My very Christian mother once asked me to help her come up with a slogan for the church. I know her pastor well, and know him to be an avid student of history and the literature.
After much thought, I told them this, with the warning that if they used it they’d better be willing to face the consequences of what it means: “The purpose of the church is to remind people who they are. As children, they know. Over time, the world makes them forget.”
In my estimation, Jesus’ goal, and the Church’s job should be guiding people back to what they once knew. Unbridled love and trust in others. Non-judgement. Absolute acceptance, before we learn there’s such thing as a stranger.
Thank you for sharing this passage.
“Their thinking is not nearly as much a discovery as it is a recognition, remembrance, a returning and homecoming into a distant, primordial, total economy of the soul, from which each concept once grew”
Later, my Mom sent me the link to the sermon where the pastor quoted my statement and my warning, and followed it with, “My friend might be onto something, because in thinking on the text with his proposal in mind, I recalled one of Jesus’ declarations, ‘Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.’”
That's quite an optimistic assessment of little children.
I'm not sure if it is. Little children lack preconceived ideas, and, often, inhibition. That combination is a good recipe for accepting the unknown and coming up with new ideas. That is not to say they can't be cruel at times.
Very conveniently it is very easy to make little children believe all that, and now you tell us we should be like them little children too.
We should blindly trust the preacher-man, like little children, that's what he is telling us.
My counter-intuitive opinion is that children are quite skeptical of religion. They may enjoy the make-believe part of it. Pretending, after all, is child play, but they will never take it for granted just because an adult tells them so. On the contrary, kids will know when something is made up. An adult seriously resorting to magic to answer a child's question will raise doubts. That kid is likely to question authority and religion ever after.
I think if adults SEEM to be believing it then kids will believe it too. Maybe you can say that then is not misleading them since you believe it to be true, but I don't think that proves that kids really have a critical thinking ability. That is why I think they are easily mislead. Of course there is much good to be said about having an "open mind", but having an "open mind" basically means anything can enter it. Kids' brains have their doors wide open. Is that good or bad? I don't think we can say it is just plain good. They need to learn critical thinking, all humans do, that is the skill to acquire.
My point was that the shaping of children by the world to hate, or judge, or otherwise adopt the beliefs of any given adult is exactly what corrupts them from who they truly are.
I’m referring to the goal as their state prior to those corrupting influences.
It's not so good to be open-minded if that is the same thing as readily-corrupted. Or in other words we shouldn't strive to be in a child-like state where we are easily corrupted, easily mislead, because we are so open-minded.
Can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched my one niece judge her little sister for a behavior that she herself had been admonished for a few minutes before. She just learned that bad girls do that, so now she’s informing her little sister that she’s a bad girl.
i don't know if this is what you meant by "playing well around here", but what you wrote is a sentiment to which many secular humanists would wholeheartedly subscribe.
"However independent of each other [philosophers] might feel themselves to be, with their critical or systematic wills, something inside of them drives them on, something leads them into a particular order, one after the other, and this something is precisely the innate systematicity and relationship of concepts. In fact, their thinking is not nearly as much a discovery as it is a recognition, remembrance, a returning and homecoming into a distant, primordial, total economy of the soul, from which each concept once grew: – to this extent, philosophizing is a type of atavism of the highest order."
..."Where there are linguistic affinities, then because of the common philosophy of grammar (I mean: due to the unconscious domination and direction through similar grammatical functions), it is obvious that everything lies ready from the very start for a similar development and sequence of philosophical systems..."