universeal principles on which all life is based. In other words, a very limited robotic upbringing inside the "bubble" can correlate to a massive flip out when a lifer rejects the system often resluting in them leaving God and the bible as well.
Danny,
A comment on your last point: "….risk of rejecting the universal principles on which all life is based.."
Universal? All life based? Bro, that is spoken like a true blue piller holding up the pillars! I now find no validating evidence that confirms our "sources" as having the right to such a claim.
As for a "massive flip out." Again, Perhaps finding true freedom to be human requires a massive flip out/journey from the limited, robotic world we call church. Mate, the bubble is a small fish bowl which I have discovered can only be seen in its true size from a distance. You are describing it as a flip out: totally judgmental and biased. It could equally be described as a brilliant journey of self discovery! Why not? Only because we "churchies" see everything outside our bowl as negative, evil and to be avoided. Oh God the life we miss.
Btw: Confused? Absolutely not. Hurting? Regrettful it took me so long to find what life was really about – but glad and rejoicing it did not take me longer..
I still attend church, but oh the freedom and peace of living life as a human, yes, unplugged from robotic thinking. Flipped up to higher ground..
I have not opted out of spiritual. I consider myself spiritual.
Actually, I've just purchased Sam Harris's book "Waking up.." Yet to arrive, but the title says it all imho. I would nearly go as far as saying he has become one of my favourite authors. (not his atheism) I was and am already a firm believer in the power of meditation (real meditation, not sda pretend meditation – most sda's have no idea when they use the word.)
When I learned to meditate it re-wired my brain. Incredible. powerful and life changing.
Yep, perhaps I threw the baby out with the bath water, but you should have seen it! Not worth saving. When I became a human (man) I put away childish things – with the bathwater… Thank God…
Cheers Mate
You are describing it as a flip out: totally judgmental and biased. It could equally be described as a brilliant journey of self discovery!
From your perspective I can understand why you think this but in actual fact Chris you may indeed prove my theory whether you agree with it or not. Were you a lifer? I may be wrong but I cant remember our conversations years ago. Besides..in the spirit of the topic it really isnt the place for an argument about if the bible is true or not…..My audeince in the article is not non-belivers but believers.
I still attend church, but oh the freedom and peace of living life as a human, yes, unplugged from robotic thinking. Flipped up to higher ground..I have not opted out of spiritual. I consider myself spiritual.
I am confused…higher ground?…your still in the church which u dispise? How does Chrisitne cope with your new found life without God or the bible?
Sorry mate but eastern forms of spiritualism in my experience end only up in confusion…..I fear for you Chris seriously…
Danny,
Yes, I was brought up in the fish bowl. I'm not denying your theory; I'm saying there are other ways to describe it. Positive rather than negative ones.
As I noted above re your audience, "But then, If your analogy is pertaining to within the fish bowl – which seems to be your intent – I may not even feature." And that is fine, but it does serve to highlight that by de-limiting your red and blue in this way may lead to a skewed perspective and failure to see how things really are from a wider context.
I don't despise the Church. I think it is in a bad state and that conservativism is getting a stranglehold on it. But, that same wave is driving much of the resurgent fundamentalism and tribalism fueling global tensions atm anyway, so not unique to the church.
I used to think there was hope the church could come of age, but I think we are going backwards. Not all "red pill poppers" are doing good for the church you know…!
Higher ground? Playing with an old hymn Danny, but yes, I feel like I've woken up and see the world through whole new eyes.
Danny, pray tell, where did I mention eastern forms of spiritualism? Again, you're speaking like a dyed in the wool SDA and cannot see anything outside that realm for what it is or may be. Everything is evil to you. Don't judge those outside the bowl by some of your activities and experiences while you were "outside" the bowl. (that is not to get personal; you have talked about them yourself in your blogs).
As I noted above, imho those outside the bowl because of rebellion, experimenation etc etc, are not outside in the sense that they can see it from a distance. Rather, its presence haunts them. When or if they return, they are no better qualified to see it for what it is than the lifers.
The power of perspective imho belongs to those who step outside based on carefull analysis of every possible angle of the Christian and Biblical claims. Study, questions, honesty, courage. That is a whole different world to teenage flings in the "World".
Fear not for me Danny. Fear for your church that it may well be dragged back a century or two and become totally irrelevant to the world. I read Ryan Bell's comment recently that he thinks liberal elements in the church are wasting their time. Red pillers if you like. Courageous, but futile. The failure of efforts to bring this church out of its past: That we should fear, because I suspect it is a reality.
The positives I have found since leaving the "fish bowl filled with robots" are too many to count and utterly amazing. But the separation took some time. It was painful. But, oh, how thankful I am that I endured the pain of having it all ripped-away from me! The transition takes time. It isn't like flipping a light switch.
Danny,
Yes, I was brought up in the fish bowl. I'm not denying your theory; I'm saying there are other ways to describe it. Positive rather than negative ones.
As I noted above re your audience, "But then, If your analogy is pertaining to within the fish bowl – which seems to be your intent – I may not even feature." And that is fine, but it does serve to highlight that by de-limiting your red and blue in this way may lead to a skewed perspective and failure to see how things really are from a wider context.
I don't despise the Church. I think it is in a bad state and that conservativism is getting a stranglehold on it. But, that same wave is driving much of the resurgent fundamentalism and tribalism fueling global tensions atm anyway, so not unique to the church.
I used to think there was hope the church could come of age, but I think we are going backwards. Not all "red pill poppers" are doing good for the church you know…!
Higher ground? Playing with an old hymn Danny, but yes, I feel like I've woken up and see the world through whole new eyes.
Danny, pray tell, where did I mention eastern forms of spiritualism? Again, you're speaking like a dyed in the wool SDA and cannot see anything outside that realm for what it is or may be. Everything is evil to you. Don't judge those outside the bowl by some of your activities and experiences while you were "outside" the bowl. (that is not to get personal; you have talked about them yourself in your blogs).
As I noted above, imho those outside the bowl because of rebellion, experimenation etc etc, are not outside in the sense that they can see it from a distance. Rather, its presence haunts them. When or if they return, they are no better qualified to see it for what it is than the lifers.
The power of perspective imho belongs to those who step outside based on carefull analysis of every possible angle of the Christian and Biblical claims. Study, questions, honesty, courage. That is a whole different world to teenage flings in the "World".
Fear not for me Danny. Fear for your church that it may well be dragged back a century or two and become totally irrelevant to the world. I read Ryan Bell's comment recently that he thinks liberal elements in the church are wasting their time. Red pillers if you like. Courageous, but futile. The failure of efforts to bring this church out of its past: That we should fear, because I suspect it is a reality.
Yes, I was brought up in the fish bowl. I'm not denying your theory; I'm saying there are other ways to describe it. Positive rather than negative ones.
I think I did describe it in a positive way Chris. Being unplugged if I am a blue pill popper is a positive move towards being a red piller and heading to Zion…..thats better than being plugged into a system and being a robot as you describe.
pray tell, where did I mention eastern forms of spiritualism? Again, you're speaking like a dyed in the wool SDA and cannot see anything outside that realm for what it is or may be.
The book you mentioned Chris and its author is littered with it. He studied these ancient forms and says:
For beginners, I always recommend a technique called vipassana (Pali, “insight”), which comes from the oldest tradition of Buddhism, the Theravada. The advantage of vipassana is that it can be taught in an entirely secular way. Experts in this practice generally acquire their training in a Buddhist context, of course—and most retreat centers in the U.S. and Europe still teach its associated Buddhist philosophy. Nevertheless, this method of introspection can be brought within any secular or scientific context without embarrassment. The same cannot be said for most other forms of “spiritual” instruction.
I am not going to deviate any further from the topic as I feel this will detract from the conversation here with those who it relates to…..your issues run deep and I think need a separate inquiry/article all together….
Danny,
I won't labor the other points we've been speaking on, but with regard to your blog and the first points you make in the reply above. Note this from your blog, I will put in brackets what I'm trying to get over to you:
"In the Matrix, the answer lies in taking the red pill – an antidote to become free from the system and fear of the real world. [Fear of the Real world? Yet here you are telling me how evil the world I'm in is. The world viewed through non-religious eyes is possibly the REAL world Danny. You call meditation spiritualism. You condemn Sam's words even though he speaks of science and secular uses of techniques!]. Blue pill poppers (lifers) don’t understand such freedom because they have a limited capacity to think outside their environment or empathize with anyone not of their persuasion.[I am saying that is YOU. Your judgmental attitude to that "outside" your churchy view supports this] The red pill is painful to swallow and cuts across ambitions, career, status…..dealing coldly and frankly with anyone who takes it.[yes, but you are limiting that "dealing" to changes in the shape of religion, not changes that maybe should go beyond it]. It makes sense to lifers to oppose whatever threatens the environment where they are catered for in tastes, social needs and religious styles. [precisely as you oppose me] The red pill frightens them and represents a big risk, but it is the “pearl of great price” that requires giving up everything to obtain an authentic life.[and I'm saying, perhaps that authentic life is beyond the point where you are comfortable – outside the fish bowl – even outside zionistic thinking. If I were telling you it is outside Mecca you would have no issue.]
Red pill poppers, on the other hand, are a different breed and are often seen as rebellious within church communities. Many have had time outside the church in that wicked, wicked place called “the world,” and because of their experience don’t conform easily.5 [wicked, wicked… world. No it is not.] They can smell freedom and know what it feels like to be totally unfettered from rules, even God’s rules.[Freedom? Is your only understanding of "freedom" rebellion?! There is a whole different freedom. The freedom of understanding what it means to be human without the confusion of any religious persuasion or bs] There is a distinct difference in how red pill poppers and lifers do their Christianity.
In the Matrix, though, [It is here I noted first up – you're not talking to folks like me – but my point is: you should be. Otherwise your blog is skewed] it is not the rebellious who are of concern, but the placenta-loving hordes that have enslaved themselves to what keeps them warm and cozy in a lullaby on continuous playback. In their world of order and conformity, [from where I stand Danny, that is YOU, from where you stand – it is "others"] they are passive partakers of whatever the system feeds them, and like mindless soldier ants, they attack whatever agitates the colony to repel it. [Your "fear" for me, and your response – let's see, defending the colony?]"
Those bracketed points are what I'm trying to say about your blog.
I look back on times I though I understood the world, and realize I was blind. I may do the same from the future about this moment too, but I'm open to that possibility and will follow where facts lead.
Danny,
I just have to ask you. That quote from Sam's book. Do you have the book, or it that just gathered from some website picking bits out of the book to criticize?
Meditation is an excellent tool to improve the person. Removed it from the BS present in some of those religions, as Sam does and there is nothing negative about it. There is equally plenty of BS in other religions too – including our own.
Aplogies for the typo…my name is not meant to be at the top of your coment Chris.
The pill we all need most is the Jesus Pill. This applies equally to those taking Red, Blue or any other color pills. The Matrix was about demonic forms of control. We can each choose whether to be controlled by demons or by the Spirit of God.
Demons?
Yes demons Chris….they are in the Bible…
So they are… I just grabbed a Bible from my bookshelf and opened it… and one jumped out at me!
Some beileve only in God.
Some believe only in demons.
Some believe in both.
Some believe only in themselves.
Some believe in none of the above.
Some believe in nothing whatsoever.
The demons in The Matrix were artificial intelligences presumably created by humans, that decided to take-over control of their creators.
The demons in the Bible were superior beings created by the Godhead, that decided to take-over control of their creators.
One can speculate regarding the origins and agendas of the demons in one's own mind.
Among many other things, Jesus came to free us from whatever demons inhabit our own selves. Admittedly a very challenging endeavor.
I have heard it said that there are only two kinds of people. Those who think there are
only two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Kinds of people Joe….no there are many kinds of people but there may be only two outcomes for people……red or blue….you choose….
Let's all remember that The Matrix is literally fictional. It's just a story emergent from human imagination.
One wonders to what extent even scriptural stories about demons and ghosts and spirits might be fictional figments of human imagination. Perhaps they are the "demons" in our own "minds."
Even if you are paranoid, there are are actually times when someone really IS out to do you in 8-(.
Back in my early years as a writer a friend who was a writer/producer in the motion picture industry shared an insight with me about writing stories: "Fiction must have enough basis in fact to make it believable and the wildest pieces of fiction ever put on film are far more factual than most people realize."
True Bill. Just look at the old science fiction moveis which largely are a reality now. The Matrix is just a vehicle to illustrate a point but it obviously has strck a nerve with some so this gives me hope….
William, I think your friend has something there. The Matrix reminded me of many elaborate
dreams that I actually experienced. They were realistic, and were likely based on something I had
sensed or thought about.
Jim, yeas, I have sometimes said, "the whole world hates a paranoid."
Maybe you are still in it Joe? 🙂
Maybe, Danny. Are we together as characters in the same fantastic dream? ;}
Joe,
If it's all a dream, it has this persistent habit of continually invading my reality in amazing ways. I told you in another thread about my Angel Team project his past Sunday. In the e-mail report that I sent to the church and a few friends, I mentioned about the estimated cost of flooring to finish the repair job. My brother relayed that to some friends at his church and yesterday I got an e-mail from one of them asking where to send a check. The substantive ways God keeps anwering my prayers puts a severe strain on any claim about illusion.
Instead of using the term "illusion" I think it would be better t use the term "deception" because the Bible tells us Satan is seeking to deceive us into doubting and not believing God. Does our experience draw us closer to God? Or, does it lead us to believe things that are contrary to the character of God?
By the way, if following God is a dream, it really is fantastic! Amazing! Awesome!
"If we are out of our mind, it is for the sake of God. If we are in our right mind it is for you." (2 Corinthians 5:13)
Danny: The article is, after all, opinion, and the discussion a lively and good. Commendations, my Brother! Just wanted to add to the discussion….no offense given, I hope…..
None taken……
William,
If you do good and constructive things that address peoples' needs, I'm fine with that,
regardless of why you do it or why you think you do it. Solving problems is good.
As I have made clear elsewhere, I do believe we exist in reality. I do not feel that
either you or I are somehow lost in a fantastic dream.
Am aware and concerned about people doing even constructive things to accomplish
devious purposes. Some radical terroristic groups use such methods. I'm afraid some
missionary programs do too.
Doing good for the sake of doing the right thing and helping others is just fine with
me. Doing so as part of a prosylitizing process? Not quite so much…. So, great, brother.
Go forth and do good, reflecting the character of Jesus. That's true Christianity, I think.
And, cool! It is also attractive, if one does not talk about it too much. (Here among friends
is okay, of course)
I'm not sure how you're going to separate the doing good things to help others and drawing them to God because the two go hand-in-glove. When you do things to help others, they want to know what motivates you. They ask questions about the God you've come to know because they want to know Him better. One leads directly to the other. The only way I know to keep that from happening is to not love them in the first place. But that isn't what God wants us to do. He wants us to love others so they will be drawn into His Kingdom.
It's pretty interesting to see how folks seem to have a really good idea of who's in and who's out. Of course, all the enlightened readers on the website know they're red pill-poppers.
Personally, I have no desire to live in a metaphor , or figure out what elements of the metaphor I can apply to myself or others. The imagery strikes me as rather gnostic, and, like most metaphors, can easily be taken too far and turned on itself. Perhaps the best story in the Bible of red pill-poppers, who escaped the matrix, is is found in Genesis 3, the story of The Fall. At least that's what they honestly believed. Wherever we find ourselves in life, our capacity for self-deception based on emotional attachments is ever present.
Interesting point Nathan.
I have no desire to live in a metaphor either Nathan but despite this desire many do. Yes all metaphors can be taken too far and break down when there is too much made of them but the similarities as I said were uncanny.
I know alot of ex-sda intelligensia and there is one common thread among them I see, despite their vehement denial of the faith. I see that they are mostly still more adventist than me. A freind of mine dropped an F bomb in their prescence once and this rattled them. One or two chastised him for it…….? I didnt care either way (swearing doesnt bother me), and I am supposed to be the "closed minded" one and the adventist caught up in shalts and shalt nots?
Not sure I follow, Danny. What does taking offense at vulgar language have to do with being Adventist or close-minded? Are good manners a hallmark of blue pill-poppers? I always cringe when I hear profanity. Apart from their degraded, degrading quality, profanity and coarse expressions, like poor grammar and syntax, reflect badly on the intelligence, maturity, and vocabulary of the speaker. What's not to be offended? Could the Matrix have inured you to what should be offensive?
Define vulgar language Nathan?
In some older versions of the english bible the words "shit" and "piss" appear several times spoken by God. Language is transient and fleeting in its changes….its cultural……in one country you may be offensive and in another the same speech/words are not. To be hung up on the cultutral taboo's of language and judge someone who "swears" is to really relegate yourself to that class of people who are nit picky and quaint…more blue than red….there are bigger issues at stake than the odd F bomb….
You are really taking the metaphor over the edge now, Danny. It was you who stretched your metaphor, after conceding that metaphors can be taken too far, by implying that those who take offense at swearing are displaying a blue pill-popper mentality. Now, when I suggest that culture, refinement, and good manners do matter – that some elements of our own culture should matter to us – you conclude that I am"hung up" on cultural taboos and being "nit picky" – that I am "more blue than red."
What you laughably overlook is your own "hang ups" and "nit-pickiness" evident in your smug insouciance toward swearing, and your knowing characterization of my attitude toward coarse, rude, tasteless speech as more blue than red. Can't one express negative opinions about behavior without being hung up and nit-picky, Danny? Are you the arbitor of such issues. Or do you consult with your fellow red-pill, non-judgmental Zion dwellers to determine what judgments are and are not reasonable?
Don't you see the irony in your relegation to the Matrix of those who differ with your opinions about about legitimate cultural standards? They are judgmental, but you are not. You've gone from a dubious assertion – that those who grow up in the church system, don't really rebel (whatever that means), and remain committed to that system are blue pill-poppers – to the ridiculous assertion that those who are offended by swearing are blue pill-poppers. You not only appear to be imprisoned in an intellectual bubble, but you've gotten lost in a metaphor for that bubble.
Perhaps the best story in the Bible of red pill-poppers, who escaped the matrix, is is found in Genesis 3, the story of The Fall. At least that's what they honestly believed.
Nathan…when you say this…(and I may be wrong), it seems to me you have a problem with the Genesis story? Can I ask if you are still a believer in the bible?….this is an honest question…no judgement implied…..it just seems like a few who hang out here are not….
Yes. I wholeheartedly embrace the story of The Fall as God's word. My reference to that story as an example of liberation from the Matrix was completely tongue-in-cheek. Elysian Adam and Eve lived within a system of trust and obedience where their "belief system" forbade them to explore certain options within the bounds of the world they had been created to inhabit. To use your metaphor, they were commanded to remain attached to the placenta. They lived in a bubble. The serpent essentially taunted them with the reality that they were "Lifers." He essentially told them that they should not be afraid of change; that they should not be afraid of upsetting the delicate balance of Eden; that they should not be afraid of ideas which threatened their security.
When we are born again, we become "lifers" in a very real sense. I am bothered by the notion that we can't enter into committed covenant relationship with God and with the faith community in which we were raised without leaving or rebelling. That sort of seems to be your premise – that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a Lifer to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
I think the Bible tells us that there are many things which promise freedom and enlightenment that we should be afraid of. You, Danny, seem to posit some sort of ideal where we need to challenge authority for its own sake; where we need to repudiate traditional moral norms; where we need to throw out the baby of religious commitment with the bathwater of institutionalism. I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. I think you're overgeneralizing and trying to put people in camps based upon whether you identify their journey as "authentic."
Nathan,
There are degrees of "leaving the church" with definitions that are heavily influenced by a person's point of view. Ten years ago I was part of an uprising in my local church where a group of us found ourselves dying spiritually and our salvation preventing that was the opportunity to establish a new congregation with a spiritual culture deliberately structured to promote the fellowship, spiritual growth and ministries that we were lacking. What should have been a harmonious effort to plant a new congregation turned into a traumatic church split for the old church, in part because 56% of the church's tithe base and 80% of the giving to offerings went with us. I was reminded in dramatic fashion just a few months ago of the bitterness that remains in that church over our departure and how some of them speak of us as being "Adventist in name only." Yet we are one of the very few growing English-speaking churches in our conference. Our attendance typically exceeds 20% visitors, most of them from area SDA churches who are coming to see if we will live-up to our reputation as a loving and nuturing church. As for the church from which we escaped to find spiritual survival, their pastor recently retired and the infighting he managed to keep suppressed has erupted, triggering another wave of "escapees."
I have heard many experiences like yours, William. It is really tragic when members of one congregation can't leave to form another faith community with the blessings and Godspeed of the community they are leaving. What unites us in our core common beliefs and commitments as Christians is so much more important than the distinctive beliefs and practices to which God calls individual faith communities.
It is sad when we have to compare and judge the relative maturity or enlightenment of those who claim to have found freedom in challenging, trying to reform, and/or leaving the church in which they were reared against the maturity and enlightenment of those who find freedom in deepening the commitments and maintaining the ties of their youth. Plenty of folks in each group can easily get trapped in a Matrix at any point in life.
William,
Once your group escaped the control of the "parental unit" then those controlling "parents" had to exercise their need to control on each other. Be glad for what you did and don't look back.
When you find yourself mired down in a dysfunctional family sometimes the best thing to do is to move on. Fortunately for you and me and many others, we have been able to move-on without leaving the Adventist church. Others have felt it necessary to move farther away.
A good question may be whether they chose to leave, or whether they were driven out. I fear too many times the behaviors of the "saints" makes it the latter.
Bill has it…..the Matrix can be used in a variety of ways for escape into a better reality….
You are really taking the metaphor over the edge now, Danny. It was you who stretched your metaphor, after conceding that metaphors can be taken too far, by implying that those who take offense at swearing are displaying a blue pill-popper mentality
I dont think so Nathan. The traditionalists generally inhabt the BPP camp and are well known for their scruples over minor sins like swearing and dress codes (or etiquette type values as you mention). I dont say these are not important but on the scale of sins they rank poorly with me. Sins of hypocrisy and deliberately going out of ones way to do damage outrank them by far. All I am saying is that this side of adventism (or tea party christianity), is something that those who leave the church seem to still carry with them….after all……these "good morals" didnt start with denyers of the faith but have their origins in biblical christianity….even though the balance has been gone in todays churchy culture.
Yes its my opinion Nathan…thats why its under the heading "Opinion"….
You have neglected the weightier matters of the law. These you ought to have done and not left the others undone.
I cannot imagine Jesus offending others with crude language. During His sham trials He uttered not a word. Even when He was being tortued His prayer was Father forgive them. Meanwhile the malefactors were cursing.
Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
I am not saying swearing is wrong or right……just assigning it a value amidst other more overwhelming sins…….its ok to drink tea and coffee but not to swear….really?
Danny, I'm glad to see you aren't saying that swearing, apparel, and other cultural mores should be of no importance. You have conceded my point. I fully agree with you about priorities. But I don't see how it follows, from the fact that some who leave Christianity don't reject every single cultural norm and value shared by churchy folks, that they are therefore BPPs. That makes no sense.
Where we strongly disagree, I suspect, is in the assessment that the BPP camp is disproportionately populated with those who hold to traditional values and behavioral norms. There are plenty of libertines in the BPP camp as well as legalists. And in my view, non-traditionalist neolegalism and puritanism thrive in the BPP camp. The desire to control others, judge others, and extend one's sphere of influence is not confined to traditionalists or churchy culture. It's human nature. Just look at the moralistic rhetoric fueling the illiberal regulatory state and university campuses which can hardly be described as churchy or traditional.
I think you might be right Nathan…..I see the percentages as the majority of church goers in the bubble….even those who think they are freedom thinkers are still uncannily trapped by adventist thinking……..if you met them in the street after they had left the church and no longer belive they still frighningly resemble adventists…..so much for their "break out"…..
It is most difficult for me to ignore the culture of Christians good taste in speech usage. There isn't a need for self expression to be coarse, vulgar, and in exceedingly poor taste. Gutter language is unacceptable for one cleansed in the blood of Christ Jesus. i am no prude, but cringe when one uses coarse language. Would you use it in sharing your faith before the congregation while sermonizing??
Maybe gutter drinking shpuld be added to that list Earl…..tea coffee anyone?
Danny, using coarse language is not a sign of good taste in any denominal church setting, or before children.It isn't maybe either or, coffee tea. It is usually a cultural phenomenom. i recall a former neighbor of mine, He was a Sr. Exec of GM/CANADA. The sky was blue with his verbiage. Asking around, i found this was par for the course of GM culture.
As i said, i am no prude, i drink coffee, the occasional tea, 2 ounces of red wine each day, and the occasional beef and chicken. Speech eloquence however, i believe is a sign of good taste in all circles of professionalism and of the educated.
I see things differently Earl.
For me course language is made too much of……its on a par with other behaviours that are way down the bottom of list of offenses in christian culture….
I dont get offended easily and have learned that swearing changes with the times…..language changes but peoples attitudes dont, like hypocrisy which is rife in the Adventist church….
How hypocritical that we openly condemn someone for the use of fowl language in a room and then go back to sipping our drug of choice in front of our children….what does that teach them?
….not justifying swearing but if we are measuring the damage of thsoe two behaviours…then I think tea and coffee drinking wins hands down in terms of damage done to our health and souls…..
Earl, I agree:
"Speech eloquence .. is a sign of good taste in all circles of professionalism and of the educated."
Danny, I think the problem here is that you are measuring this language issue through the eyes of the "Christian culture" (matrix) again. The moment we employ that dirty little concept of sin and focus on listing behaviours and categorizing them as you have done, we are in deep trouble. Whether by intent or not, I think Earl has taken it outside that little bowl: professionalism and educated!
Because you are so intent on measuring and comparing behaviours, you are blinded to the bigger picture. Respectability, and things like Earl has noted are a wider context than you're viewing.
The hypocrisy you observe is nothing more than a perennial by product of behaviour focused theology and the reality of human nature. Measure things by behaviour and of course you are going to get hypocrisy. You won't solve that by criticizing it. You will solve it by confronting behavioiur focussed theology.
Acceptance of ones self for and as what we are is the first step to removing the need for hypocrisy. Seeing behaviour as either constructive or destructive gives a whole different perspective on fowl language. So too your cup of coffee illustration. It is just a cup of coffee Danny. There may be a small health question regarding it, but that's all. It shouldn't be a big deal in "front of the kids" or not. It only becomes such because of this behaviour focus and categorizing of actions on a sin scale!
There is, or course, an interesting psychology behind the human use of the "expletive", but that's another story.
As I said before Chris, we are arguing on two very different plains and will never agree.
Your argument is one of morality which comes from christian principles. In a world that made itself without God there are no moral absolutes..its survival of the fittest. So your argument of human decency goes out the window – who said its wrong to cuss? Society? Let me tell you if societie's norms are your guide then you need to re-look at history and what some societies have done in the name of morality or what is best for the community.
Thats why I say those who have flipped out of the bowl and who go into full denial of everything biblical show many signs of still being adventist. If your someone who denies biblical Christianity and yet applogises for your "p's" and "q's", then you are bound by rules – the very thing you protest against.
Danny,
I suspect you are wrong in almost every one of those assertions.
Morality comes from Christian principles!
NO.
Go back through the evolution of religions over the millennia. The vast array of forms, beliefs and attitudes they have taken tells you they are all the invention of man. That evolution coupled with your "survival of the fittest" has seen an evolution of human society. The concepts of morality which now stand within human culture have been forged through the fires of history. Sometimes religions have produced an insight of improved morality – too often they have dragged their feet and society has dragged them to the better…
Yes, Danny, take a look back at history and see what and how some of the things that contribute to our better society now have been forged. Sometimes through religion, sometimes in spite of it!
(Even a Meerkat knows what contributes to the good and wellbeing of a colony of meerkats – and he has no book.)
To borrow a concept from Sam Harris's latest book:
While morality is usually interpreted through the lens of one or another religious doctrine, we know that this is a mistake. Nothing that a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu can tell us about morality constitutes evidence in support of their claim to be its source, because their moralities are often incompatible and conflicting with one another. A deeper principle must be at work. (who was the source of morality before the Christian one you lay claim to? Zeus? Ra? Yahweh? Baal? Take you pick!)
The human cognition and sense of what contributes to goodness and wellbeing runs deeper than religion. Religion has been a common tool in offering or imposing certain moralities on society, but it is only religious arrogance that assumes it is the best. Even more so when one or another tries to tell society that theirs is the best.
You note at the end:
"If your someone who denies biblical Christianity and yet appologizes for your "p's" and "q's", then you are bound by rules – the very thing you protest against."
No Danny. I respect what it means to be human and the sense of good/bad/respectable/crude/ etc etc that runs deeper in the human psyche than religion and can contribute the the wellbeing of the society I am a part of.
Sadly, too many who have bought into their chosen religion's definitions of what is good and bad can become insensitive to their own inner human sense of what is good and bad. When such people rebel, or perhaps try to become RPP, they toss out things they think were holding them back and represent "freedom". eg their "p's" and "q's". They are so out of tune with their own inner sense of good/bad that they don't see they have become a spectacle to others! Even worse when they get hung up over a cup of coffee and the like!
Link: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/chapter-one
Another point here, that illustrates how much Danny judges from within a matrix, is the silly notion that those who drink coffee in front of their children are hypocritical if they discipline their kids for cursing or using coarse, vulgar language. Do you really think, Danny, that people who drink alcohol responsibly, consume coffee, or take prescription anti-depressants, are therefore disqualified from negatively judging bad manners – or is that only true if you have an Adventist background and disapprove of swearing?
I have five children and they each have spouses. Some of them drink alcoholic beverages and "unclean" meat. Some are quite conservative Adventists. They all drink coffee. And they all share an aversion to profanity.
The hypocrisy meter you have retained for life in Zion is very pre-loaded with SDA value judgments. As I've reminded you before – to no avail – it's only hypocrisy if I profess to believe in something that I ignore in practice. Just because I am an Adventist who is offended by swearing doesn't mean I am a hypocrite if I sip coffee – or even if I drink alcohol – with a clear conscience. I guess it only makes me a BPP.
I have five children and they each have spouses. Some of them drink alcoholic beverages and "unclean" meat. Some are quite conservative Adventists. They all drink coffee. And they all share an aversion to profanity.
Interesting Nathan…..thats how I see many who have left the adventist faith……they left the "rules" behind but still show the ingrained culture of adventism. There are non-christians who are very moral and have a "language etiquette" as you say, but these dont realise that they actually owe their "stand" to christian influence……it certainly doesnt come from evolutionary thought which is survival of the fittest….the biggest, stronges and loudest win…..can you imagine a bunch of cavemen sitting around after killing another tribe saying "hey Corg, please dont swear around me, it upsets my appetite"……..really?
However…there are just as many if not more than a majority of normal humans (non-christians/evolutionists/athiests), who regularly engage in cussing and use it as every day language. These people I would say are more true to their belief system than ex-christians who still follow scruples about language. The non-belivers have one rule not two sets of rules.
As I have suggested to Chris above, those who think they have thrown out adventism usually are very moral…overtly so…(its painfully noticable that they are adventists) abiding by maxims that smack of adventist culture and not their new found religion.
Let me talk from "outside" the bubble. Those who wish to apply moral maxims on isues like swearing and yet take drugs (be they prescription or other), are being double minded. You cant rail against your son when you find pot in his schoolbag and then later go and take your prescribed medication for stress – thats hypocritical within or outsdide any matrix. Likewise you cant chastise your child for swearing (and they probably know more swear words than you from school), and then turn around and inject by mouth a cocktail of substances that harm your body. Children learn form what the adults do and they will imitate when they are of age……if its not harmful…then why dont you feed yoru kids coffee when they are young? Lets not even call these behaviors (swearing, taking harmful substances), "sin" if you like, (which I never did anyway), but just plain silly things we do.
One issues from the mouth (which you deem not "polite" or "harmful" to ones reputation), and the other is taken into the mouth which is shown also to be harmful. I am not judging anyone who does these things (as I said before not big on my scale of morality), just pointing out an inconsistency with those who leave adventism (or think they have left), when they still abide by the moral codes of adventism…a bit silly really….
I know I'm not going to persuade you to change your notion of what constitutes hypocrisy. If you want to equate recreational pot use by a teenager with an adult taking prescribed medication for a medical condition, or if you want to equate cursing with drinking a glass of wine, you're pretty much beyond the reach of my reasoning abilities on that issue. I am free from all of those "vices." Nevertheless, I see the moral differences among them as not only self-evident, but far clearer than the similarities.
However, I would like to think that you are not so encapsulated as to think that beauty, nobility, grace, and class are the junk DNA of Adventism, Christianity, or even religion in general. Each of those values comes with built-in "shalts" and "shalt nots." That doesn't make them Adventist or religious. I avert my eyes in disgust when I see obese girls parading around shopping centers in short tight skirts. Is that because of my Adventist DNA? I am not making a moral judgment about their characters. I am making an aesthetic judgment about their taste in attire.
When the Chinese wanted to infuse their music culture with the best of the West, they invited Isaac Stern, not Alice Cooper. I suspect Cooper would not have been permitted to perform in China in the late '70's, not because the Chinese had religious hang-ups, but because they knew that culture counts, and if you want to promote and preserve that which ennobles and uplifts the human spirit, you must say no to that which is coarse, vulgar, and degrading. Religious "moral maxims," as you call them, Danny, are not necessary to recognize that reality.
Danny, you confuse high culture with religion. They are not the same. High culture has, throughout the history of humankind, served to educate, channel, and shape our emotions to their highest form. Neither Adventists nor other religious people were alone in deploring the repudiation of culture and authority that was put on steroids in the '60's. It was mediated by largely successful shock therapy attempts to normalize the coarse, vulgar, and barbaric – in entertainment, art, music, literature, and language.
You have fallen prey to the canards that fuel cultural repudiation and the rejection of all cultural sources of moral authority, chief among which is the conviction that traditional notions of truth, beauty and goodness are nothing but a construct of religious sentiments. But before ascribing to Adventist DNA an aversion to swearing, you might want to consider the words of that "stalwart Adventist," Leon Trotsky, published by Pravda in 1923 under the title The Stuggle for Cultured Speech: "Abusive language and swearing are a legacy of slavery, humiliation, and disrespect for human dignity – one's own and that of other people…The struggle against 'bad language' is a condition of intellectual culture, just as the fight against filth and vermin is a condition of physical culture."