Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 219690 times)

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #400 –
I agree that God is imaginary.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #401 –
In the beginning was the Verb - it seems to me that the" Verb" is not exactly the continuum theory or even was supposed to refer to energy, the energy you refer and that is measured in Joules... :)
The Verb means the "action", by the way.

There are many ways of "not reading" the Bible, my friend.

............................

What interests me here is the relationship between a promising theory of the physical world and religion, being religion considered at both the philosophical approach and the established, organized religion's approach.

Everything is energy and there's nothing but energy. Okay, where's God?
Two possible answers:
1) as ever,in order to create the world (in this case, energy) God has necessarily to be "out of this world". It's not possible to be part of its own creation. Nothing changes from the classic theories and God keeps on being an "entity" with exactly the same logical needed attributes.

2) God is also energy and nothing but energy. Then, we and everything else are a part of God. Pantheism, God everywhere. Not new.

I'll bet my money in the first one.

How does the spiritual world goes along with the continuum theory? that's a nice question.
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #402 –
Quote from: ersi on
God is a logically necessary metaphysical foundation of everything for intellectuals who see or seek reason and rationality everywhere.

He used to be, yes.  However, that is old school and the new school theory "of everything" has yet to be accepted by lay people because, for all practical purposes, it happened overnight.  It was just over 80 years ago that the neutron was discovered and science has rocketed to today where quantum particles and their behavior is all but solved.  It is only by having a complete understanding of the most fundamental particles in nature that science can conclusively demonstrate how everything came into being. 

Practically speaking, science will not usurp thousands of years of religious belief overnight.  People are slow to accept anything new, especially the seemingly incomprehensible discoveries of science (unless it is convenient and serves their purpose).  Most people today are unwilling to let go of old and comfortable ideas, and rightly so because it has worked for much or most of their life (many people would actually be better off holding on to their old ideas and ways of living). 

But rather than debate endlessly about God, let me concede that the concepts of science and math are easy to grasp for only a certain percentage of the population and many of the rest will go with what is easiest for them grasp (the path of least resistance).  There is no shame in not understanding science and math any more than there is shame in not being able to do art (stick figures is as far as I go). 

Hope lies in the next generations who will be taught this new science early in their life and then make their choice on what to believe.  The laws of nature and science are the purest truths available on this planet—yes, science postulates incorrectly all the time, but trial and error is the only way of finding the absolute truth (not bottomless philosophical debate).  The ultimate truth is exquisitely simple and all the jigsaw pieces of scientific truth fit together seamlessly to form a glorious and conclusive picture of how we came to be…it is absolutely priceless! 

James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #403 –
JS, you have some problem with my conclusion and you keep going on about it, but you are not addressing any of my premises. This is precisely the wrong way to do it. Try again. Try it the right way.

Quote from: Belfrager on

There are many ways of "not reading" the Bible, my friend.

Right. Different sects manifest a different non-reading of the Bible, overemphasising some aspect while conveniently forgetting others. Jehovah's Witnesses only evangelise about last days. Westboro Baptist Church specialises in spewing damnations and curses. Certain Bible Belt folks lift snakes and drink poison. And Catholicism nicely accommodates distinct holy orders where you can choose your favourite virtue - austerity, charity, idolatry, etc.

You are right that you can build a legitimate doctrine around the concept of Logos and I admit that such doctrine would not lend itself to easy interpretation in terms of the continuum theory. I personally don't see how to reconcile them and this is one of the reasons why my focus is on the concept of spirit instead, not Logos. Logos sounds instrumental. Spirit sounds fundamental. Everybody takes whatever works for them, and I've taken spirit.

Quote from: Belfrager on

What interests me here is the relationship between a promising theory of the physical world and religion, being religion considered at both the philosophical approach and the established, organized religion's approach.

Everything is energy and there's nothing but energy. Okay, where's God?

It's not the same as energy. Energy would be some sterilised version of it, strictly physicalised or physicised, devoid of consciousness, devoid of truth, full of fluctuations, differences of intensity, etc. When it's reduced and relativised this way, you can legitimately ask, "Okay, where's God?" However, spirit is not relative like this. Instead of energy, or maybe in addition to energy and space (omnipresence), think of it as omniscience and omnipotence. It cannot be bottled up. When you think you are bottling it up as energy, then who is bottling it up? It's the same spirit on the subject side of the metaphysical equation who is allowing experiments on the object side through your instrumentality. You can bottle up nuclear energy alright, and the explosion looks stunning to the eyes, to all the senses, but this only blinds you to the power on the subject side which enables all this.

Spirit correctly understood is primarily on the subject side of the metaphysical divide, and only secondarily on the object side. On the object side you are right, it's correct to call it energy, but this only due to applied limitations, whereas spirit properly has no limitations. We may experiment with energy and subdue it, but to perform these experiments, to think of ways to capture and bottle stuff up really means to borrow from God in every sense and aspect. Anytime we look anywhere, when we think of anything, do anything, we borrow from the subject side all the strength, effort, attention, and perception. And the subject side = spirit = God (in degrees, not univocally). Also our own body and the objects perceived are ultimately borrowed the same way, via a series of reductive delimitations of spirit. When you properly consider it now, you cannot ask, "Okay, where's God?"

God is the metaphysical subject, i.e. that which makes the objective world intelligible, i.e. that which makes the objective world extant in any relevant sense in the first place. God is spirit (John 4:24; see, we are quoting the same gospel) and, accordingly, spirit is God.

For creationists, God is (or should be, in the name of consistency) both the cause of creation, i.e. the Creator, and also the outcome - formal and material cause of the creation. Understood this way, God's omnipresence is never violated.

Quote from: Belfrager on

Two possible answers:
1) as ever,in order to create the world (in this case, energy) God has necessarily to be "out of this world". It's not possible to be part of its own creation. Nothing changes from the classic theories and God keeps on being an "entity" with exactly the same logical needed attributes.

You bet your money (almost) rightly, but I have some quibble about the way you formulate this point. First, I'm sure we understand classic theories differently. Is it Newtonian physics or Aristotelian cosmology for you? Among European traditions, Neoplatonism stands closest to me, and this is different from Newtonian and Aristotelian views.

Second, God is not an entity. More specifically, not an entity among others. In Neoplatonism, the only true "entity" is God, while everything else is imaginary. Note that imaginary does not equal unreal. Imagination is real enough.

Third, you are right to point out that God must be distinguished from the world. Above I stated that God's omnipresence should not be violated, but at the same time it's true that the distinction of God and the universe is of vital importance. Now, this distinction is established conceptually through incisive metaphysics, not through physics. It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.

Quote from: Belfrager on

How does the spiritual world goes along with the continuum theory? that's a nice question.

Now, had you asked how the spiritual world goes along with the physical world, what's the distinction and what's the relation, I would be interested to answer at length. But you didn't ask.

It seems to me that you possibly understood the continuum theory as a mere physics theory. Wrong impression. Continuum is more like a universal philosophical concept, readily applicable to math, social sciences, physics, anywhere really. To spirituality too. I personally did not pick it up from any book. I was born with it. Then I had to struggle hard with Newtonian atomistic physics in school, which forced me to gradually clarify and elaborate the continuum theory until I understood its full implications.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #404 –
Quote from: ersi on
JS, you have some problem with my conclusion and you keep going on about it, but you are not addressing any of my premises. This is precisely the wrong way to do it. Try again. Try it the right way.

I am no longer willing to dance with you Ersi.  You want your cake and eat it too.  YOU want to debate only what YOU want to debate in the way YOU want to debate it on YOUR home court or nothing at all.  Your ideas and debates are forever circular and no conclusion can ever be satisfactorily reached by either side.  If you can be forever happy with your conclusions about God, then why not just take the money and run...or are you looking for something else--admiration, glory, worship?  Well, I'm not the one. 

You say that there is bad science, that it is mistaken or just plain wrong, but that just shows how little you know about how science works.  Science has no agenda, no promises to keep and it is not out to get God--it simply finds the truth,reports it and moves on.  You are a witness to an era where the decline of religion is just beginning, it will be slow, but it is absolutely unstoppable sir.   :coffee:
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #406 –
Quote from: ersi on
You are right that you can build a legitimate doctrine around the concept of Logos and I admit that such doctrine would not lend itself to easy interpretation in terms of the continuum theory. I personally don't see how to reconcile them and this is one of the reasons why my focus is on the concept of spirit instead, not Logos. Logos sounds instrumental. Spirit sounds fundamental. Everybody takes whatever works for them, and I've taken spirit.

I see your dichotomy Logos/Spirit - instrumental/fundamental only valid as if Logos being defined as the rational nature of Spirit. I'm not certain if you wanted to mean it that way.
Quote from: ersi on
nstead of energy, or maybe in addition to energy and space (omnipresence), think of it as omniscience and omnipotence. It cannot be bottled up. When you think you are bottling it up as energy, then who is bottling it up? It's the same spirit on the subject side of the metaphysical equation who is allowing experiments on the object side through your instrumentality. You can bottle up nuclear energy alright, and the explosion looks stunning to the eyes, to all the senses, but this only blinds you to the power on the subject side which enables all this.

You're forgetting the fourth characteristic of God besides omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (as so frequently people do). He has to be Good.
Does God needs to be good with the continuum theory? I don't know..  The continuum extirpates God from moral values, I'm afraid.
Quote from: ersi on
First, I'm sure we understand classic theories differently. Is it Newtonian physics or Aristotelian cosmology for you? Among European traditions, Neoplatonism stands closest to me, and this is different from Newtonian and Aristotelian views.

For the present discussion It doesn't matter if you lean into Ideas being the only pure beings or if you think that laws of physics are kind of God's hand in order to keep the universe stable. It's indifferent.
Quote from: ersi on
Second, God is not an entity. More specifically, not an entity among others.

The very definition of God excludes him of being an entity among others.
How do you want me to refer to God if not as an entity and not taking an entire paragraph just to mention him? :)
Quote from: ersi on
It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.

I entirely agree.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on
Now, had you asked how the spiritual world goes along with the physical world, what's the distinction and what's the relation, I would be interested to answer at length. But you didn't ask.

Course I didn't ask. I imagine the length of the post that I would have to comment... :)
That was not the point about this discussion.
Quote from: ersi on
It seems to me that you possibly understood the continuum theory as a mere physics theory. Wrong impression. Continuum is more like a universal philosophical concept, readily applicable to math, social sciences, physics, anywhere really. To spirituality too. I personally did not pick it up from any book. I was born with it. Then I had to struggle hard with Newtonian atomistic physics in school, which forced me to gradually clarify and elaborate the continuum theory until I understood its full implications.

No, I don't see it that way.
My first and only contact with such theory was during a conversation while having dinner with a friend of mine that is a physicist at the field of physics of fluids. Never read any book and even less wikipedia's articles about it. He mentioned it and I made lots of questions about it. A very, very interesting conversation.

It results straight away the philosophical consequences of such theory. One bottle of wishy was not enough for going deeper than just the surface.
As you know, after man start looking into the the world of the infinitely small, where laws from "our scale" doesn't apply anymore, you can't be a physicist without having a deep interest about philosophical issues.

For now, what turns really interesting is that you seem to be a "continuum mystical".
Some things never change, the moment this theory appears and there's already divisions. :)

By the way, Catholicism is not a sect and you don't have the Orders that pleases you the most, you have just one thing - the Church of Peter, to whom Jesus Christ said Go and make MY Church.
Poor Peter is seems that Estonia was too far away for him... :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #407 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

I see your dichotomy Logos/Spirit - instrumental/fundamental only valid as if Logos being defined as the rational nature of Spirit. I'm not certain if you wanted to mean it that way.

I really didn't mean to dichotomise much. The most important difference between the two is that I have no idea how the concept of Logos could be useful, whereas spirit has answered all the questions I ever had.

Quote from: Belfrager on

You're forgetting the fourth characteristic of God besides omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence (as so frequently people do). He has to be Good.
Does God needs to be good with the continuum theory? I don't know..  The continuum extirpates God from moral values, I'm afraid.
Good is there too, naturally. All the conceivable qualities are there in the continuum. "All conceivable" means infinite in number. Since they are infinite, there's no complete list of them. It only makes sense to mention the concepts relevant to the discussion, instead of as many as possible.

One way to describe it is that the qualities are infinite in number, but another way, equally legitimate, is that they are non-different from each other. All the properties or tendencies that are natural to the continuum are naturally good, but whichever one you name, you cannot emphasise it too much over others.

And the third way to describe it is to say that it's "not of this world", i.e. whatever can be affirmed of this world, does not apply "there". Surely you are familiar with the principle of so-called negative theology.

Quote from: Belfrager on

As you know, after man start looking into the the world of the infinitely small, where laws from "our scale" doesn't apply anymore, you can't be a physicist without having a deep interest about philosophical issues.

Not just the infinitely small, but also the infinitely large is self-evidently analysable in terms of the continuum theory. It's only "our scale" that is tougher to the continuum theory, because people tend to take sense-data for ultimate reality, leading to materialist assumptions that cannot reasonably hold anywhere beyond the usual five senses.

Quote from: Belfrager on

For now, what turns really interesting is that you seem to be a "continuum mystical".
Some things never change, the moment this theory appears and there's already divisions. :)

Right about "mystic". I speak confidently about it because to me it's direct perception, not a theory. It's theory only when communicated to others. Doubts, divisions and disputes naturally arise between people for whom it's not direct perception.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #408 –
@Belfrager
To address your doubts that my views are somehow innovative or heretical, here's a nice article I found, an overview of the development of major milestones in the development of the concept of God in the Western world http://journalofanalytictheology.com/jat/index.php/jat/article/view/jat.2014-1.120013000318a/222

When you read it, you can safely disregard all references to Radical Orthodox School. They appear to be some debate group who have occasioned the writing of this comprehensive overview. This clue perferctly sufficed for me to make the article readable. Alternatively, if you happen to have friends in that club, tell me who they are :)

Sure enough, I come closest to Plotinus, who was gentile, not Christian. But he was no infidel, and he was a major source for Augustine whose work seems to have consisted in dressing up the concept of the One in biblical terms. In a way I'm exaggerating of course, as Augustine definitely had his own insight, but the distinctions between Augustine and Plotinus, which is the first subsection in the article, are so subtle that to the uninformed they seem either nonsensical or negligible, while the informed reader can infer the little cultural and circumstancial reasons for the differences.

It's a very good article. I am happy to find another lady almost as understanding of the subtlest shades of metaphysical truth and with the ability to convey mystical insights as Evelyn Underhill was. I have no dispute with the writer.  I would put some things differently than the article does, but this only because I am not a sweet tender lovely lady, not overly attentive to details, and not an academically acknowledged specialist either.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #409 –
Quote from: Belfrager on
It's precisely metaphysics, not physics, which enables a razor-sharp distinction of God and the universe, and at the same time reconciles the distinction with God's omnipresence. Physics cannot do this.


Physics can't tell you how to bake good French bread either...your statement is the very definition of inanity.  Why do you mention this piffle about physics when physics has no interest in God?  You continually take these cheap potshots at physics because you really have no other viable criticisms of physics. 
James J

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #410 –
Quote from: ersi on
It's a very good article.

Yes it is and an excellent lesson on the evolution of the onto-theological question through times.

In resume, I don't think that "my" God being an entity makes him "less God" than a God considered as being beyond entity.
The arguments for this position (as well as its contrary) are very well stated at the article.

I need to read it with some more time in order to discuss it. Putting God even more primordial than the notion of entity raises problems that I'm afraid would necessarily make any further discussion about the ontological nature of God impossible.

@jseaton2311 - You quote me wrongly.

A matter of attitude.
 

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #411 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

@jseaton2311 - You quote me wrongly.

He's not quoting you at all. He quotes me, but attributes the quote wrongly to you.

As to those concepts of God, when we go beyond the speculative metaphysics and get to the real mystical insight, Plotinus' construal allows for the eventual unconditional merger with the absolute ineffable One, whereas Christian construal doesn't. Nobody is supposed to see God, says the scripture. Therefore those Christian mystics who got close to it in their lifetime, were careful to make qualifications in their descriptions for fear of getting incinerated as heretics. For example blessed Ruysbroek said that even in the utmost depth of God-experience he (Ruysbroek) was still distinct from God, though apparently one, like fire and iron in the smithy, and that he would humbly let the church judge his words on this.

That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #412 –
Quote from: ersi on
That's exactly what blessed Ruysbroek says. He puts a check on himself referring to church's authority. What's your reaction? I personally prefer uninhibited individual quest.

None of us knows what was to be alive at the thirteen century, none of us knows what was the relationship people from that time had with liberty for start and even less with religion or the Holy Mother Church.
We also don't know what a thirteen century man would think about "uninhibited".

History of Mentalities is a very recent and very promising area of Historical Studies exactly because it aims to let us learn about what was to be alive at those remote times. Much more important than knowing that some battle was at the 24 or at the 25 is to know what those men thought while directing for an eminent death. Everyday was an eminent death, by the way.

Just the other day, you mentioned the Catholic Church as a place were each one could chose from a variety of Orders, kind of a spiritual gourmet menu...  I'm certain we have very nice contemplative Orders where you can feel totally uninhibited for your quest.
Ah, no forums I'm afraid, social mysticism hasn't arrived yet. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #413 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

None of us knows what was to be alive at the thirteen century, none of us knows what was the relationship people from that time had with liberty for start and even less with religion or the Holy Mother Church.

We also don't know what a thirteen century man would think about "uninhibited".

Actually it's pretty easy to know. A good starting point is to understand that politics is essentially the same across the board.

I'm not saying that the Church's dealing with differences was bad or should not have happened. It's natural and necessary that the Church deals with perceived deviation and opposition. It's also pretty natural, though not easily excusable, that those in the Church in position to deal with it adopted questionable methods. Naturally it cannot be judged by our current standards alone. But I am definitely saying that in the process some bright individuals were prevented from full realisation.

And this is not saying anything overly harsh. It has been going on in all places, at all times, and it's therefore obvious that it has also happened and is going on in the enormous big org that the Church is. And therefore it's obvious why some people determined for their own realisation are cautious of the big org.

Quote from: Belfrager on

History of Mentalities is a very recent and very promising area of Historical Studies exactly because it aims to let us learn about what was to be alive at those remote times.

Study of biographies and microhistory has always been a subfield in historical studies. Nice that you are discovering it too :)

Quote from: Belfrager on

Just the other day, you mentioned the Catholic Church as a place were each one could chose from a variety of Orders, kind of a spiritual gourmet menu...  I'm certain we have very nice contemplative Orders where you can feel totally uninhibited for your quest.
Ah, no forums I'm afraid, social mysticism hasn't arrived yet. :)

The idea would be exactly to get away from any kind of forums. This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, not for chatting about. Something like this looks cute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqU18nKiVss

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #414 –
Quote from: ersi on
This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, [...]

Not exactly... most of those Orders have strange ideas about sanctity through manual work... you'll have to sweat a lot while digging at the monastery garden... :)

So, you did well choosing the Carthusians, those don't dig but in the depths of the Soul.
It remains to be seen if they accept you...

It's not easy to enter such Orders. They take it extremely seriously, as it should be what's a radical decision for the entire life. No Catholic Order wants people entering and leaving so those who feels such appeal have to go trough many steps and processes until they eventually reach entrance to an Order.

For people that are just needing a time for personal reflexion, contemplation, whatever away from day to day life there are spiritual retreats for a week or two.

All that is made always under the supervision of Priests and in strict accordance with the Church rules and guides.
You wouldn't like it. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #415 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Quote from: ersi on
This sort of stuff is really for contemplation alone, [...]

Not exactly... most of those Orders have strange ideas about sanctity through manual work... you'll have to sweat a lot while digging at the monastery garden... :)

I am perfectly comfortable with manual work since early childhood. In contrast, my adult life is marked by office work, but this completely against my will and intention. Namely, I tried many tough sweaty jobs immediately after high school, but unfortunately they were extremely ill paid and insecure, so in the end I was forced to get a university degree and now I am stuck with decently paid easy sitting office jobs :(

I understand well the need to combine manual labour and contemplation. Even those with very strong inclination towards contemplation must have a period in their life, say a decade, full of manual labour, in order to get a proper taste of the elements of real life, because in the end it's all about attunement with reality, not wishful dreaming.

Quote from: Belfrager on

All that is made always under the supervision of Priests and in strict accordance with the Church rules and guides.
You wouldn't like it. :)

I have read the Benedictine rule for example. I like it just fine. In practice the rule may work differently of course. Some superiors may interpret it in some other way than the impression I got from reading. This is exactly why it's good to have a choice between multiple orders. And of course I understand the choice must be perfect, done just once for entire life.

I feel strong attraction for Thai forest monks and Tibetan cave meditation, but some monasteries closer around may provide other fun ways to combine physical exercise with holy contemplation and singing of hymns http://www.grreporter.info/en/fight_between_monks_esphigmenou_monastery_mount_athos/9775

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #416 –
Well... you seem to have your homework well done Ersi...
A last attempt do dissuade you, you realize that you would to voluntarily and happily accept celibacy, don't you?
In fact, is more than accept celibacy, is to desire it. Desiring no desire.

The temptation for a contemplative life affects many of us amongst those more prone to the mysteries of the soul, at some particular time of our lives.
Thankfully for most, it doesn't last long. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #417 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

Well... you seem to have your homework well done Ersi...
[...]
In fact, is more than accept celibacy, is to desire it. Desiring no desire.

I've done my homework on this point too. And done it well.

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #419 –
 

From The Sydney Morning Herald

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #420 –
Time the Jesuits gave up on that old cry.  :D
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #421 –
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles. There are aspects of the doctrine and principles of natural theology that should always be adhered to, if the religious institution wants to be recognisable to its members. There may be some quibble about how natural theology should be construed, but any change should also stem from a theological principle, not from popular or populist whim.

For example the church's official view on gay marriages. In an interview with Finnish YLE, the archbishop of Swedish Church Antje Jackelén (the first female archbishop in Sweden) emitted some noteworthy passages.

Quote from: Antje Jackelén, archbishop Church of Sweden

We teach that all people are of the same worth and we encourage relationships of love as big as life itself. It doesn't diminish the value of the traditional marriage when the protection provided by means of marriage is also provided to same-sex couples.

Now, if marriage has to do with family and procreation - as it does scripturally, biologically, and in natural theology - then it definitely alters the value of the sacrament of marriage to provide it to the same-sex couples. Without any thorough arguments such changes are devastating to the church's own historical position and status.

Compare this to a statement this week by the archbishop of Finnish Church (male) who said something like "homosexuals deserve an apology from the church" and there's lively discussion now what he actually meant, as the archbishop is known to be "philosophical" and didn't specify what the church should apologise for, who is responsible, if his own statement is sufficient for apology or should the priests and church members at large also assume an apologetic attitude in relation to homosexuals. One commentator was happy for the archbishop's indication of warmer ties with homosexuals, while another commentator noted that the archbishop appears to be deviating from the official church policy as outlined at the church council meetings.

Church of Finland's official line accepts female priests but not gay marriages. Church of Sweden accepts both female priests and gay marriages, but there's an opposing group of priests who don't follow these policies. Antje Jackelén promises further marginalisation to such dissenters based on this kind of reasoning:

Quote from: Antje Jackelén, archbishop Church of Sweden

When one works for Ikea, but agrees only to sell tables and not stools, one may still be an excellent table salesman, but it's unlikely to progress much in career this way.

The comparison with Ikea is of course exactly the kind of populist commercial perspective to religion that squarely goes against all ethical values. Ikea sells whatever has a market, whatever people buy. When a different thing becomes trendy, Ikea will begin selling that different thing. Should religion follow commercial or social trends and not uphold more permanent values? Is the church competing with Ikea? Are people going to the church to look for the same things as they find in Ikea? Obviously this used to not be so historically, so what justification is there to turn the meaning of institutional religion in society upside down now?

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #422 –
The Church of England accepted women priests in modern times and has ow agreed to female bishops but queer marriage is still not on. In Scotland the Church of Scotland has long had women clergy as has the Congregational tradition who were early movers. As for the church of Rome it did have married clergy until the middle ages until some old white socks in the Vatican decided that would stop. Instead for centuries they shut a blind eye to their clergy having it off in legions and not missing out on children either. Kind of hypocritical really.  The former leader of the Romanists down in England (a cardinal) who died a few years ago stated publicly that refusing to let clergy marry was a man-made law (as we know) yet that Church still has 2% of it's standing clergy who are profligates. Indeed when one realises what 2% means in practice it is not just sad it is shocking.

A young nun I knew for a while admitted to me at a meal that she was all for married clergy and it must have been trying for her to keep her mouth closed inside the Roman corner.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #423 –
The first video I post here:
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BuOlKZ_C2k[/VIDEO]

Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion

Reply #424 –
Quote from: ersi on
A problem with institutional religion is lack of commitment to principles.


Some might say "too much of a commitment to principles".  In my studies of theology, theologians do have an obligation to use, interpret and maintain the original text and meaning of biblical scripture but at the same time, they must try to make it contemporary enough to keep it interesting and relevant in today’s world.  Theology warns itself not to get too close to any one cultural mood because moods change often and rapidly, and theology does not want to have an image of bouncing from one contemporary movement to the next haphazardly.  For the most part, I can agree with this idea of maintaining a timeless connection with the original word of God, but in light of many of today’s problems coming to ‘critical mass’, I think theology can do a better job by embracing certain issues of today. 

In the light of climate change, environmental damage, endangered species and impending challenges over the supply of energy and water, Christians concerned about ‘creation care’ are beginning to get to grips with what God actually meant by ‘… let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ Genesis 1: 26.  I believe that theology should take a bolder stand on these issues, they may be the modern mood, but these issues are with us for the duration, i.e. they will never be passe.  Theology needs to take into account that certain ‘moods’ are here to stay; the Bible speaks to these issues, therefore, theology needs to create formal doctrine on them. 

Your example of same sex couples in nothing short of abhorrent.  The people of biblical times knew nothing of the reasons for homosexuality.  They also knew nothing of 'pi' and therefore, there are mathematical mistakes in the bible that theology admits to and accounts for by pointing to the ignorance of people during that time.  Is theology and hence, religious doctrine not to take into account any modern scientific discoveries that are apparent to all but the most mindless of religious followers?  I think I have mentioned that theology already allows for an 'intra-kind' type of evolution to account for the undeniable fossil records, so they are giving some ground to science, although begrudgingly.  You just hate fags, that's all (or at least you should have used a less sensitive issue). 

James J