Are we only allowed to analyze something if we’ve taken a loyalty oath?
I never subscribed to the binary view that you have. I think analytical minds can critique their own system as well as others.
Do I need to be a card-carrying member of “Joe Jimbob’s McChurch USA” to point out inconsistencies in religious practice? And even then, would I only be allowed to critique that church, and not the broader system it’s derived from?
I’m putting no such constraints on your ability to attempt a critique I just have my sincere doubts about you providing a coherent internal critique given your presuppositions.
The clergy, across all denominations, has historically used the Bible as a tool of control. The sheer number of splintered sects is testament to the unlikeliness of divine clarity and more a case study in cultural evolution. Or is pointing that out off-limits to outsiders, too?
Splintered sects are evidence of nothing other than humanity’s limitless capacity for ignorance and disobedience. When you examine church history it’s clear that since the schism of 1054 the Western Tradition continues to fragment further and further while the East is monolithic in comparison. Schism begets schism.
Which brings me to your next claim: that my understanding of Jesus must’ve come from some specific church’s Bible.
From a religious perspective saying one doesn’t conform to any given church’s interpretation of scripture is no different than founding a new schismatic denomination with a congregation of 1. (e.g. you are your own Pope)
From a secular perspective who cares because it means you don’t believe Christ is Risen and are arbitrarily picking and choosing what you like and don’t like without submitting to the totality of doctrine.
Christ’s egalitarianism doesn’t require Sunday attendance to appreciate.
It does if you want to interpret and experience Christ’s teachings the way the apostles intended.
And you certainly don’t have to be a capitalist to notice the glaring contradictions in the modern Christian zeitgeist.
Most modern self-professing Christians in the West derive from the schismatic traditions I was talking about and are only Christian in some vague cultural sense.
Also Christ instructed us to love all people but he gave his apostles authority at Pentecost so it’s natural that control is a part of the way the Church functions. Christianity is not a democracy.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism. You’ve brought the receipts straight from Proverbs 3:5; a.k.a. “don’t think too hard about it,”. The church cheerfully instructs us to toss out reason the moment it gets inconvenient. Submit to God, submit to the church, submit to authority, don’t ask questions and just nod along.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
While our back-and-forth may seem combative, I appreciate your openness to discussion, and thank you for spending the time to help me better understand your perspective.
Edit: adding that I agree with you that Jesus was not a communist, as communism as a term was not coined until the 19th century.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn’t ask his sheep for a vote.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Yeah you’re missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you’re not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you’re functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn’t emerge until only 500 years ago.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
“My perspective” reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as “ecumenism” or “invisible church” in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.
I never subscribed to the binary view that you have. I think analytical minds can critique their own system as well as others.
I’m putting no such constraints on your ability to attempt a critique I just have my sincere doubts about you providing a coherent internal critique given your presuppositions.
Splintered sects are evidence of nothing other than humanity’s limitless capacity for ignorance and disobedience. When you examine church history it’s clear that since the schism of 1054 the Western Tradition continues to fragment further and further while the East is monolithic in comparison. Schism begets schism.
From a religious perspective saying one doesn’t conform to any given church’s interpretation of scripture is no different than founding a new schismatic denomination with a congregation of 1. (e.g. you are your own Pope)
From a secular perspective who cares because it means you don’t believe Christ is Risen and are arbitrarily picking and choosing what you like and don’t like without submitting to the totality of doctrine.
It does if you want to interpret and experience Christ’s teachings the way the apostles intended.
Most modern self-professing Christians in the West derive from the schismatic traditions I was talking about and are only Christian in some vague cultural sense.
Also Christ instructed us to love all people but he gave his apostles authority at Pentecost so it’s natural that control is a part of the way the Church functions. Christianity is not a democracy.
Ah, and there it is. You’ve neatly demonstrated the argument that religion, at its core, can’t exist without a generous dose of authoritarianism. You’ve brought the receipts straight from Proverbs 3:5; a.k.a. “don’t think too hard about it,”. The church cheerfully instructs us to toss out reason the moment it gets inconvenient. Submit to God, submit to the church, submit to authority, don’t ask questions and just nod along.
You mention Pentacost, but even the bible is inconsistent on what Jesus told his disciples. Were they supposed to go out and spread the word immediately? Or wait in Jerusalem to be clothed with power from on high? Was the Spirit received quietly on Easter, or did it come down dramatically at Pentacost? Please understand that I’m not trying to undermine your personal faith here, just illustrating how things can appear to an outsider who did take the time to learn more the world’s various holy books.
Your perspective is familiar, and can be comforting in its own way. No room for pluralism. No room for nuance. Certainly no room for growth. And that, I think, is the fundamental dialectic underpinning our conversation: the church longs for an absolute, immutable scaffold onto which society can be safely and unquestioningly constructed. Meanwhile, I see all of human history, including the panoply of religious teachings, as a rich and chaotic mosaic to be studied, questioned, and woven into an ever-evolving understanding that supports pluralistic, humane, and thoughtful governance.
While our back-and-forth may seem combative, I appreciate your openness to discussion, and thank you for spending the time to help me better understand your perspective.
Edit: adding that I agree with you that Jesus was not a communist, as communism as a term was not coined until the 19th century.
So what? You submit to God not the other way around. A shepherd doesn’t ask his sheep for a vote.
Yeah you’re missing the tradition of the church which precedes scripture and explains everything you think is inconsistent. You mistakenly think you’re not blinded like us zealot lemmings when in reality you’re functioning with incomplete information from a sola scriptural paradigm that didn’t emerge until only 500 years ago.
“My perspective” reflects the view of all Christians until the schism and, frankly, until the Protestant reformation. You are viewing an ancient religion with a post-modern lens. There was no such thing as “ecumenism” or “invisible church” in the first thousand years of Christianity. You were either in the Church or outside of the Church and there were fundamental beliefs such as the Trinity that everyone had to believe or be excommunicated.