Love, Heaven, individualism vs. 'community'-ism, and our rights or abilities to reject such things

[St.Roymond]

@knor

This Christian worldview is quite far from the individualism that rules in the western societies. I do not support the ‘communist’-type collective thinking in some Asian societies but I acknowledge that the Asian viewpoint may sometimes be closer to the original teaching of Christianity than the individualistic worldview of the western societies

This is why the idea that an entire household could be baptized on the decision of the patriarch ruffles Western feathers. To us such things are “obviously” individual decisions, yet it fits with the Old Testament.

@Apistos

It emerged from the Reformation.

Individualism? Nah, it goes back to the Renaissance; roots go back to Augustine.

[Kendel]

Myron Tumer called this “pseudochoice” in Word Perfect.

[knor (Kai)]

@St.Roymond

This is why the idea that an entire household could be baptized on the decision of the patriarch ruffles Western feathers.

The practices of baptism in the early church varied and the practice you described represented one extreme end/interpretation - it even lead to cases where the faith of the ruler was interpreted as the faith of every citizen in the kingdom. When the ruler became a Christian and was baptized, it was interpreted that all citizens became Christians and were baptized, no matter did they want it or not.

Anyway, what is true is that baptism was a community matter. Baptism was the step where the person became fully a member of the community of believers (the ‘body of Christ’). That shaped the identity in a way that was far from individualism - at least if the person baptized was a believer.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@St.Roymond

This is why the idea that an entire household could be baptized on the decision of the patriarch ruffles Western feathers. To us such things are “obviously” individual decisions, yet it fits with the Old Testament.

@knor

When the ruler became a Christian and was baptized, it was interpreted that all citizens became Christians and were baptized, no matter did they want it or not.

Very old testament indeed. Also very old testament (and new!) was the notion that a community (even a nation!) could be “uncircumcised in heart” even though they (the patriarchs anyway) bore the outward sign of circumcision literally. Our marks of community membership (whether they be baptism now or circumcision then) still remain outward markers only. Apparently it’s what’s going on in the heart that counts - both then and now. The more a leader does something, presuming that all the led are with him, the less he knows about what the actual “buy-in” is of the so-led. And the more problems he is likely to have. Nobody is more ignorant about the heart state of a community than the iron-fisted leader whom everyone will only tells the things they think he wants to hear. The same goes for national level autocrats and kings who remain vastly ignorant of the actual state of their own domain because they don’t welcome any unpleasant truth. The last kind of person you want making important decisions for your nation is someone who fancies himself a king or dictator. Something that certain authoritarianism enthusiasts will continue to be learning the hard way here in the U.S.

[Vinnie]

@T_aquaticus

One of scenes in Pluribus that made me laugh is when the main character claimed she wanted to go to the store to get her own food because she was “independent”. When she arrived at the store it was completely empty. When she asked for her store to be fixed, a bunch of semis and people rolled in and restocked the grocery store for her. I thought this was a great example of how Westerners like us can be unaware of how interdependent we actually are.

This reminded me of a thread someone made on an off topic forum a LONG time ago asking what all our knowledge would do for us if we were transported back in time 10,000 years. Very little of it would help us because we wouldn’t even have any tools or any materials to implement and build stuff. This kind of ties into “it takes a village” and what you mentioned.

@St.Roymond

This is why the idea that an entire household could be baptized on the decision of the patriarch ruffles Western feathers.

Non-Catholic feathers. Household baptisms are classic examples cited justifying infant baptism along with the connections between baptism and circumcision. Baptism and circumcision both seem pretty relevant to the issue of individualism vs collectivism.

Vinnie

[St.Roymond]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

Nobody is more ignorant about the heart state of a community than the iron-fisted leader whom everyone will only tells the things they think he wants to hear.

A Roman Catholic priest once commented to me on this matter, saying that confession is a compact between priest and parishioner to say things that neither wants to hear.

[knor (Kai)]

@Vinnie

This reminded me of a thread someone made on an off topic forum a LONG time ago asking what all our knowledge would do for us if we were transported back in time 10,000 years. Very little of it would help us because we wouldn’t even have any tools or any materials to implement and build stuff. This kind of ties into “it takes a village” and what you mentioned.

The history of humanity suggests that humans can only survive if they are part of a network of thousands(?) of humans. If a small group became isolated, it disappeared within a few generations. It is partly a genetic issue (inbreeding) but also that humans need cooperation and trade to get everything needed for long-term survival in harsh conditions.

Analyses of ancient DNA have shown that many groups did not leave any traces into the populations that came after them. The ancient European hunter-gatherers are one example (disappeared, at least mainly), the same might be true for the first humans in North America.
These were humans that had learned to live in the prevailing environment, so not just people who were thrown into primitive conditions.