Religious DUers...at what point in our maturing process as people

[Thtwudbeme]

of faith, do we start to deconstruct the doctrines of our orthodox experiences?

I personally feel that until we are willing to do that collectively and thoughtfully; that there will be no positive changes.

I am getting ready to make a statement that many religious folks here are going to find objectionable: Organized Religion has held more societies back in terms of progress, and has caused mental anguish, predjudiced, death and descrimination-

At what point do we begin to examine the origins of the vast right wing conspiracy and stand up to announce that we will no longer be a party to that type of lunacy?

[tjwmason]

1. I disagree

Organized Religion has held more societies back in terms of progress, and has caused mental anguish, predjudiced, death and descrimination

Organised religion, just like every other facet of human behaviour has done this, but it has also greatly advanced societies. Similarly the enforced absence of religion (and I would note that in all places where it has been absent there has been enforcement) has held societies back, and advanced them.

Organised religion contains people, and being honest we're pretty good at screwing things up; but then at times we're not that bad and can make great strides.

[Kire]

2. at the point we have read Jacques Derrida

hence, the reason it doesn't happen as often as you would like

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't. But there are about 5 major

religious doctrines which are incompatible with each other. The adherents of each think they're right, that means 4 of them (and all the other, "minor" doctrines) are wrong. So a whole lot of people (billions!) are worshiping "wrongly", have "wrong" practices, "wrong" holidays and "wrong" values.

Unless you accept that the choice of doctrine is just that, a choice - or worse, and unexamined accident of life circumstance. In either case, there is nothing divine about it. Who is to say your choice/accident isn't a wrong one?

[Enquiringkitty]

23. The basics of all religions are faith in a higher power greater than

ourselves. Other than than....we simply don't know. The detailed explanations religions are subjective based on the writing of a human....all of which say they got the info from God. This is the dogma surrounding that religion. It is the dogma that varies. Many lives have been lost through out history because of the differences in dogma.....details. This is like having a war based on the belief that brown eyed people are loved more by God than blue eyed people. The fact remains that God loves people with eyes. The details of one persons beliefs over another does not take away from their belief and love for God.

[Solon]

4. It totally depends on the person's education and religious background...

to a degree. For example, someone brought up in a Fundlementalist family with strict guidlines as to what is acceptable to know or not would have a harder time in question orthodoxy than someone in a more religiously liberal family.

ON EDIT: Also, conversely, someone in a more religiously strict household may also question the religion more forcefully during the rebellious teenage years than someone in a more liberal household. I don't personally have experience in this but others may.

[Katidid]

5. Aren't religious organizations

the fastest economically and profitable growing organizations? It sure seems they "rack" in a lot of money.

[kwassa]

6. I disagree, I think this view is ahistorical

I don't think that organized religion has held societies back, except is certain specific instances. One of the basic functions of religion historically is to unite a cultural or ethnic group with a religious view universally expressed within that group. It is this which gives the group cohesion, and also a consistent system of group morality, and thereby makes society more efficient.

Of course, organized religion has all the fault and flaws of any organized human group structure, including hypocrisy, corruption, and struggles for power.

[Thtwudbeme]

7. Kwassa, what held societies together cohesively

was the type of means of redistribution of wealth.

There were no organized, widespread, orthodox Christian churches (with the hierarchy of Bishops, Ministers, etc..) until about 200A.D. You can argue for the cults and myths of the the Greeks and Romans (my personal favorite: the Vestigal Virgins..but, that's a whole different thread)--but, those cults were ineffective in vying for political power and money.

[kwassa]

16. I'm not sure of your point

The pagan religions were used as a unifier by the Romans, but were seen as ineffective when various outside tribes managed to successfully attack the empire and sack Rome. I've just been reading about that, and how Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, and how the system of bishops developed. And the whole controversey with the Arian Christians

but vying for political power and money is not a concept that is central to any religious practice, to me.

and I don't agree that what holds societies together was the means of redistribution of wealth, but more a shared ethos, of which religion can certainly be a part.

[BurtWorm]

17. Rome itself was not sacked until the Empire was officially Christian

I recommend Guns, Germs and Steel, which offers an interesting interpretation of the history of human societies.

PS: My source for the subject line claim is Gibbon. Maybe you have fresher info.

[kwassa]

19. My source is

"When Jesus Became God" by Robert Rosenberg, which I am currently reading. Rome was sacked pre-Constantine, by one of the Germanic tribes. I can get more references when I can get to the book. He is a contemporary scholar on early Christian history.

[BurtWorm]

20. I'm thinking of Alaric's sack of the city of Rome in 410

I don't know of any other sack of the city itself before then. Googling it just now, I find one by the Gauls in 390 BC and one in the sixteenth century AD. But I'll await your word on what's in Rosenberg's book.

[kwassa]

25. No, you are correct

This book isn't written in a strictly chronological fashion, but more of a history of the ideas. The author made a forward reference to the sacking of Rome that was undated. He directly refered to incursions by Germanic tribes and Persians along the frontiers during the 220s, and discussed the instability of Rome that saw 17 rulers in 70 years, all generals grabbing power. This ended with the rise of Diocletian, who restored the central power, and who also persecuted Christians systematically. He was eventually succeeded by Constantine, who had the opposite policy, and coverted the Romans to Christianity.

And I misremebered the author's name, which is actually Richard E. Rubenstein.

[Thtwudbeme]

18. If vying power is not central to catholic and apostolic churches

how do you explain the churches determination to attempt to wipe the history, and writings of the gnostics off the face of the earth?

Why do you think the Catholic church does not allow marriage of their nuns and priests?

Vying for that power, and that money is extremely central to the formation of the church.

I will be glad to get back to the pagans, and Rome...but, have to leave to go to work--but, think about this: how did worshipping pagan gods help to centralize power in Rome? Which gods? Why were the Romans interested in killing Christians?

[kwassa]

21. I can give you details later, but I need to get to the book.

I've just read Elaine Pagels "Beyond Belief" and am currently reading "When Jesus Became God" by Robert Rosenberg, which pretty clearly outlines the political considerations that the Romans had for becoming Christian, among other motives. Power was centralized in Rome because power started in Rome, and it was the structure of the empire. Pagan religions were certainly not as centralized as Christianity became much later, but neither was Christianity at this point, with the chief power being local bishops in the city states such as Alexandria, or Antioch. There were rival pagan priests in the same locales.

Rosenberg points up how worship of certain pagan gods in the form of sacrifices was demanded by certain emperors. Those Christians that refused at certain times were tortured, at other times a general religious tolerance was practiced, depending on who was running the Roman Empire.

you said:
"how do you explain the churches determination to attempt to wipe the history, and writings of the gnostics off the face of the earth?

Why do you think the Catholic church does not allow marriage of their nuns and priests?"

I highly recommend this book which is both quite readable and addresses these questions in considerable detail. The power considerations were really the work of Constantine, who saw Christianity, and one form of it, as a ticket to unify the Empire and send it in a new and successful direction. He himself didin't convert until his deathbed, but was quite content to run the Council of Nicea, the first of a series of Councils determining the future direction of what became the Catholic church. At this state, priests were not celibate, and were often married.

[kwassa]

26. The major issue was: how divine was Jesus?

summarized from Rubenstein's book, as I understand it:

The was the central theological dispute among Christians, which concealed a practical matter. From the Arian position anyone could become as Jesus by the way they lived their life. (This is a very simplified version of the argument). From the argument posed by Athanasius, the chief opponent, Jesus was exactly as divine as God, which became the position of what became the Catholic church.

If Jesus weren't as divine as God, there would be no reason to create a church around Jesus because there would be no absolute need to go through Jesus to get to God.

[BurtWorm]

27. But notice that it was all based on a political struggle between two camps

and originally the Arians had the upper hand. It all depended on which side the Emperor was on.

[Lerkfish]

8. while I understand your point...

and I agree that the right wing component of some religion is abhorrent, I take exception with the concept that moving away from religion is "mature" while remaining religious is by implication "immature".

Further, I object to the notion that until we think as you do, we do not think. That's a very intolerant position. Since you seem to be upset by intolerance, practicing it yourself gives the appearance of at best confused thinking, and at worst hypocrisy.

Rather than "maturing" and abandoning religion, what really needs to happen is a massive return to the actual precepts of most religions: loving thy neighbor as thyself, doing good, mending those who are broken, selflessness and charity.
There is great wisdom, compassion and instructions for responsible living in nearly all the religious texts, from Islam to Buddhism to Judaism to Christianity...

The problem is not religion, or even orthodoxy, but rather the persistent tendency of ill-intentioned people to confabulate and misdirect religion to their own unsavory purposes.
That is not an immature but rather an evil act. As an example: some people want to hate gays...but they want to feel good about themselves even in their intolerance. So, since they are unwilling to release their hatred, they go about warping and misusing scriptures to justify their abhorrent position, when in fact, the bible says very little about homosexuality and even then there are extenuating circumstances in those scant passages.

So, is the bible itself wrong? the same bible with the sermon on the mount, and who tells us not to judge each other, and that peacemakers are blessed? Or are people with unsavory intent wrong to use religion to justify their own base natures?

If its the people themselves, removing religion will not stop the unsavory practices. For example, do you honestly believe if a virulent homophobic at some point has a crisis of faith and abandons religion, that his homophobia will evaporate? Was religion the evil seed within him that caused him to hate? Of course not. The hatred was always within him, and religion failed to root it out, because he was more devoted to his hatred than his religion.

IMHO

[Thtwudbeme]

9. How was I advocating "moving away from Religion?"

I am in school to be a minister-

I am advocating moving toward deconstructing our faith in the orthodox doctrines, and finding a way to make our faith more beneficial to mankind as a whole.

As far as your last paragraph about homophobia is concerned, that is exactly my point. Homophobes routinely use church doctrine (OT-Leviticus, NT-Paul) as a means of advocating their hatred. It is only going to be through the deconstruction of those ideas permeated by the church that we begin to change.

I am sorry you misread my post; I wondered it's clarity when I wrote it.

Stephanie

[Lerkfish]

10. well, I reread your post, and I still come away with that impression...

so I don't think its all that clear what you're trying to say in your original post.

apologies for misreading it.

[Thtwudbeme]

12. No, it's probably not all that clear; my writing sucks, and I am horrible

at "getting my ideas across."

I am trying to get people interested in the idea of understanding the origins of some of the doctrines that the organized catholic and apostolic churches have been telling us are the "truth" for the past 1800 years--for instance (this may help, or you might throw up your hands, suggest I take some more writing classes and put me on "ignore")--

Let's think about the homosexual issue. If you are Jewish, you know what Levitical law says ("Don't. Period. AND furthermore, stay away from shrimp."), and as Christians, we know what Paul wrote in his letters to the Romans: an entire paragraph dedicated to namecalling (unclean, backbiters, haters of men, unnatural) of anyone involved in a homosexual relationship.

Now...we have to ask two questions...why did the writers of the OT say that, and what was Paul thinking? Then there's the other question...why are Lesbians almost completely ignored here? To answer those questions, we have to put it in context of time---

The name of the game then was population. Population meant survival to those people--children were social security--and lots of boys meant a strong army. We know that there was no penicillin back then....so...

Girls could spend the afternoon with their girlfriends...watch the kids at the same time, and have orgasms all day...and still get knocked up when the husband comes home.

UNLESS...the husband had been out with the boys having some hootchie kootchie male bonding. IF he remembers to bathe well...he might not bring home infections and venereal disease...but, to put it bluntly...he has already shot his wad. Killing a woman of childbearing years--bad. Producing no children...OK, that's bad too.

My point of all this is that we must learn to apply what we know as a society to our ancient myths, in order to move forward as a society.

Homosexuality should not be a socially divisive issue in this day and age. Our population problem does not exist in the US anymore--so, it's time to move on, and give homosexuals the rights that we recieve as heteros--

How do you feel about that--seriously, did I make myself more clear?

Stephanie

[Lerkfish]

13. okay, I got it better this time: my comments:

If I understand you correctly, you want to examine (and hopefully demolish) errant items that have become understood to be ironclad rules from centuries or decades of accumulated misperceptions or the inability to view passages in their chronistic and cultural context.

To that, I agree. I have made the point myself that the RW christians are more accurately paulists than christians, as they ignore the meat of christ's message of compassion, forgiveness and love, and get mistakenly sidetracked into Paul's letters on societal attitudes AT THE TIME, and become modern day pharisees: where they are more concerned with how they wash the cup than with what they fill the cup.

a good example would be Paul's reference to a woman with short hair being a shameful thing. WHICH, AT THAT TIME, was a valid societal norm or custom and therefore valid in his letters to specific congregations for specific reasons, and in making points from their common knowledge to extrapolate to higher issues (sometimes). The problem is, as you are pointing out I think, that we no longer live in Phillipi in the first century, so any reference to a societal more and an attempt to apply it to our present day society is anachronistic, to say the least.

What you appear to be proposing is to find some way to break the stranglhood these miscreant conceptions have on the religion, which serve the purpose of distraction and sidetracking the more important issues of our relationship to God, our mission to FORGIVE rather than to judge, our openness to compassion, etc.

ok, then I agree. I am unsure of the mechanism to do so, though, because it will in some cases be tackling long held mistaken priorities and replacing them with the proper priorities...which is going to be perceived as threatening to those holding those concepts.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Oregon is a case in point

IT is one of the least religious states in the nation, with fewer than 1/3 claiming any religious affiliation at all and 17% declared atheists. Yet it passed an anti-gay initiative in 2004.

Having lived in Oregon for 19 years, I read this not as a triumph of religiously-oriented bigotry (Although the fundies have been solidly behind the series of anti-gay measures put forth since 1991, they have been matched by pro-gay efforts from the mainstream churches) but as a triumph of frontier macho among the loggers, ranchers, fishermen, and relocated California Republicans who make up the majority of the population outside of Portland and the college towns.

[T_i_B]

28. Well if you are training to be a minister

then that makes your arguments highly amusing.

If organized religion is bad, then how are you going to practice this belief of yours when you have a church to run? Should your would-be congregation stop worshiping God together and leave you with an empty Church and nobody to preach to?

If we want to grow spiritually, then of course we have to organize. Of course we have to be guided and taught. And of course we have to work together. If we do not hang together then we will surely hang separately.

[Thtwudbeme]

29. Why do you think ministers have to have churches?

I am not even remotely interested in working in a churh.

However, I am interested in discussing which of my ideas you find so misguiding that you felt compelled to tell me to change jobs! Please continue the discussion!

I am in the middle of some hard core midterms right now, and won't be able to post too much on DU until Tues. or possibly Monday night--but, then we are on to Easter! A great Pagan holiday! Do you search for Easter eggs in England?

Stephanie

[T_i_B]

31. Pastoral work then?

Well even industrial chaplains and prison chaplains take services, speak at church dinner clubs etc, all of which are organized under the banner of organized religion. People do want to hear about the chaplains experiences in these jobs. You really should not be afraid of preaching in Church.

Indeed the whole pastoral care find by the church is organized and funded by the Church (i.e. organized religion). It's a good thing when the church does this sort of pastoral work, and it really does not get enough recognition, but it certainly does come under the banner of organized religion, and pastoral care has been part of Christianity from the earliest times. I'm a firm believer that religion should not stop at the temple door.

[JanMichael]

32. Where did you get this idea?

"You really should not be afraid of preaching in the Church?"

How has anything I have posted indicated fear?

Look, you made some very wrong assumptions when you read my posts; I am going to make my own assumption, and say that is probably due to my writing style. Please don't advise me to work on that--I am--and try to see my own weaknesses.

Now, I asked you to tell me specifically where you think my ideas are wrong--not to give me career advice. I am not interested in "preaching." I am interested in hearing what you think I wrote is "wrong."

You wrote that "religion should not stop at the temple door." Which parts? The charitable parts? Or the parts that state "if you don't believe exactly as we do, then you are wrong?" The parts that say, "the church will let you know if you are a sinner?"

Try to clarify your thoughts, and worry less about my career.

[T_i_B]

34. I still don't know if this is Pastoral work you are want to do

And as for the part about Religion not stopping at the temple door, I simply mean that as Christians we should pratice what we preach. However, most of us (myself most certainly included) don't always live up to the high standards of the Sermon on the Mount.

Therefore we tend to need guidance and help, and the church should be there to provide this. We need to learn to look after each other more. And that is my point. I think that sometimes people tend to think that Christianity is just about going to Church of a Sunday, and it's about so much more than that. That's where pastoral care comes in, and if that's what you want to do then I salute you! :hi:

[Thtwudbeme]

33. Just so there is no confusion,

I want you to know that I accidentally posted a response to you under my husband's screenname: JanMichael.

Stephanie

[trotsky]

11. Any time that a book or a person is used as a supreme authority

you're going to have problems. And that's what orthodox religion usually ends up being - tying one's faith to a particular interpretation of an old book, usually under the leadership of one or a few individuals.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Last night at our midweek Lenten seminar, the priest passed out a

handout from the Center for Progressive Christianity.

http://www.tcpc.org/about/the_8_points_english.html#original

Sounds good to me.

[Stunster]

22. Whoa

Organized Religion has held more societies back in terms of progress, and has caused mental anguish, predjudiced, death and descrimination..

Substitute the word 'politics' for 'religion' in that sentence and you'll say something closer to the truth.

Are you advocating an end to organized politics?

[Tux]

24. My assumption

This may shock people but deal with it.

All religions (past, present and future) are wrong. Each and last one of them. Even atheism and agnosticism. They each have wisdom but that is all and no one has a monopoly on wisdom.

They get into details like the afterlife without any evidence. All that is needed is faith. As a Buddhist, I believe in reincarnation and always did but I am wrong. I can't prove I am but the way the afterlife and anything else described by religion is only an interpretation of what may or may not exist. The more detailed it is and the more it requires faith, the more it is wrong.

So, in essence, here is what religions teach us: the universe exists to exist, life exists to live, and we have to get along together with other people, animals, and the environment. Anything else is commentary. As for the afterlife, maybe there is none or maybe it is something we never thought of.

As long as we remember that we have to get along with each other, try to learn from each other, and take care of others, it's all good and kosher.

Have a great day.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

30. but my expeience hasn't been orthodox

As for denouncing a religion, well I sort of did that when I left a protestant church because the people there made desparaging comments about Jews. I have experienced many different ceremonies of many different faiths, and have no problem if people want to keep a certain label if they are also willing to see beyond dogma and keep looking for the truth-for what's real.

And I think that looking for truth is the way to go, to get 'round these rw people of all faiths who are hijacking the trappings of their religious faith to prop up their personal agendas. Look within. Find That which is there, if only for an instant. Feel the Real. I intuitively know this is the way to start to change the world.