Here’s a parable, but, warning: there are themes of abuse.
A father beats a son.
That son then grows up. What will he do?
If he doesn’t overcome his own assault, he will pass on his father’s abuse.
Now, consider this: the father is Christian.
Maybe a priest. Maybe a biological father. Maybe an adopted father. Maybe a spiritual father.
Maybe someone preaching authoritatively down the street.
Who will the son beat?
A parable..
“A” father.
.. crikey, kinda rigorous??
No matter, plows on. š
š
Cute. š Certainly, rigorous: but the reality is more so, on both counts.
Obv difference, “a” father .. “the” father.
Shockingly given the accepted corruption this does hold in the non believing community: the expectation that Christians are better than they so often prove to be.
As are non-believers: not so good as they claim to be.
The impact of the parable? The corruption is acknowledged. But what of the outcome of the corruption? The experience of abuse in the reverse direction, as a result?
One of my major understandings here? Neither father nor son is free, until both overcome the driving force behind the abuse. As to Christianity? Well, the abuse of the father, and the abuse of the son, don’t begin to actually address Christianity itself, or Christ.
Bit ambig, that last post. Wow. <– no that's me re reading what I wrote
š š
Christian “father”. A saviour found within the church.
Father. Not (necessarily) blood.
O right. That comment (above) referred to the “the father is Christian” reference.
I was seeing this more as a riddle than a parable, was parsing the various alternatives.
The abusive father a Christian? Was this what was meant here? Of course it could be and many times is. But this conclusion, from the perspective of other Christians, is problematical-though as realistic as it is for everyone.
And so I’m going that the father is more akin to ‘saviour’, the/a person an abused person may be in the position to meet who is able to miraculously fill in some way the hole left unoccupied by the original.
Of course if the +son+ is Christian (and here I’m meaning real) then he will figuratively/psychically beat Christ. This is, in this specific circumstance, what he, Christ, is here for and well that he is.
But reading this on the surface. Your pastor Daddy has been smashing you? Crikey I can’t imagine. I can/do certainty hear testimonies to this effect though. Not pretty. The faith is invariably shattered.
Everything the father represents is my conclusion. I’ve seen it all.
You’ve seen it all??? What have you seen?
The sordid “beauty” of beating Christ is that in such tragic circumstances you don’t beat on another human being. Amazingly, from a non-believing perspective, this is a GREAT thing wrt the faith, one as rare as hens teeth.
Downer tho, as everything has a downer, is that from such a perspective it is unable to be believed. Hence the evangelism of it can not help but provoke a/ pity/confusion (these crazy people believing in a fantasy-), and b/ envy (at the ability of such a fantasy to bring at least one good thing to an otherwise f…ed up life.
So simultaneous pity and envy? How can that be?
Common theme of the above: you can’t buy belief. You got it or you don’t.
Optimally the (Christian) son will thrash Christ, and the non-Christian one will thrash the faith.
Either way no innocent human being gets it in the neck.
Ah, that’s my whole point.
The non-Christian son will thrash the faith? Yes. But is this optimal? Certainly not! It’s not the faith that thrashed him: it was the father.
And, of course, the common outcome? The unbelieving son goes on to thrash Christians.
So, certainly, innocent human beings, and an innocent religion, gets it in the neck: the abuse is passed on.
What is the optimal outcome? For the son to see that it is the father, and not Christianity, and not Christians, that thrashed him: and to overcome the thrashing so that he doesn’t pass on the thrashing now in the reverse direction, all over different innocent people, including Christ.
It is a parable, because the physical beating is metaphorical. In reality, the beating is usually verbal.
Oh yeah: thatās the point I was searching for earlier. Envy. The point probably needs making that there can be times in which the preaching/evangelising of all this stuff, ie that there can be benefits ā and there are some, miraculously <– pov of those who donāt think there are ā accruing to those who can manage to believe these things that are +actual+ and +real+ and well open, theoretically,Ā to anyone, can be difficult to hear for some.
('open theoretically' since non-miraculous: an answer to blind rage or triggered trauma in this particular instance.)
And so envy. āI was saved from āXāā does not sound any the less marvellous just because you yourself cannot gain access to salvation from āXā. Sure it may sound ridiculous to a person who does not need this form of healing, but to those who do and who cannot manage to access it ā well there are gonna be a few problems if they come into the hearing of the preaching of it.
These folk need it. They hear people claiming access to it. They themselves cannot access it. Work it out.
Envy.
In this manner evangelism is āabusiveā becauseĀ the listener may wellĀ be driven to continual witness to the thing they need the most of but cannot obtain. This was a concluding thought ā andĀ it only applies to thoseĀ sharing the same need as the person evangelising both the salvation from their particular issue and its means.Ā
If you’re going to call an evangelist abusive for offering something to the needy the evangelist fully believes the person can indeed appropriate for themselves, then what will you call the behaviour of the antitheist who claims religion to be a public hazard? Enlightenment? š
But the dynamic you’ve described here is what I have already written through Alex, in Zeal 2: ‘I hate you, because you are everything I can never be!’ Yet he was mistaken: he could be.