The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Something new from First Things on Protestantism vs. Reformed Catholicism.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Since Mr. Maher hit on my sister in law at my brother's HS reunion, I have regarded him as something below a sewer rat.

can't disagree with that but it was still funny. Have been involved in discussion in another venue regarding the cherry picking of Bible verses to support various viewpoints. Fascinating.

Years ago our church had a Jewish convert as an Intern. He gave sermons that took into consideration the Jewish symbolism used in the particular texts. It made me look at things in a very different way. Reading previous posts about the different way things are interpreted he came to mind. He would take a familiar verse, talk about current interpretation in the context of 'modern Christianity'. He would then point out the text was aimed at the Jews of the time and proceed to talk about how it would be interpreted from a Jewish standpoint.

My favorite was the story about Jesus driving the Demons out of the herd of swine. He asked us- what would a bunch of Jews be doing with a bunch of swine? There's a question for you

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Something new from First Things on Protestantism vs. Reformed Catholicism.

http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism

Well, that got a reaction from me.

A Protestant is indifferent or hostile to liturgical forms, ornamentation in worship, and sacraments, because that’s what Catholics do. Reformational Catholicism’s piety is communal and sacramental, and its worship follows historic liturgical patterns. A Protestant wears a jacket and tie, or a Mickey Mouse t-shirt, to lead worship; a Reformational Catholic is vested in cassock and stole. To a Protestant, a sacrament is an aid to memory. A Reformational Catholic believes that Jesus baptizes and gives himself as food to the faithful, and doesn’t avoid speaking of “Eucharist” or “Mass” just because Roman Catholics use those words.

Ha.When I read the beginning description of what he thought people should be doing I thought he described being a Lutheran. Then he says Lutherans, et al aren't like that? I was left wondering exactly what he was basing his commentary on because he seems to have an interesting and warped view. The remarks may fit some form of Protestantism but he missed the mark in my admittedly anecdotal experience.

Having been to Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic and Lutheran Churches in the last yr I am still waiting to see someone not in a collar. I can follow the Liturgy in any of those churches and short of a few minor words they are all the same. The exception is the Catholics who recently felt the need to rephrase everything for some reason [my son says to be more PC and chuckles].

The more conservative Lutheran churches or even some of the more 'progressive' churches freak if you change a word of the liturgy. People in our congregation lost their minds because they switched from one hymnal to another. My Aunt's church still hasn't switched from 2 hymnals ago and there are some in her congregation who are still bitter about that change.

The Pastor wears a collar. He has Cassock, stole and trots off to add extra finery for communion. "To a Protestant, a sacrament is an aid to memory. A Reformational Catholic believes that Jesus baptizes and gives himself as food to the faithful"

Interesting tidbit of history- there was no formal order of Liturgy that was church wide until after Luther was around. And if he thinks the Catholics haven't changed he hasn't been to a mass lately.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The comments section is very interesting . One side falls into the believe what the guy says completely. The other side falls more to my liking and argument.

One comment fragment "To me, the problem of Protestantism comes down to the question of interpretive authority. Despite what our sola scriptura brethren may think, the text of the Bible is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve all important questions of the Christian faith." Gave me a glimmer of why Catholicism may be based on Doctrine not Scripture. What I can't figure out and maybe someone here who is Catholic can help me- how does the Church reconcile Doctrine that specifically contradicts the Bible? Example: Timothy instructs the Church leaders should be married. It also goes on to describe the type of wife and children required. What is the basis for contradicting the Bible? Not flaming. I tried asking my Catholic FIL and he had no idea. He's taught CCD for years.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

The comments section is very interesting . One side falls into the believe what the guy says completely. The other side falls more to my liking and argument.

One comment fragment "To me, the problem of Protestantism comes down to the question of interpretive authority. Despite what our sola scriptura brethren may think, the text of the Bible is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve all important questions of the Christian faith." Gave me a glimmer of why Catholicism may be based on Doctrine not Scripture. What I can't figure out and maybe someone here who is Catholic can help me- how does the Church reconcile Doctrine that specifically contradicts the Bible? Example: Timothy instructs the Church leaders should be married. It also goes on to describe the type of wife and children required. What is the basis for contradicting the Bible? Not flaming. I tried asking my Catholic FIL and he had no idea. He's taught CCD for years.

Here's one source

Here's another

I thought it also has to do with simony. It was (still is!) tough to support a family with what a priest makes (exception: Germany with the Church tax). As the $$ comes into the church, do the $$ go to the church to support its work or to the priest to support his family.

 

[leswp1]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Here's one source

Here's another

I thought it also has to do with simony. It was (still is!) tough to support a family with what a priest makes (exception: Germany with the Church tax). As the $$ comes into the church, do the $$ go to the church to support its work or to the priest to support his family.

Thanks! I am kind of a magpie when it comes to learning about why different Faiths do things. I hadn't seen some of the stuff in here before. I have done some reading about the thought process of celibacy before and have seen all sorts of secular reasoning as well as Doctrine reasoning posited.

I guess my question is more why it is OK to override what is so specifically instructed in the Bible? [disclaimer- I am not a literalist! I was actually brought up Unitarian- even more of a HERETIC than being Lutheran in mr les' grandfather's eyes!!] Years ago I taught confirmation at my church (Lutheran). We have a lot of people who were Catholic and then came over to the dark side They would ask questions about the differences between the Catholic teachings and the Lutheran ones.

There are many similarities but also some teachings that are opposite. I did a lot of searching on official Catholic sites for explanations. After reading Lutheran defense quoting Scriptural basis and being fairly straight forward it was confusing to see many of the Doctrines defended quoting X Pope with his reasoning based on St. Z who wrote something in ???AD. the Priest thing is a good example.

If the Bible [paraphrasing very poorly] warns against those who will instruct against the teachings given then how does the Church explain that it is OK to Doctrine override the original instruction?

Another question I have is how do you run a Bible study when the Bible instructs one thing and the Doctrine says something else? Do you avoid the conflicted teachings? I have wondered this one for a number of religions. (this was asked in another forum and no one has answered yet)

(hopefully I worded this in a non-offensive way. I have an insatiable curiosity about religion in general and it is hard to find someone who can answer stuff like this)

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Another question I have is how do you run a Bible study when the Bible instructs one thing and the Doctrine says something else? Do you avoid the conflicted teachings? I have wondered this one for a number of religions. (this was asked in another forum and no one has answered yet)

Waiting for joe's answer...

It seems to me that there isn't a lot among the various major denominations (including Catholic's) that goes against teachings in the Gospels. But often church doctrine seems to be somewhere between supportive to extraneous depending on the specific doctrine and one's POV. In the end, the potential disadvantage is that it clouds the true top priorities as listed in the Gospels by adding more considerations.

The times when Gospel teachings seem ignored are when individuals have too much power. Single churches with strong pastors, televangelists or 'Christian' organizations that one might find in CO Springs included. Having said that, individual input is on target with the Gospels could lead strong Christian individuals to improved motivation through living leadership.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I would posit that Christianity is progress independent. (could say religion, but I won't speak for others in this case)

Many see Christians as being against gay marriage and abortion and holding of many other social tenants that are 'backwards' looking. Many Christians, myself included, welcome change and treat the Word from Jesus as targeting compassion, etc. As a side note, I might argue that abortion is not specifically a progress issue (as I'm pretty sure its had the same level of controversy since the procedure was developed as it does today).

In that sense, Bob and I have many similar views as we're Christians but many opposing views. (Speaking for him a bit)...our divergent social views on change don't have anything to do with the fact we're both Christians but rather because he's conservative and I'm progressive. So Christianity doesn't play into areas based on progress...but rather its political ideology that determines positions on those controversial social issues.

I think we in many ways have similar goals based on our Christian beliefs, but they play out differently in how we believe various things should be done. We both believe in loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, etc. but just come to different conclusions in how that plays out in some cases.

I would disagree with the very last thing that its political ideology that determines positions on controversial social issues, at least for me. My beliefs on things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. don't have political interests as a source, but rather come from my religious beliefs as well as other understandings. But how those then play into any political consideration is definitely an afterthought. In no way do I look at abortion in a political context and then let that inform what or how I believe things should be. Politics isn't anywhere near that important to me, or I suspect most Christians.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I think we in many ways have similar goals based on our Christian beliefs, but they play out differently in how we believe various things should be done. We both believe in loving our neighbor, caring for the poor, etc. but just come to different conclusions in how that plays out in some cases.

I would disagree with the very last thing that its political ideology that determines positions on controversial social issues, at least for me. My beliefs on things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. don't have political interests as a source, but rather come from my religious beliefs as well as other understandings. But how those then play into any political consideration is definitely an afterthought. In no way do I look at abortion in a political context and then let that inform what or how I believe things should be. Politics isn't anywhere near that important to me, or I suspect most Christians.

Politics was the wrong word. Putting those issues on politics makes one's positions result in consciously placing a political stance ahead of your faith...which is not what I intended.

Although there are others, I think there's pretty overwhelming evidence that humanity has two-ish primary world views. It plays out in this country as conservatives and liberals. And they are not simply contrived...they really are foundational pov's of view that are ingrained in how one see's the world. I see Christians starting from a totally aligned position...but their stances adjust based on an inherent world view. Like anyone else, we can't help it...its the way we see things. Some put things like gay marriage, porn, and/or abortion at the top of the list and others don't (or at least, that's where they put all their energy).

I think this world view led one Tennessee county to adopt a resolution asking God to bypass them when he sends his wrath due to gay marriage. Yet another Christian say 'I think the wrath of God is more inclined to fall on those people who are so condemning and judgmental'. Because these come from the same source...a world view is the only explanation for this being such a common occurance.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/tennessee-blount-county-same-sex-resolution/

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Although there are others, I think there's pretty overwhelming evidence that humanity has two-ish primary world views. It plays out in this country as conservatives and liberals.

I agree with this. VERY roughly, the world is divided into people who think rights should trump liberties and people who think that liberties should trump rights. VERY roughly.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Politics was the wrong word. Putting those issues on politics makes one's positions result in consciously placing a political stance ahead of your faith...which is not what I intended.

Although there are others, I think there's pretty overwhelming evidence that humanity has two-ish primary world views. It plays out in this country as conservatives and liberals. And they are not simply contrived...they really are foundational pov's of view that are ingrained in how one see's the world. I see Christians starting from a totally aligned position...but their stances adjust based on an inherent world view. Like anyone else, we can't help it...its the way we see things. Some put things like gay marriage, porn, and/or abortion at the top of the list and others don't (or at least, that's where they put all their energy).

I think this world view led one Tennessee county to adopt a resolution asking God to bypass them when he sends his wrath due to gay marriage. Yet another Christian say 'I think the wrath of God is more inclined to fall on those people who are so condemning and judgmental'. Because these come from the same source...a world view is the only explanation for this being such a common occurance.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/us/tennessee-blount-county-same-sex-resolution/

I think that's a reasonable perspective, though the longer I live the more I tend to resist putting people on boxes, as it generally ends up distorting how people are viewed far too often.

I think that most people (other than a few lawyers and such) who oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't spend most of their time or attention on these issues or think they are the central aspects of their faith. I don't know anyone who thinks this on these issues who spends much time on these issues or focuses on them primarily. It's more a matter that these subjects are focal points and areas in our nation where changes are or potentially are afoot and thus peoples' views on them get attention as compared to peoples' views on parks or some other far less controversial subject. It doesn't take a lot of time and effort necessarily to have a view that you support or oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. I think that applies to either side of the issue.

 

[Timothy A]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Well, that got a reaction from me.



Ha.When I read the beginning description of what he thought people should be doing I thought he described being a Lutheran. Then he says Lutherans, et al aren't like that? I was left wondering exactly what he was basing his commentary on because he seems to have an interesting and warped view. The remarks may fit some form of Protestantism but he missed the mark in my admittedly anecdotal experience.

Having been to Presbyterian, Methodist, Catholic and Lutheran Churches in the last yr I am still waiting to see someone not in a collar. I can follow the Liturgy in any of those churches and short of a few minor words they are all the same. The exception is the Catholics who recently felt the need to rephrase everything for some reason [my son says to be more PC and chuckles].

The more conservative Lutheran churches or even some of the more 'progressive' churches freak if you change a word of the liturgy. People in our congregation lost their minds because they switched from one hymnal to another. My Aunt's church still hasn't switched from 2 hymnals ago and there are some in her congregation who are still bitter about that change.

The Pastor wears a collar. He has Cassock, stole and trots off to add extra finery for communion. "To a Protestant, a sacrament is an aid to memory. A Reformational Catholic believes that Jesus baptizes and gives himself as food to the faithful"

Interesting tidbit of history- there was no formal order of Liturgy that was church wide until after Luther was around. And if he thinks the Catholics haven't changed he hasn't been to a mass lately.

WELS pastors don't wear collars. Some Pastors do just use the same Liturgy over and over out of the hymnal, which is just numbing to the mind and makes the worshipers robotic. Our Liturgy every week changes. Our Pastors often times write their own Liturgies. I guess our Pastors are progressive, at least in regards to the old school WELS train of thought.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I agree about boxes and labels.

I think that's a reasonable perspective, though the longer I live the more I tend to resist putting people on boxes, as it generally ends up distorting how people are viewed far too often.

I think that most people (other than a few lawyers and such) who oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. don't spend most of their time or attention on these issues or think they are the central aspects of their faith. I don't know anyone who thinks this on these issues who spends much time on these issues or focuses on them primarily. It's more a matter that these subjects are focal points and areas in our nation where changes are or potentially are afoot and thus peoples' views on them get attention as compared to peoples' views on parks or some other far less controversial subject. It doesn't take a lot of time and effort necessarily to have a view that you support or oppose gay marriage, abortion, etc. I think that applies to either side of the issue.

I don't know if its fair to say that people who take the other side just don't really think about the issue much nor base it on their faith. I believe these folks have educated, strong opinions and are rock steady in the pov. I know that I place my position on these types of issues on my faith and as you'll see below we probably differ...

Although the old testament mentioned the issue, I see gay marriage as not explicitly addressed by Jesus (basically God on earth). So although I wouldn't do it...it appears that being gay was not a critical priority for the Word...especially enough for me to decide for others. Couple that with the real priority outside of simple belief in God...that is the golden rule. So I can even see how it could be against the Word to fight gays on their marriage...again due to the golden rule. I say...I'm fine with the existence of gay marriage. But because its not a big deal to my faith.

I think its shortsighted to consider gay marriage and abortion as the same. In abortion, the stakes are much higher. Thou shall not kill is a commandment...that is prominent in the Word and its a biggie. Having said that, some do debate about what constitutes a person (although this position is weaker in my mind, it does add some complication to positions against abortion). But the golden rule plays a role here also. This is a major consideration for the woman (and man) who in any other situation should have control of such a decision. Taking that decision away from what in most situations is the rightful owner does not really align with the golden rule either. So I'm conflicted on this one...not because its trivial because its a big deal but because both sides of the argument have merit.

In the end, faith is the foundational consideration...but it leads to different conclusions. As we have the same religion, it must by definition be based on a differing world view.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I agree about boxes and labels.



I don't know if its fair to say that people who take the other side just don't really think about the issue much nor base it on their faith. I believe these folks have educated, strong opinions and are rock steady in the pov. I know that I place my position on these types of issues on my faith and as you'll see below we probably differ...

Although the old testament mentioned the issue, I see gay marriage as not explicitly addressed by Jesus (basically God on earth). So although I wouldn't do it...it appears that being gay was not a critical priority for the Word...especially enough for me to decide for others. Couple that with the real priority outside of simple belief in God...that is the golden rule. So I can even see how it could be against the Word to fight gays on their marriage...again due to the golden rule. I say...I'm fine with the existence of gay marriage. But because its not a big deal to my faith.

I think its shortsighted to consider gay marriage and abortion as the same. In abortion, the stakes are much higher. Thou shall not kill is a commandment...that is prominent in the Word and its a biggie. Having said that, some do debate about what constitutes a person (although this position is weaker in my mind, it does add some complication to positions against abortion). But the golden rule plays a role here also. This is a major consideration for the woman (and man) who in any other situation should have control of such a decision. Taking that decision away from what in most situations is the rightful owner does not really align with the golden rule either. So I'm conflicted on this one...not because its trivial because its a big deal but because both sides of the argument have merit.

In the end, faith is the foundational consideration...but it leads to different conclusions. As we have the same religion, it must by definition be based on a differing world view.

Maybe I didn't communicate clearly. Certainly people on both sides of these issues think them through. No question.

I wasn't saying gay marriage and abortion are similar in any certain way, just that that's a couple issues that are high profile hot button issues these days. But I don't think either is something that most Christians say is their central focus, but more that because it's a high profile issue, people naturally focus on what's being said about that issue compared to who the local dog catcher is or something similarly low profile.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

I wasn't saying gay marriage and abortion are similar in any certain way, just that that's a couple issues that are high profile hot button issues these days. But I don't think either is something that most Christians say is their central focus, but more that because it's a high profile issue, people naturally focus on what's being said about that issue compared to who the local dog catcher is or something similarly low profile.

This makes sense. I remember somebody posted a while back about atheists' supposed reaction "against" religion, citing as evidence repeated posts challenging religious theses. My response, which you've put in better words, is that the vast majority of atheists spend about as much time thinking about religion as non-stamp collectors spend thinking about stamp collecting. Disregard is not opposition.

This also explains why the vast majority of believers and atheists can live together quite happily (the founding principle of this thread): we spend 99% of our lives in areas utterly unrelated to our doctrinal disagreements.

 

[Foxton]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

This makes sense. I remember somebody posted a while back about atheists' supposed reaction "against" religion, citing as evidence repeated posts challenging religious theses. My response, which you've put in better words, is that the vast majority of atheists spend about as much time thinking about religion as non-stamp collectors spend thinking about stamp collecting. Disregard is not opposition.

This also explains why the vast majority of believers and atheists can live together quite happily (the founding principle of this thread): we spend 99% of our lives in areas utterly unrelated to our doctrinal disagreements.

False analogy, there are no stamp collectors showing up at your homes, running for office on their collections, and imposing their collection practices on others.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

False analogy, there are no stamp collectors showing up at your homes, running for office on their collections, and imposing their collection practices on others.

The right analogy is with advertising. It's a constant ambient drone, by the time you're 15 you've learned it's for products you have no use for, and the masses fall for it or they wouldn't keep doing it. But if I had a choice of irritating things to filter completely out of life, consumerism would be way higher than mysticism on my purge list.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

This makes sense. I remember somebody posted a while back about atheists' supposed reaction "against" religion, citing as evidence repeated posts challenging religious theses. My response, which you've put in better words, is that the vast majority of atheists spend about as much time thinking about religion as non-stamp collectors spend thinking about stamp collecting. Disregard is not opposition.

This also explains why the vast majority of believers and atheists can live together quite happily (the founding principle of this thread): we spend 99% of our lives in areas utterly unrelated to our doctrinal disagreements.

Most people spend most of their time getting on with life and its mundane requirements. Though we have more free time than most people through history have had to use one way or another.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Religion Thread: A Believer-Atheist Alliance

Though we have more free time than most people through history have had to use one way or another.

We've been taught that we do, but I read a really interesting monograph a few years ago that challenged this assumption. They took what to me would be presumably the most hard-worked population -- peasant farmers -- and tried to figure out what their total working hours would be in a given year. The data came from a lot of really interesting sources, both direct and inferential. I think it was from France in the 13th or 14th century. Their assessment, taking everything into consideration (not just farm labor but also all the support activities and basically everything other than what we would call "leisure time") was that the typical farm laborer actually labored about 1600 hours per year. And he didn't commute.

The work itself was obviously a lot harder, as anybody who has ever had the misfortune to do farm labor can attest. But the idea that we are at a pinacle of leisure time may actually be a myth. I found this fascinating, because I would never have thought to doubt the CW.

 

[LynahFan]

We've been taught that we do, but I read a really interesting monograph a few years ago that challenged this assumption. They took what to me would be presumably the most hard-worked population -- peasant farmers -- and tried to figure out what their total working hours would be in a given year. The data came from a lot of really interesting sources, both direct and inferential. I think it was from France in the 13th or 14th century. Their assessment, taking everything into consideration (not just farm labor but also all the support activities and basically everything other than what we would call "leisure time") was that the typical farm laborer actually labored about 1600 hours per year. And he didn't commute.

The work itself was obviously a lot harder, as anybody who has ever had the misfortune to do farm labor can attest. But the idea that we are at a pinacle of leisure time may actually be a myth. I found this fascinating, because I would never have thought to doubt the CW.

We can thank Edison for the 2000-hour work year. The Bodleian Library (Oxford's main library) has never allowed candles, lamps, etc, so given their latitude, it was only open about 6 hours per day in the winter months. Not sure if "huddled together in a freezing stone hut in the Cotswolds really qualifies as "liesure," though...