Religion

Actually, Tom, I am not a Baptist and I am extremely offended that you called me one.

 

Hey, Russell:

You baptize adults, don't you?

You baptize in three names of one God, don't you? *

You baptize in more than 12 oz. of water?

ERGO...You are a Baptist!!!!

*(Yes Rich, I mentioned GOD. [agonized screams, writhing pain, explosions of undirected anger] I have not demeaned or offended your lack of belief or the nothing you don't worship. And I have no desire, believe me, to convert you...this was just a JOKE betweeen me and Russell. Russell is already a Christian: this is not an attempt on my part to witness to Russell or to convert him or anyone else reading these words. Please...do not adjust you TV set; do not adjust your radio; Please DO NOT open your Bible, especially to the early chapters of Romans. This reference to God was only in a JOKE. You need not demand I shut up. I will not here proclaim the Christ as my Lord, I will not....)



+Craig

 

Rich,

I do not mean this in any unkind manner. You seem awfully bothered by religion, merely the mention of it upsets you. You actually become quite intolerant of anyone expressing their beliefs. Although I am not privy to your personal life & history, you appear to have some issues or baggage in this regard.

I have appreciated your fine contributions to any number of topics and would hope that you would extend tolerance and allowance for intellectual exercise to this area as well.

North

 

You forgot another possibile choice: Gnosticism

It embraces the basic form of Christianity (no hierarchy) and throws in the "quest for knowledge" for good measure.

Gnosticism is a philosophical and religious movement which started in pre-Christian times. The term is derived from the Greek word gnosis which means "knowledge". It is pronounced with a silent "G" (NO-sis). Gnostics claimed to have secret knowledge about God, humanity and the rest of the universe of which the general population was unaware. It became one of the three main belief systems within 1st century Christianity, and was noted for its:

- unique beliefs about God, the Bible and the world which differed from those of other Christian groups (no church structure or rank)

- tolerance of different religious beliefs within and outside of Gnosticism

- lack of discrimination against women

Aside from the belief in God... Knowledge to them was not an intellectual exercise; it was not a passive understanding of some aspect of spirituality. Rather, knowledge had a redeeming and liberating function that helped the individual break free of bondage to the world.

Kinda like this joint.

 

I'm not really qualified to argue religion. I will stop.

I am disappointed in the lack of tolerance of a differing viewpoint. But then again, it's probably just my ignorance on the subject showing itself.

I can do without labels, thanks.

The non-believer has left the building (or thread, actually).

 

True tolerance is a mutual response, an agreement to disagree.
To disagree with a particular viewpoint is not intolerance, rather the manifestation of one's personal perspective. Tolerance transcends those differences and views with respect the inherent worth of each individual.

You make a valuable contribution to the forum and to DL in general, Rich.

 

Well stated Russell. First of all, I would like to that Tom for starting this thread (and poll ). We all do bounce around on religious topics on occasion and this has given us the opportunity to discuss them in more detail. For some of us, this is a big deal.

I have stated before, and I hope it is clear, that I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything. I give everyone the right to be wrong . Seriously, I appreciate the thoughts of others on this thread that are drastically different from mine. Russell and I would probably agree on most everything (except in some details). While in some ways, Tom and I are working toward the same goal, spiritually speaking, there are many ways in which we would find ourselves at odds. Then there is BillDayson, with whom I also am on a search, but probably in different directions... we would probably have alot that we would disagree with. Then Rich and I would have a field day in friendly (I think that is the key word here) argument. The other posters here, probably fall somewhere in amongst these folks.
But my point is that I have found thought provoking comments from all of the above participants. I do not take offense when one of you posts something that disagrees with some deeply held beliefs of mine. I would hope you wouldn't take offense when I disagree with some of yours. I am not attacking you, but rather questioning a belief.
I have been fascinated by the comments from several of you, and I thank you all for what you have posted. I hope that we can continue to share our beliefs with each other in friendly dialogue. We would all be more enriched for it.
(Just to make sure we all know, I do believe in the God of the Bible. I believe that we receive salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ. In other words, I believe in traditional Christianity.)

clint

 

That was supposed to be "to THANK Tom",
sorry

clint

 

Half of you guys are working on Ph.D.s in religion. We can all do better than this superficial back and forth sniping.

I'm going to try to do as I preach by commenting on a number of issues that were raised in the various posts that I found interesting.

I agree. Of course "none" takes in a lot of territory. There are militant atheists, in the sense of god-deniers. The alt.atheism bunch. Then there are those who don't necessarily deny religion, but just don't believe in it. Infants have no religion, but are they atheists? And there are even people who are profoundly religious in some sense, but who follow no established religion and hold no conventional religious beliefs.

I reacted against it myself, so there definitely is a perjorative association there. Part of that is because the fundies use the term as their punching bag. But part of it is also the fault of the militant atheists who use the phrase as their flag, issuing their manifestos, trying to identify themselves with the modern world's central cultural tendency.

But there is a less contentious use of the phrase "secular humanism", I think. One that I strongly identify with, I might add. In a historical sense, the phrase "secular humanism" indicates a cultural tendency that does not concentrate its attention on, and place its ultimate source of value in, the things of some different "higher" world. Rather it directs its attention squarely to this world and to the humans who are the actors here. In a nutshell, it's what makes our civilization different than that of the early medievals.

Compare that to an early medieval monk for whom the universe consisted only of the earth and some lights in the sky, bounded narrowly in time by creation at one end and judgement at the other, but with eternal heaven and hell looming above and below. Constantly tempted by otherworldly forces, that monk lived his life on a stage, with his every act judged by powerful offstage critics.

The physical world around him was read as if it were a book of signs, revealing God's will. Today that world is perceived as operating by innate natural processes that man can exploit to further his own will.

I think that this amazing intellectual change from the medieval world to our own cuts right across religions of all sorts. It hasn't come to a conclusion yet and after centuries the issues are still raw. It effects Islam as much or more than Christianity. (The Taliban are a reaction against it.) Jews have struggled with it.

While a secular humanist might be an atheist, this thing goes far beyond atheists.

 

I didn't see any sniping per se; I saw Rich get defensive, then react in a way that gave other people reason to be defensive, and so on. I probably started it by posting the poll, but I still think it was a good idea.

I would add that alt.atheism isn't necessarily a terribly antireligious place, or wasn't the last time I visited it--the FAQ for the newsgroup says something to the effect of "Of course we'll attack religion if you come in here waving it at us, but we'd much rather discuss more productive topics."

This was the main reason I didn't list "None"--I was hoping nonreligious theists would be comfortable with the Baha'i/Unitarian/Quaker category, while nonreligious non-theists would be comfortable with Secular Humanism, with perhaps a few folks choosing Something Else Entirely.

I dragged it in because I was trying to think of a way of describing what sort of binding values a non-theist (and non-Buddhist) might have; so I used the American Humanist Association's distinction between secular and religious humanism. That's where the phrase came from, and that's why I used it. There's a very real intellectual tradition in non-theistic/materialistic/scientific humanism, so it didn't seem quite right to remove it from the list of traditions altogether.

When I was in the UU church, we acknowledged six sources, one of them being "secular humanism" (something about it helping us to keep away from idolatries of the spirit). The person who drafted that "source statement" back in the seventies (there were originally four; secular humanism and earth-centered traditions were added later) was almost certainly a secular humanist him or herself, and as a result of the UUA's openness to scientific agnostics and atheists, about 30% of their membership (including a number of clergy) fall into that category. I recommended the UU church to a militant atheist couple I used to chat with up in New England (they wanted a wedding); they liked it so much that they're now regulars at their local church, and have even led a few forums. And while they're just as atheistic as they've always been, they've gotten less militant thanks to the experience.

Agreed. (A book you might like, though you may have already read it: Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God, which basically documents how the big three western monotheisms found themselves confronted with scientific naturalism and humanism, and makes a strong case for fundamentalism being a relatively new idea that became popular mainly as a rejection of these ideas.)

As a guy who read Albert Camus's The Stranger at age 9, had evolutionary theory as part of his biology classes at age 8 or so, and has had many agnostic and atheist friends over the years, I have to admit that I was pretty much knocked out of my chair over the idea that I'm supposed to be hostile to atheists. This ranked up there with when that anonymous troll accused me of being anti-Japanese because I made an offhand reference to Rising Sun in response to one of David Yamada's posts (if there was any connection there, it was entirely subconscious; but I don't really think there was). I get my back up more than I should when I think people are calling me a bigot. I don't know. Maybe I do owe Rich an apology; I'll look a little more closely at what I posted and think about it.

But in the meantime, what I'd find more interesting is: How would you, or any random person reading this, classify the movement I labeled "Secular Humanism"? Atheism and agnosticism are not religions in the sense of having binding or integrating principles, and there's the whole overlap-with-Buddhism problem anyway; "scientific naturalism" isn't a very good option, because many scientific naturalists are also very religious; for future reference, is there a better (and reasonably accurate) way of describing the movement I'm trying to describe, which in my experience does include the vast majority of scientifically-literate American atheists and agnostics?




Cheers,

 

Religious Awakenings

I have read these posts with mixed feelings. Originally having been on a specific educational track involving ministerial degrees and then suddenly de-railed - has given me a lot of time to reflect. What category would you place a "Pentecostal-fundie-turned-Baptist" who acknowledges with every passing year that there are less "black and white" issues - and increasinly larger areas of grey?

Kind regards,
Steven King

 

Re: Religious Awakenings

I suppose you could be considered protestant Christian (as both the Pentecostal and Baptist would fall under this category),

or maybe something else completely, if you were to start your own religion

all in fun,

clint

 

Re: Religious Awakenings

Since this is really a religous discussion thread....

As you have moved into the Baptist faith, have you given up your pentecostal beliefs? By that I mean are you charismatic still or are you now a cessasionist?
This is a question that is making some waves in my own denomination, and I just wondered.

thanks,
clint

 

Religious Stuff

I most certainly classify myself as a Protestant Christian - with doubts - and increasingly desire advanced studies to pursue some of these "interests."

One thing I have always wanted to study in depth is the fact that every seminary professor I had equated tithing to taxation in Israel. Most indicated that they did not support the teaching of tithing in the local church and would never do so (many of them co-pastored while teaching at Seminary). Perhaps this topic could develop into some type of graduate level thesis...

Kind regards,
Steven King

 

Re: Religious Stuff

First, I think we all have doubts of one kind or another. I am sure they never go away.

Second, you know that my heritage usually just ignores that the word "tithe" is in the Bible. We are big on giving, etc, but don't expect 10% (or any other amount) to be discussed from the pulpit....

I think this is to our detriment. In fact, I would think that 10% would be a minimum to shoot for.

thanks for sharing and hang in there,

clint

 

Religious Awakenings

Clint,
Thanks for the question - one with which I fundamentally wrestle to this day. I was reared Church of God (Cleveland, TN) and originally pursued religious credentials with them. I became somewhat disenfranchised with Pentecostalism given the extreme emotionalism I observed, admittedly in my local congregation. This made me seek a religious tradition which I felt more closely aligned with my understanding of classical texts used to "support" Pentecostal theology.

Into my lap fell Charismatic Chaos by John MaCarthur, pastor of Grace Community Church in Panorama City, CA. I devoured the book and felt he put forth an adequate defense against a charismatic orientation of Christianity. When that ideology came full circle in my mind, I aligned myself with a more baptistic theology, not particularly because I believed Baptists had all the answers - but it appeared that they had more of the answers to the questions I was asking.

Another book which placed the proverbial capstone on my departure from Pentecostalism was Joseph Dillow's The Reign of the Servant Kings . Dillow paints a thorough critique of Westminister Calvinism in his discourse about eternal security and what he describes as the "final significance of man." It's heady and bogs down in places, but wholeheartedly recommended to those who desire intellectual discussions in the area of eternal security.

Today, I guess I would be classified as a cessationist - but I admit that my own experience in the Pentecostal church included many things I will never be able to dismiss, i.e. divine healing, moves of God's Spirit, etc. I have described myself as "bapticostal" in some circles...

Kind regards,
Steven King

 

I would start by questioning whether it's an organized movement.

I haven't paid much attention to organized "secular humanist" groups. I consider them largely irrelevant. I don't think that they speak for secularism or humanism as a whole, how could they?

Organizing secularists into quasi-religious form is like herding cats.

I guess it can happen in some cases. Marxism is pretty clearly a secular religion with its atheist millenium in which the kingdom of God is replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. The flying saucer believers with their originally angelic aliens in the 1950's, and increasingly demonic alien abductions since then are another example. But all of these are intermediate forms. They are examples of people who affect the style of the secular world but not its form.

In my opinion the NFL is a better representative of real secular humanism than is a humanist association. Superbowl Sunday doesn't pretend to be a church. It's got a whole different agenda, which is my point.

It's a fascinating question really.

I'd start by not thinking of your secular X group as if they were another church with the God removed. So I wouldn't go looking for the organization that represents them. They don't have a website, only their self-appointed mouthpieces do.

Calling them atheists or agnostics may be too inclusive. Buddhism is a problem case as are some religions that have impersonal immanent spiritual forces like mana. The Jains are a hard-core atheist religion. Many mystics feel that the goal they seek lies beyond words and concepts, so they are technically agnostics. How can we avoid this conumdrum?

So I wouldn't start with whether a person believes in God. I'd ask if the respondent has a personal religious belief or practice. If 'yes', give them your list of established religions fortified with 'something entirely different'. The worshippers of John Frum on the island of Tanna who write the sacred letters "U.S.A." on their chests can use that one.

If 'no', then I'd differentiate between atheists and agnostics. You could avoid the problem of including non-theistic religions or mystics whose faith transcends words by your 'religious belief or practice' question proceeding.

 

Re: Re: Religious Stuff

Clint,
I agree that it is to our detriment to "quantify" the amount of money, time, resources, talent, etc. a church member should give. I think the reason so many ministers are adamant in their preaching/teaching about tithing is a lack of faith on their part. Pastors usually pray the "prayer of faith" as it regards that crestfallen seeker who is struggling with the news of financial collapse, medical malady, or other inconvenience that has snared them.

With respect to church finances, on the other hand, I have met far too many ministers who berate their congregations by what appears to be "running commentary" diatribes about giving (and tithing specifically). One can only listen to so much unconnected scripture before realizing the headaches that most hermeneutics professors have to endure. I have sat in far too many pastors' meetings where it was determined not to alienate "so-and-so", with their complaint about "this-or-that", because they were large givers.
"Good heavens, I can't make my Lexus payment if there is insufficient finances in the general fund..."

In my pilgrimage I have gleaned quite a bit from reading Philip Yancey's writings, an admitted struggler who is a Christian author extrordinaire and editor-at-large of Christianity Today . I particularly resonate with Church: Why bother?- while it's not known for its theological depth - it came along in my life precisely when I needed it.

Kind regards,
Steven King

 

How refreshing that the conversation has turned both civil and serious. To me theology is the most interesting and most complex of subjects, and I have watched the development of this thread with great interest. On the one hand the base line of Christian belief---any belief really--is exactly that: belief. After many years of wrangling with the issue I have come to accept a kind of modified sola fide--salvation, logically as well as scripturally must be through grace in faith, that is, belief. Still, something else, some change of life, some revised attitude toward our fellow man and toward sin, I mean a demonstrable change (rebirth?) has to be involved. But is this change entirely and exclussively the work of God? What do we contribute toward it? Beyond simple belief though lurk a thousand much more potentially daunting issues. To me the great unresolved issue of Christian theology is election--predestination. Certainly scripture offers many verses that seem conclusively to point toward election. But at the same time many verses seem to point only toward free will. Salvation is open to all who take it. While, to my mind, it is horrifically anti-intuitive, the clarity, discipline, and coherence of Calvinism is undeniable. As I get older I move increasingly in that direction. But election must be more than simple fate. Clearly we make some choice. But all glory is God's (however we construe God) and history. I think more and more, is but the unfolding of his plan. I would very much like to hear the thoughts of this forum on the issue of election, predestination, and non Christian understandings of fatalism.

About my background: I am Christian without reservation or doubt. I was raised Catholic, and long entertained quite seriously a priestly vocation (Jesuit). In my secular studies (English Literature)I became a student of the reformation, and very gradually began to embrace Luther. My theological education (Th.D.) is fundamental Baptist. I am a progressive dispensationalist theologically. I do expect the literal realization of Revelation. However, I still hold to many cherished Catholic ideas, especially as to free will and the marriage of classical philosophy with theology. My real problem with protestant theology is the doctrine of security. Somehow, I suspect salvation can be lost. I am probably less open to religious directions other than Christ than I should be in terms of inter-faith dialog. I attend both Baptist and Catholic churches--which is perhaps pretty strange.

Again, blessings to all, and I have much enjoyed this thread.

Craig

 

Re: Re: Re: Religious Stuff

Steven,
You know how things can be really funny, sometimes...

Currently, I am a missionary in residence with the church that sponsors me overseas. In this position, I rarely preach from the pulpit. However, tomorrow I actually do get to preach, with an assigned topic. Do you want to guess what the topic is??

Thats right. Giving. Maybe the powers that be thought it would be a good idea to throw me to the lions, since I am leaving in 6 weeks anyway.. ha

But have no fear. I will not berate them.

About the Charismatic stuff. I come from a cessasionist heritage, but kind of find myself opening up, a little and allowing myself to be a searcher in this area. Jack Deere's book Surprised by the Power of the Spirit and others have caused me to look at things through different eyes. I have also read MacArthurs book. But I am not sure he really deals adequately with Deere's comments. Of course, there are other resources as well. I just find it interesting that we are on opposite journeys, it seems. You from charismatic to cessasionist. Me the other way.

Thanks for you comments, look forward to hearing more.

clint