Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 120825 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #200
Philosophical problems aren't everything in life.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #201
Edit: anyway, I'm going to stop posting here.

You start, you stop. :)
Philosophical problems aren't everything in life.

Hallelujah!

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #202
You start, you stop.

I could add an ominous for now. MUHAHAHAHA!

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #203

You keep talking as if my tentative conclusions and hypotheses were my starting point, which I find very odd. I find the fact that you consider that tentativeness a weakness even more odd.

Yup, another fundamental difference. Seriously, it never got through that you were talking tentatively, as if showing a cautious interest in the matter to see if anything useful can be done with it. You never left that impression. Instead, an increasing amount of fixed presuppositions kept emerging that you never let go no matter how untenable and disproven.

Tentatively, all workable ideas should be welcome. At least this is how it works for me when I am in the tentative mode. But in this discussion I am quite sure it got through that I never talked tentatively. I was open about my premises all along and gave several full rounds of the way I reason. In this mode I am ready to be proven wrong. Flaws can be demonstrated. Incoherence can be revealed. Negative can be proven. In philosophy, you don't even need experiments for that. All it takes is thinking straight. Specifically, thinking straighter than me.

And let it be known that I am not quite happy with the change of the thread title either. With the old title, it was more about religion, about the quest, about defining principles and spiritual goals and practising the methods. This is what religiousness is - to me. With the new title it's like "throw anything into here and have fun".

---------------

Religion is not so much about proving others wrong. It's just that people who are too dismissive are worse than wrong, because they are missing the point. Properly, religion is giving goals to those who don't have it. When you can't find the meaning of life on your own, it's inevitable that you have to accept it from others because there has to be some meaning to keep you going. Very few people can define the meaning of life for themselves, and that's why big exoteric religions exist, to help them out.

Big religions are not just opium for the masses. They have cultural traditions and history that give societies, well, if not straightforward meaning, then at least structure. People need structure in their lives. This structure cannot be simply taken away. It is severely damaging to lose this structure, it's about as bad as losing a job. Actually even worse, because for many people religion is what keeps them going when they lose a job.

It was not my wish to end up proving stuff right and wrong. It's not so much about right or wrong as it is about giving things structure and meaning, so that when something is lost in life, the rest of the structure keeps you still up, psychologically. As long as the rest of it still stands, you can repair it. And if it's well built, you can keep building further on it, until the structure covers everything conceivable, thus becoming a theory of everything.

Now, you may think that it's science's or philosophy's job to provide theories. Unfortunately modern science of the materialist paradigm fails miserably. It's easily proven that materialism is mostly lacking and, when not lacking, wrong. I am still under the shock of what Frenzie made me read. The article says that emotions, such as fear and disgust are to protect the individual's or organism's integrity. What is this supposed to mean? On the surface, it means that fear and disgust are occasionally good for us. So, it looks like explaining something about life. What are those occasions when fear and disgust are good for us? It doesn't spell out any principles. Now the article doesn't look so explanatory any more. It looks insufficient, i.e. begins to fail. Then get this: "In the social emotion of contempt there is a rejection of certain behaviors or ideas rather than an expulsion of toxic substances or their tell-tale signs. Contempt can be seen as a biological metaphor for disgust. [...] The advantages of contempt are apparent: the rejection of behaviors deemed dangerous to individuals or groups, and the social isolation of those who produce such behaviors." What does this say? Contempt is occasionally good. But suppose we ask: If it's good, should we follow through with the impulse? Expel people who have contemptuous behaviour? How? On what occasions? Basically, the question is: Does *is* translate into *should*? Science doesn't say. At least this article doesn't - which is actually good because all attempts by scientists to translate *is* into *should* that I have seen have been a complete failure. Science has nothing interesting to say about how to live a human life.

Philosophy does a better job. Philosophy has a nice repertoir of moral theories and of principles to compare them. Choose your favourite and be happy. However, know that since there are logical principles that can provide comparative ranking order to any and all theories, there may always be a better theory. Also, philosophy in general does not emphasise spirituality specifically, so people with spiritual inclinations may find it lacking in the end.

Hence religion. Religion can handily do everything where science is lacking, to spell out morals and ultimate goals. It surely does when used this way, constructively - self-constructively most of all. And it readily lends itself be used this way whenever disgust, ridicule, double standards, and disingenuity are dropped in one's approach to religion.

These days, since religions are many and directly competiting with each other in the marketplace of ideas, religions also do the amazing job of philosophy, the job of proving each other's comparative betterness. Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best, either the one with most elaborate metaphysics and workable concept system, the one with most straightforward moral theory, most fascinating symbology or mythology, or with the prettiest rituals. Anything wrong with it?


  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #204
Anything wrong with it?

Yes, you just said why - "Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best".
That's turning religion in just another form of consumerism.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #205

Anything wrong with it?

Yes, you just said why - "Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best".
That's turning religion in just another form of consumerism.
Not quite so in this context. In the context I gave, I think it's comparable to eating. You have to eat to survive. If you don't eat, you will die. When you eat, it's better to eat food that is good for you.

Some things are bad for eating. They are not meant to be food. Some food is not necessarily bad, but may cause indigestion for some people, so they have to make some adjustment in diet. In young age, one type of food fits best, in old age, another type. Is this consumerism? I'd say it's common sense.

Anyway, how do you think religion is/should be individually acquired?

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #206
Anyway, how do you think religion is/should be individually acquired?

That's a good question.

I see two major lines.
Since religion has to be perennial, heritage.
Since religion must reflect the gift of reasoning, Catholicism.

But there's much more to say about your question. I need some time to structure a more complet answer in English.
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #207
Now I remembered that St. Paul also compared faith to eating. Great minds think alike :D
As babies, people should take milk, but when they grow in faith, they can take meat too. Surely you know the verse I am referring to, if you have read the Bible. Another writer, I think it was Thomas a Kempis, said that milk was answers to prayers and sweet encouragement from God, but those grown strong in faith are ready for the meat of sense of loss of God, hard temptation, etc. like Jesus on the cross or during 40 days in the desert.

So there, religion has different shapes and forms according to the person in question and the person's stage or level of being. Every big religion is multifaceted in this way, otherwise they would not be able to cover the whole population of societies and countries.

But my question was serious. I am interested in your view too. How should religion be individually acquired?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #208
I'm not Belfrager, but I think by injection.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #209
individually acquired?

Your insistence on "individually" raises complex problems since by religion we mean organized religion.

As for organized religions, the individual is necessarily seen as part of a whole, a whole that includes his language, culture, nation, society, class and a particular (organized) religion. Basically the individual is born whit it as non material reference. Most of people follows this cultural matrix where they were born and raised.

When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.

What I'm interested to is in stopping the false idea that all organized religions are equal and even less, with the same quality. Because there's quality in religion and it is possible to determine those who have more and those who have less, if any.
We can't compare as equal a religion with two thousand years of theological and philosophical work by the brightest minds with another that doesn't have any doctrinal structure but to parroting some text.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #210

When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.
Or the ones who marry into one, specifically Catholicism. They may turn out to be more rabid than those who were born into it. I don't understand it but have experienced it.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #211

individually acquired?

Your insistence on "individually" raises complex problems since by religion we mean organized religion.

As for organized religions, the individual is necessarily seen as part of a whole, a whole that includes his language, culture, nation, society, class and a particular (organized) religion. Basically the individual is born whit it as non material reference. Most of people follows this cultural matrix where they were born and raised.

What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?


When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.

I grew up in an atheist culture, nation, society. Should I follow the cultural matrix and stay as such? No verification of things by myself? No self-determination? And I disagree that this situation is some occasional anomaly. Most people I know are intellectually and spiritually displaced. They are seekers, in process of a quest because the current prevalent culture fails to provide support and structure to their lives. Where I live, this is so with the majority of people, not some negligible minority.

What I'm interested to is in stopping the false idea that all organized religions are equal and even less, with the same quality. Because there's quality in religion and it is possible to determine those who have more and those who have less, if any.
If your premise is that the majority go with the prevalent culture - and should - and the prevalent culture entails an organised religion, then the prevalent organised religion is, in this sense, the best quality that the people can have. The prevalent religion, depending on the place, may be Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Islam, Voodoo, whatever. It evidently undermines social stability and thus worsens the quality of life for individuals, if they end up with a different religion than the prevalent one. On the other hand, it's also not so good to have a religion imposed on you instead of being given the opportunity to be able to choose, or, even better, to adapt and grow into the religion.

So, of course religions are not equal, but the inequality has many dimensions. E.g. Islam is not good *here,* but it's okay *there.* Christianity may be "true" here but the same "truth" appears totally different in e.g. South America. And the individual dimension makes it even more complicated. Everyone of us has a rebellious stage when growing up. For some it lasts longer, and it includes rebellion against the parents' religion/ideology. In my case, it meant thorough questioning of materialism and atheism. If the prevalent religion cannot meaningfully accommodate such questioning, which is part of natural human growth, then is the religion itself mature enough?

We can't compare as equal a religion with two thousand years of theological and philosophical work by the brightest minds with another that doesn't have any doctrinal structure but to parroting some text.
I'm sure you admit that many Christians are hardly beyond parroting. And parroting is actually a respectable achievement all by itself, because many have not even read the Bible so as to have some material to parrot. Of course it's better to speak of one's own genuine conviction, but as far as I know, genuine conviction, true first-hand religious experience is given to precious few.

Even atheists here lack positive conviction and comprehension of their own world view. Parroting some talking points (such as teapot in the sky or tyrannical skydaddy) or authorities (Harris, Dawkins) is hopefully a good start that may lead to deeper knowledge eventually.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #212
What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?

We are making different levels of approaches and that can't be done simultaneously. Course Jesus Christ's words refers to this material world and therefore show people the way to the non material, spiritual world. But there's no organized religion at such a world, isn't it?
I grew up in an atheist culture, nation, society. Should I follow the cultural matrix and stay as such? No verification of things by myself? No self-determination? And I disagree that this situation is some occasional anomaly. Most people I know are intellectually and spiritually displaced. They are seekers, in process of a quest because the current prevalent culture fails to provide support and structure to their lives. Where I live, this is so with the majority of people, not some negligible minority.

Notice that I haven't said that the search for an individual path or truth or whatever was wrong, I just said that is not what most people do and it is not compatible with organized religions. Such decisions imminently belongs to the individual sphere  of action and conscience not to the collective sphere.

So, of course religions are not equal, but the inequality has many dimensions. E.g. Islam is not good *here,* but it's okay *there.* Christianity may be "true" here but the same "truth" appears totally different in e.g. South America.

And how does an organized, hierarchically structured religion as Catholicism deals with the necessity of being right regardless different cultures and places? By focusing into the adaptation to those particularities of the pureness of it's doctrinal message. It's by adopting to the reality of each population and culture and more, of each individual (to answer to he other point you make about personal evolution/age) that a religion shows how well it's message can be Universal.

And a religion to be taken seriously and just not a sect, it has to be Universal.
Parroting some talking points (such as teapot in the sky or tyrannical skydaddy) or authorities (Harris, Dawkins) is hopefully a good start that may lead to deeper knowledge eventually.

Some things can't be said but to the right audiences... :)
You say that and you'll be immediately accused of wanting to provide opium to the masses...
The problem a religion has to deal with is that for the majority of people, parroting is the best they can do.
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #213
Or the ones who marry into one, specifically Catholicism. They may turn out to be more rabid than those who were born into it.

What do you mean with "marry" into a religion? Marrying with someone of a certain religion?
Ahh, I see, those who move to or adopt a new religion. Yes, it's like that people that stops smoking they turn impossible to hear.
  • Last Edit: 2014-03-08, 13:45:20 by Belfrager
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #214

What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?

We are making different levels of approaches and that can't be done simultaneously. Course Jesus Christ's words refers to this material world and therefore show people the way to the non material, spiritual world. But there's no organized religion at such a world, isn't it?

No organised religion in the spiritual world? So, Jesus was inviting people away from the variegated religions of this world to the spiritual world where the distinctions cease? (This happens to be exactly how I interpret these words.)


Notice that I haven't said that the search for an individual path or truth or whatever was wrong, I just said that is not what most people do and it is not compatible with organized religions. Such decisions imminently belongs to the individual sphere  of action and conscience not to the collective sphere.

You didn't say that the individual path was wrong but you also didn't say how the individual path may relate to the organised religions, if they have any connection at all. To me, the individual is naturally informed by organised religions around him. The individual path consists mostly in the individual's attempts to adapt and accommodate one or some of the organised religions around.

The individual path is not really an invention or innovation, personal making up of stuff. It's a personal understanding and expression of things that are historically and culturally there and fit the situation. When it works for the spiritual purpose (i.e. enables approaching the spiritual world), it's all that matters.


And how does an organized, hierarchically structured religion as Catholicism deals with the necessity of being right regardless different cultures and places? By focusing into the adaptation to those particularities of the pureness of it's doctrinal message. It's by adopting to the reality of each population and culture and more, of each individual (to answer to he other point you make about personal evolution/age) that a religion shows how well it's message can be Universal.

And a religion to be taken seriously and just not a sect, it has to be Universal.

The name Catholicism is appropriate, at least, and surely looks adaptable and accommodating. But remembering the words "You are not of this world" it doesn't seem that in the end the path should be about any particular religion shaped in any particular way or having as universal adaptability as possible. It's not about religion, but about religion understood and applied rightly. It's about the essence of religion.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #215
No organised religion in the spiritual world? So, Jesus was inviting people away from the variegated religions of this world to the spiritual world where the distinctions cease? (This happens to be exactly how I interpret these words.)

Organized religion is organized by men. Jesus Christ never made a Church, he said to Peter go and make my Church. God doesn't organize religions, men does. God doesn't impose you to pray this way or that way or even pray at all, organized religions imposes it.
But remembering the words "You are not of this world" it doesn't seem that in the end the path should be about any particular religion shaped in any particular way or having as universal adaptability as possible.

Well... Jesus Christ told to Peter to make His Church, he didn't said  to the Buddha, I like your Church... Peter made Christianity  and the Pope is his direct successor.
Organized religions have certain limits to the amount of questioning. :)

As for my knowledge, only Catholicism admits a dualism between the individual path by itself and, at the same time, the total inclusion of the individual into the Church's organized structure. There's space for it and in fact most of it's theology is the result of just that.
Compare the former Pope and this new one and you have the most perfect example of two different personal quests tied by the devotion to the same doctrine, the Church and our Saints.
That's the deep meaning of "human dignity", so much defended by the Catholic Church against all odds and respecting many other conceptions of dignity, as poverty, forgiveness, etc. Also a personal quest is a matter of dignity.

A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #216
Well oddly Belfrager - and probably for you (!), I can go a goodly bit along with that except that I of course from my background challenge matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally well opinionated with that addendum!
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #217

Well oddly Belfrager - and probably for you (!), I can go a goodly bit along with that except that I of course from my background challenge matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally well opinionated with that addendum!

We are what we are plus our circumstances. Ortega Y Gasset.
Sometimes that makes easier to agree with enemies than to agree with friends...
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #218

Well... Jesus Christ told to Peter to make His Church, he didn't said  to the Buddha, I like your Church... Peter made Christianity  and the Pope is his direct successor.
Organized religions have certain limits to the amount of questioning. :)

I'm tempted to say that this largely affirms my point about the distinction between worldly religion and the goal of religion (the goal being not worldly), but this would diminish too much the amazing insight you give to me. I did not suspect that there was such a clear recognition between Jesus' message and Peter's church. It's quite insightful.

I am still not sure if it's just you who construe it this way or is there some broader Catholic consensus on this. I must admit I have found Catholicism generally uninteresting, apart from Dutch medieval mystics, so I am not properly familiar with Catholic view. (Catholic meaning down to year 1054, when the term Catholic really becomes meaningful, as distinguished from Orthodox etc. Before that year it's just Christianity.)


As for my knowledge, only Catholicism admits a dualism between the individual path by itself and, at the same time, the total inclusion of the individual into the Church's organized structure. There's space for it and in fact most of it's theology is the result of just that.

I admit my ignorance on how much space Catholicism admits for individual paths while managing to include the individuals in the church. I suppose it varied over time and the current view is not so dogmatic. In turn, I'd assume you haven't really looked into how much Buddhism and Hinduism, and even Islam, encourage individual paths. They do.

If you read any Buddhist or Hindu scripture, you'll see how philosophical and psychologically insightful they are, in contrast from the Bible which is only mythology and inspirational talks. There's no philosophy in the Bible. Ecclesiastes comes closest, but it is nowhere near the clear logic, solid metaphysics and epistemology of Buddhist and Hindu scriptures - by modern standards. Eastern scriptures bear much resemblance to the kind of writings that Plotinus and Augustine produced, and Oriental philosophy did millennia ago that which our philosophy is doing only now when commenting on Plato and Aristotle.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #219
Dutch medieval mystics

Hadewijch sends her regards.

Ay, al es nu die winter cout,
Cort die daghe ende die nachte langhe--
Ons naket saen een somer stout,
Die ons ute dien bedwanghe
Schiere sal bringhen. Dat es in schine
Bi desen nuwen jare:
Die hasel brinct ons bloemen fine;
Dat es een teken openbare
--Ay, vale, vale millies--
Ghi alle die nuwen tide
--Si dixero, non satis est--
Om minne wilt wesen blide.

Edit: I've got an English translation around somewhere... and here it is.

If now, alas! it is cold winter,
With short days and long nights,
Bold summer speedily walks in
To set us free from distress
In a short time: that is plainly seen
From this new year;
The hazelnut tree offers us fair blooms,
The season's public token.
  --  Ay, vale, vale, millies  -- 
All you who in the new spring
  --  Si dixero non satis est   -- 
Wish to be joyful for Love's sake!

A personal ad-hoc translation in prose (so you can compare if you like):
Ay, although the winter's cold and the days are short and the nights are long, still a bold summer is on the way, which will liberate us from our trouble. That is clear from this new year: the hazelnut tree shows us fine flowers, that's a clear sign. Ay, it's not enough to wish you all a thousand times luck, you all who wish to be joyful in this new season for love's sake.
  • Last Edit: 2014-03-08, 22:15:21 by Frenzie

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #220
There's no philosophy in the Bible.

You aren't confusing Catholics with Protestants, are you? :)

Protestants concentrates their religiosity into the obsessive reading, in a total literal interpretation, of the Bible in a way not too much different from what Muslim fundamentalists do with the Coran.

To Catholicism, the fundamental thing is the teachings, examples, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and what we can and should learn form it in order to understand God's will.
The Bible is recognized as a sacred text by the Holy Mother Church but must always be read with caution as the highly parabolic text it is. And this is correct, a set of texts written thousand of years ago, for people of those times, needs today to be seen not in a literal way but by mean of a higher level of analysis that can extract what is perennial from what is merely circunstancial.

Not to speak about the Old testament, so beloved to the Protestants, that poses particular difficult problems.

The Cathecism will show you many of the philosophical postures of the Catholic Church and there's a Compendium exactly written for that. You may find the compendium not to much top philosophic but it is meant to introduce people to further reflexions. Give it a look and it will give you the general tone of the Church's philosophy in brief.

Also fundamental to understand the Catholic reasoning are the Papal encyclicals.
I recommend you very much this one CARITAS IN VERITATE by Benedict XVI.
  • Last Edit: 2014-03-09, 10:44:42 by Belfrager
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #221

There's no philosophy in the Bible.

You aren't confusing Catholics with Protestants, are you? :)

Protestants concentrates their religiosity into the obsessive reading,...

My confusion is much deeper. I thought Christians were supposed to be familiar with the Bible, their own scripture. Apparently I was wrong assuming it for Catholics, the way I assume it for any other denomination. It's just my own obstinate assumption. Somehow I think people should know what their beliefs and propositions, stemming from whatever source, mean and entail, and whether there's a system behind it or not.

Protestants don't read the Bible obsessively, no. Everybody is lazy these days. South Europe's good example is taking over the continent.

Still there are denominations whose membership truly knows their Bible. They are the most heavily proselytising ones - Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons. It's not quite right to lump them under the broad Protestants umbrella. They are fundies, rejected by the established Protestant churches as well as the Catholics and the Orthodox. And they themselves distinguish themselves too from all other Christians. They consider their own church the only true Christianity. So the rejection is mutual.

Only fundies think Bible proves and talks about every little thing. Also, specifically some weird American sects have a hard time distinguishing between Old and New Testament. Their beliefs amount to some kind of marginally reformed Judaism, not Christianity.

These distinctions are important. The established old Protestant churches, those that have functioned as traditional state churches the way Catholicism has, they are very similar to Catholicism (or so I tend to think). The similarities are that they have had to cover entire memberships of countries, so people belong to the church as a matter of birthright (or birth burden rather) and thus a significant amount of the membership have little real connection with the teachings. It's traditional to have a Bible in their homes, but hardly anyone reads it. And the interpretation is far from literal. They know full well the distinction of the letter and spirit. And the established Protestant churches have been foremost in the Christian world to bless gay marriages and accept them as priests - as an official policy citing the "essence of Jesus' teachings, namely, the message of love". This should make it clear how little they care about the letter of the Bible, and their understanding of the spirit is also completely diluted.

Personally, I have read the Bible several times. And it became fairly clear in the end that no church on earth represents what it teaches, and belonging to any church would only be self-deception.
But it's interesting to see how it works for you. For you it's irrelevant to read the Bible. The interpretation of everything important is in the teachings, which is sufficiently covered in Sunday school for kiddies.. The interpreters, the philosophical representatives of the teachings are priests, bishops, and the Pope, and it's a good thing to look up to them at a distance, instead of emulating what they do. Interesting.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #222
Well Man can never be perfect. As for differences between Protestantism and (Roman) Catholicism, I regard my tradition as Catholic in it's universal meaning not the Roman adding to it. Belfrager's view he is of course entitled to however Romanism isn't happy with the basic simplicity of the faith so had to conjure up all sorts of weird additions. Transubstantiation, Mariolatry and Queen of Heaven, sacrificing Jesus in that Mass thing, prayer beads (which pagan faiths practiced, Mary's date for rising to Heaven (another made up thing), throwing in statues and all the strangeness of so-called relics. We Prots re-discovered the simple matters of the man from Galilee hence the Reformation and the deleting of a mixture of Christianity and the adding of non-Christian practices.

I respect his right to be as he wants however dismissing us because we just want something straightforward without all the additions as well as Princes of the Church and wanting to be Caesar re the Vatican and everything else is a bit pushing it! I fully respect his right to views and worship but no wish to be  intolerant of his right. At the same time the actual histroy of the Roaman Church and the Vatican is hardly something to be too boastful of. I like an old view that Christianity was a wonderful garden but got full of odd growths which we then cleaned out rather than an alternative  church life style!  :knight:    :D
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #223
Mariolatry

Thanks for that one. :lol:

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #224
We Prots re-discovered the simple matters of the man from Galilee

:lol:

No wonder that the most materialist society in world history to be exactly the protestant aberration. A pseudo divergence made in order to legitimize profit for the "temple merchants".
If the "man of Galilee" is to return, he would kick you all out again.
A matter of attitude.