Another Priest Bites the Dust

[PKT_VOL]

I do not think that one can criticize the elaborate church's from a biblical standpoint (particularly the OT); however, I do think that one can criticize elaborate churches.

I agree with OT statement. Disagree when it comes to the NT.

What I think is beyond criticism, though, is the mere establishment of churches. Some are asserting that somehow reading the bible in the privacy of a home or having small study groups is better than having churches. However, I think that such an assertion misses two points: the history of the Church, printing presses, and literacy; and, the fact that the larger the group that is listening to and coming to understand what the scripture means and sharing that understanding and experience with others, the less likely the chance for radical and extremist views.

A centralized congregation in a town/neighborhood/etc., serves to draw all the inhabitants of that area. While the Mass or the Service might be directed by a single individual, the other individuals, being social creatures, will speak with each other in the immediate aftermath and share their thoughts; often, in my experience, these thoughts have centered around the Priest's interpretation/homily/sermon.

Yet, if I decide to invite individuals to my house to read and discuss scripture, I am probably going to invite like-minded individuals. We might, therefore, miss out on a certain perspective which could radically alter the way we read a certain passage. This is one reason, or justification given for, why universities in America push for diversity: diversity provides different perspectives and different perspectives allow one to see a problem/text/argument/etc. more fully.

A bunch of Christians who merely read the bible in their own homes, come to a conclusion with individuals who are very much like them, and let that conclusion, as their interpretation of the word of God, guide their actions is a scary thought. In fact, it is a terrifying thought.

Very much disagree.

People are willing to travel a good distance to attend a church that is of their liking. If what you said was true, people would just go to the closest church to them, denomination be damned. As you know, this is not the case. Hell, people will travel good distances (passing a few of their own denomination churches) to reach a church of their particular liking. The notion that people go to public church to seek diversity is just not reflected in reality.

The printing press and more importantly, the internet, has changed things completely. Now, more than ever before, people have access to an innumerable amount of different interpretations of not only their holy scripture but scriptures from different religions. The are certainly individuals that take advantage of this diversity/source of information. However, most (like politics), are only interested in reaffirming their own interpretation. Remember, under Christianity, God has only one will. There really isn't room for other interpretations (other versions of God's will). Although there are certainly different interpretations out there, by its very nature, one can only accept one on version of God's will.

Now, with that said, I think history has shown us that organized religion is unbelievably dangerous. As a society, we should promote decentralized religious activity instead of organized and highly centralized religion. I believe Søren Kierkegaard gave use the best advice when it came to religion/spirituality. Spirituality should be deeply personal. One is responsible for himself/herself to any God. Nobody has an inherently better understanding of God's will over another.

 

[therealUT]

Very much disagree.

People are willing to travel a good distance to attend a church that is of their liking. If what you said was true, people would just go to the closest church to them, denomination be damned. As you know, this is not the case. Hell, people will travel good distances (passing a few of their own denomination churches) to reach a church of their particular liking. The notion that people go to public church to seek diversity is just not reflected in reality.

As far as the Catholic Church, one's parish is determined by their location. "Shopping for churches" is not only frowned upon by Catholicism, but the notion is actual one that is anti-doctrinal without a justifying reason.

The printing press and more importantly, the internet, has changed things completely. Now, more than ever before, people have access to an innumerable amount of different interpretations of not only their holy scripture but scriptures from different religions. The are certainly individuals that take advantage of this diversity/source of information. However, most (like politics), are only interested in reaffirming their own interpretation. Remember, under Christianity, God has only one will. There really isn't room for other interpretations (other versions of God's will). Although there are certainly different interpretations out there, by its very nature, one can only accept one on version of God's will.

Sure, one can buy books and more books and read blogs and more blogs to see if someone else is asking the same questions or if someone else is reading scripture as they are. However, this often requires both an awareness of one's understanding of scripture as different from others and the ability to properly form a question and then conduct a query into books and blogs. It is much easier to do so in a very large group with a vast mix of individuals with different perspectives.

Now, with that said, I think history has shown us that organized religion is unbelievably dangerous. As a society, we should promote decentralized religious activity instead of organized and highly centralized religion. I believe Søren Kierkegaard gave use the best advice when it came to religion/spirituality. Spirituality should be deeply personal. One is responsible for himself/herself to any God. Nobody has an inherently better understanding of God's will over another.

I do not think that organized religion is unbelievably dangerous; I think that theocracies are extremely dangerous. Organized religion does not have to possess administrative control (either direct or indirect) over societies.

 

[Gramps]

Originally Posted by therealUT View Post
I do not think that one can criticize the elaborate church's from a biblical standpoint (particularly the OT); however, I do think that one can criticize elaborate churches.

I agree with OT statement. Disagree when it comes to the NT.

What in the NT make you disagree ?


I cannot think of anything in the NT that would make me disagree with TRUT's statement.

 

[PKT_VOL]

As far as the Catholic Church, one's parish is determined by their location. "Shopping for churches" is not only frowned upon by Catholicism, but the notion is actual one that is anti-doctrinal without a justifying reason.

There are other religious denominations besides the Catholic Church.

Sure, one can buy books and more books and read blogs and more blogs to see if someone else is asking the same questions or if someone else is reading scripture as they are. However, this often requires both an awareness of one's understanding of scripture as different from others and the ability to properly form a question and then conduct a query into books and blogs. It is much easier to do so in a very large group with a vast mix of individuals with different perspectives.

What you are really saying is that people are too stupid to find spiritual guidance on their own.

I do not think that organized religion is unbelievably dangerous; I think that theocracies are extremely dangerous. Organized religion does not have to possess administrative control (either direct or indirect) over societies.

Theocracies are the most dangerous, sure. That does not negate the danger of organized religion in a secular state. Organized religious leaders still have a lot of political clout over their subjects. I am not sure how you could even begin to say that an organization which hold the keys to one's fate for eternity is not dangerous.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What in the NT make you disagree ?

I cannot think of anything in the NT that would make me disagree with TRUT's statement.

In my own interpretation of the NT, Jesus would be appalled a mega churches, Cathedrals, the Vatican, etc.

If you think otherwise, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I am not sure where in the NT support of such things are.

 

[therealUT]

There are other religious denominations besides the Catholic Church.

And? All that must occur is one counterpoint to demonstrate that your argument is not valid. If there are individuals who are not permitted through their religious beliefs to shop around for churches, thus they are thrown into a mixed community with divergent viewpoints, then the opportunity exists for them to see scripture from several different viewpoints.

What you are really saying is that people are too stupid to find spiritual guidance on their own.

Not even close. I am saying that there are unknown unknowns in scripture; it is not stupidity that one cannot figure out the unknown unknown. Maybe you are so brilliant that you have never been presented with an interpretation of something that you neither saw nor even conceived of could exist. Kudos to you if you are. From my own experience, I often discuss what I read, what I hear, what I see with others who read, heard, and saw the same thing. In doing so, I gain access to a wide variety of different perspectives and these perspectives inform my interpretation. Were I given enough time with one text, I might eventually figure out everything that is possibly entailed in said text. But, I do not have that kind of time. Neither do most individuals in this world. Thus, they read scripture and have scripture read to them once a week and they discuss it with those around them.

Theocracies are the most dangerous, sure. That does not negate the danger of organized religion in a secular state. Organized religious leaders still have a lot of political clout over their subjects. I am not sure how you could even begin to say that an organization which hold the keys to one's fate for eternity is not dangerous.

The same way that I say a firearm is not dangerous. Such an entity is contingently dangerous, not inherently so. Moreover, while the thought of eternal damnation is a strong motivator, it is not as strong as physical pain; hence, torture works. There have been plenty of secular states that have been just as, if not more, brutal than theocracies and they motivate their subjects through sheer physical terror. But, I do not think that states are inherently dangerous. They are contingently dangerous.

 

[therealUT]

In my own interpretation of the NT, Jesus would be appalled a mega churches, Cathedrals, the Vatican, etc.

If you think otherwise, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I am not sure where in the NT support of such things are.

1. Jesus asserting that he will not only tear down, but also rebuild the Temple. Sure, this is allegorical, but if he wanted to simply say that the wealth on display in the Temple was awful, then why not just stick to tearing down the Temple?

2. Jesus gets upset with the buying and selling of bull**** in the Temple and responds that it is his father's house. Yet, Jesus does not go from tipping the table over to tearing down all the ornamentation in the Temple. Why not? Would the Jews have crucified him had he done so?

3. I think one could read the story of Jesus as Jesus instructing others to do whatever so long as they ground the purpose in doing it for Jesus. If building a Temple will bring more people to God, then build the ****ing Temple. Hell, if one had the choice between building the Temple or feeding 100,000 individuals, in which building the Temple would bring 50,000 individuals to God while feeding the people would only bring 25,000, I do not think one could find justification in the NT for saying that the people ought to be fed at the cost of the Temple.

 

[Gramps]

1. Jesus asserting that he will not only tear down, but also rebuild the Temple. Sure, this is allegorical, but if he wanted to simply say that the wealth on display in the Temple was awful, then why not just stick to tearing down the Temple?

2. Jesus gets upset with the buying and selling of bull**** in the Temple and responds that it is his father's house. Yet, Jesus does not go from tipping the table over to tearing down all the ornamentation in the Temple. Why not? Would the Jews have crucified him had he done so?

3. I think one could read the story of Jesus as Jesus instructing others to do whatever so long as they ground the purpose in doing it for Jesus. If building a Temple will bring more people to God, then build the ****ing Temple. Hell, if one had the choice between building the Temple or feeding 100,000 individuals, in which building the Temple would bring 50,000 individuals to God while feeding the people would only bring 25,000, I do not think one could find justification in the NT for saying that the people ought to be fed at the cost of the Temple.

1. When Jesus said he would tear down the temple and build it back in 3 days he was referring to his crucifixion and resurrection.

His crucifixion was tearing down the temple or doing away with the Law of the OT.

His resurrection was rebuilding the temple in 3 days as a new way the Grace way. This was the beginning of Christianity. We no longer had to live under the Law of the OT. Jesus could now forgive us of our sins.


2. Jesus was letting everyone know the Temple was the House of God. It should be respected and used as a place of worship. It is not a mall etc.

 

[PKT_VOL]

And? All that must occur is one counterpoint to demonstrate that your argument is not valid. If there are individuals who are not permitted through their religious beliefs to shop around for churches, thus they are thrown into a mixed community with divergent viewpoints, then the opportunity exists for them to see scripture from several different viewpoints.

Your one counterpoint was self defeating. You admitted that even Catholics do it. My sister and brother-in-law do it. My best friend's family does it. The list goes on and on (most of my religious friends are Catholic).

Not even close. I am saying that there are unknown unknowns in scripture; it is not stupidity that one cannot figure out the unknown unknown. Maybe you are so brilliant that you have never been presented with an interpretation of something that you neither saw nor even conceived of could exist. Kudos to you if you are. From my own experience, I often discuss what I read, what I hear, what I see with others who read, heard, and saw the same thing. In doing so, I gain access to a wide variety of different perspectives and these perspectives inform my interpretation. Were I given enough time with one text, I might eventually figure out everything that is possibly entailed in said text. But, I do not have that kind of time. Neither do most individuals in this world. Thus, they read scripture and have scripture read to them once a week and they discuss it with those around them.

Never said anything like that. Hell, the reason I am on Volnation, the Philosophy Forums, and read different opinions in books from my own is for the reasons outlined above.

The point, that you seemingly completely whiffed on, was that although one can gain as many different perspectives as his heart's desire and still never truly know a dead person's intentions. This would go for philosophy or the Bible.

Secondly, one does not need the church for this quest. One has the internet now for that. Most people do not go to church for differing opinions. If they did, they would go to different houses of faith every week.

The same way that I say a firearm is not dangerous. Such an entity is contingently dangerous, not inherently so. Moreover, while the thought of eternal damnation is a strong motivator, it is not as strong as physical pain; hence, torture works. There have been plenty of secular states that have been just as, if not more, brutal than theocracies and they motivate their subjects through sheer physical terror. But, I do not think that states are inherently dangerous. They are contingently dangerous.

I agree with this on a individual level. Once one submits to another in a religious manner, then one is no longer in control of their eternity. This can happen implicitly or explicitly. When that happens, it moves beyond contingently dangerous (in my mind) by falls short of explicitly dangerous (given the right leader). The difference being that a gun can set by itself a 1000 years and never fire a round. The probability of the same happening for organized religion is minuscule.

 

[PKT_VOL]

1. Jesus asserting that he will not only tear down, but also rebuild the Temple. Sure, this is allegorical, but if he wanted to simply say that the wealth on display in the Temple was awful, then why not just stick to tearing down the Temple?

We are not sure what exactly he meant by "temple". It might not be what we think.

2. Jesus gets upset with the buying and selling of bull**** in the Temple and responds that it is his father's house. Yet, Jesus does not go from tipping the table over to tearing down all the ornamentation in the Temple. Why not? Would the Jews have crucified him had he done so?

I don't believe this tells us anything besides the fact that he was not happy with the temple of that time.

3. I think one could read the story of Jesus as Jesus instructing others to do whatever so long as they ground the purpose in doing it for Jesus. If building a Temple will bring more people to God, then build the ****ing Temple. Hell, if one had the choice between building the Temple or feeding 100,000 individuals, in which building the Temple would bring 50,000 individuals to God while feeding the people would only bring 25,000, I do not think one could find justification in the NT for saying that the people ought to be fed at the cost of the Temple.

Ah. I think we have made progress here. This illustrates the true difference between us on this issue.

I believe Jesus chooses to feed the 100,000 individuals in need. I guess this should be a lead-in to my controversial way of thinking of Jesus.

I believe Jesus was primarily a humanitarian showing man the error of his ways (sin). I do not believe Jesus's main goal was to test of faith of humanity. He was first and foremost a humanitarian of divinity. He was here to teach man a way of life that was consistent with God's will in comparison to the sinful world man had created. This included modesty, charity, humbleness, etc. If one was to accept that this lifestyle was of the divine, then him being the Son of God sent to absolve the sinners of their sin would follow (either literally or figuratively). The idea that one "believe" in him to enter heaven is not one of simply saying "yeah, Jesus was the Son of God and died for man's sins" but believing in what Jesus the divine humanitarian was preaching. Not only believing, but living (because living shows that one truly understand, accepts, and wants to replicate) such a notion is what true faith and entering the Kingdom of Heaven with him is all about. In short, deeds lead to faith; not faith leads to deeds.

I know, out there. That is what I get when I read the NT.

 

[PKT_VOL]

1. When Jesus said he would tear down the temple and build it back in 3 days he was referring to his crucifixion and resurrection.

His crucifixion was tearing down the temple or doing away with the Law of the OT.

His resurrection was rebuilding the temple in 3 days as a new way the Grace way. This was the beginning of Christianity. We no longer had to live under the Law of the OT. Jesus could now forgive us of our sins.


2. Jesus was letting everyone know the Temple was the House of God. It should be respected and used as a place of worship. It is not a mall etc.

I don't believe Jesus would be hurt if the churches suddenly vanished.

 

[Gramps]

I don't believe Jesus would be hurt if the churches suddenly vanished.

The church is the bride of Christ.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

I don't believe Jesus would be hurt if the churches suddenly vanished.

If the christian church (people) does vanish suddenly, you are in for an eye opening for 7 years of harsh tribulation which is said so by the Book of Revelation.

 

[volmaverick]

I don't see anything wrong in this particular case.

How the Catholic Church has handled gay men is a different story.

Fixed it for you!

 

[PKT_VOL]

The church is the bride of Christ.

Eh, depends on what "church" means those verses.

 

[PKT_VOL]

If the christian church (people) does vanish suddenly, you are in for an eye opening for 7 years of harsh tribulation which is said so by the Book of Revelation.

Lulz.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

If the christian church (people) does vanish suddenly, you are in for an eye opening for 7 years of harsh tribulation which is said so by the Book of Revelation.

And this is an example of the church usurping the mind along with the will to use it.

 

[therealUT]

Your one counterpoint was self defeating. You admitted that even Catholics do it.

Yes, some do shop for churches; and, it is widely frowned upon. The majority of individuals in Catholic Churches that I have been to, comprise a wide mix of everyone from the vicinity. They are not like-minded, in my experience. But, they still talk to each other and discuss the Mass and the Homily.

Never said anything like that. Hell, the reason I am on Volnation, the Philosophy Forums, and read different opinions in books from my own is for the reasons outlined above.

The point, that you seemingly completely whiffed on, was that although one can gain as many different perspectives as his heart's desire and still never truly know a dead person's intentions. This would go for philosophy or the Bible.

I do not care about the intentions of the author, I care about what is written. Just as in art, I care not about the artists intentions, I care about the artwork. Now, I can get different perspectives from how others see the text and the artwork. I care little about the author, though. Thus, I can gain very good interpretation and insight into the text and the argument from talking with others about it; I do not need to speak with the author about it (and, quite frankly, speaking to the author can sometimes actually make the text murkier...there is an anecdote regarding Richard Rorty and Derrida; they were on Derrida's sailboat in the middle of the Mediterranean, and Rorty asked Derrida if Derrida even knew what he was saying in his books; Derrida laughed, said, "Look, we're on a sailboat, does it matter?"; sure, that kind of sums up Derrida, but it does not clear up the situation).

Secondly, one does not need the church for this quest. One has the internet now for that. Most people do not go to church for differing opinions. If they did, they would go to different houses of faith every week.

1. I would rather speak with individuals face to face about most matters; and, I am someone who is quite comfortable on internet forums. I can only imagine how much others would rather speak with others face to face as opposed to on the internet.

2. It does not follow that those seeking different perspectives would go to different churches every week. There are plenty of perspectives within single Church communities; and, being that they are a community, it is easier to approach others in that community and have a discussion.

I agree with this on a individual level. Once one submits to another in a religious manner, then one is no longer in control of their eternity. This can happen implicitly or explicitly. When that happens, it moves beyond contingently dangerous (in my mind) by falls short of explicitly dangerous (given the right leader). The difference being that a gun can set by itself a 1000 years and never fire a round. The probability of the same happening for organized religion is minuscule.

"Moves beyond contingently...explicitly dangerous"?

The dialectic is between contingent and necessary. If you say that it moves beyond contingently, then it moves to necessarily. Organized religion is not necessarily dangerous. It is contingently so.

 

[Gramps]

Eh, depends on what "church" means those verses.

The Church is the "body of believers." It is comprised of those who have been saved and redeemed by the True and Living God, based upon the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus upon the cross.

Inclusion in the Body of Christ is not by membership in a denomination, nor by baptism, nor or by dedication. It is not received by ritual, or by ceremony, or by natural birth. It is received by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8). The invisible church is the church made up of true believers.

The visible church consists of those who say they are Christian but may or may not be truly saved. Being a member of a church on earth, guarantees nothing. Being a member of the Body of Christ, guarantees salvation.

 

[MercyPercy]

And this is an example of the church usurping the mind along with the will to use it.

Screw it, I hope it happens. With all the participants gone, I'll find the most *****in' church in town and turn it into my hedonistic mancave.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Screw it, I hope it happens. With all the participants gone, I'll find the most *****in' church in town and turn it into my hedonistic mancave.

Wanna crash some fundamentalist joints in my old neck of the woods?

I'll bring the beer.

 

[MercyPercy]

Chicken wings instead of thin wafers, whiskey instead of watered down wine, and ashes go in the ashtray instead of on your forehead.

Pastor Percy's got it all covered.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Chicken wings instead of thin wafers, whiskey instead of watered down wine, and ashes go in the ashtray instead of on your forehead.

Pastor Percy's got it all covered.

Pastor Percy and Father Flicka... head of the Catlick Church.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Pastor Percy and Father Flicka... head of the Catlick Church.

this right here is hilarious stuff. when will this comedy act officially open on the road? :rock:

 

[Gramps]

this right here is hilarious stuff. when will this comedy act officially open on the road? :rock:

They might put you in as a deacon if you ask them nicely.