Denominations | Page 2 | INFJ Forum

Denominations

Christ founded a Church, with a visible shepherd to serve as His vicar (representative). He promised to that first Pope, St Peter that hell would not prevail against it and gave him the power to lose (the latin word for lose is solvere, from which we get the word 'absolve') and to bind (latin ligare, which is connected to the word lex, or law). I don't think the Church and the Papacy Christ established somehow drifted away, as other denominations insist, as that would nullify Christ's promise.

The orthodox were always part of the Church and took part in the general councils. They broke away a few times, but came back, until they finally broke away and didn't come back. Since then they have gradually drifted away both in terms of faith and morals. Nevertheless, their faith/doctrines, morals, liturgy, etc. is very, very close to the Catholic Church. Additionally, as the Pope is the one from whom all priests and bishops receive authority to absolve sins, the Popes have explicitly stated that they give the authority to absolve to the orthodox even though they are in schism, for the sake of the faithful living in orthodox areas. So I think the orthodox are basically almost entirely Catholic and should stop dividing the flock of Christ and return to union with the Pope.

Firstly, I just want to say that I am not one of those who think "all catholics will go to hell", or "all orthodoxs will go to hell". Althought I don't agree that the Romano Catholic Church is "the true Church" and also the Orthodox Church, because I think many of its doctrines are explicitly contradicting the Bible, nevertheless I think many many chatolics and orthodox, perhaps even more than protestants, were saved anyway.
One can have the right doctrine and die with it, and go to hell.

Leaving aside any doctrines I find contradicting the Bible with regard to RC, probably what is most telling to me is that historicaly, the RC church always had alot of power, PHYSICAL power, a "earthly" power. RC was even a empire.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

So I found that to be very contradictory with the humble beginnings of the Church, and to what is supposed biblicaly Church was to be, humble, whithout what people would consider to be earthly or swordly power, despised and mocked, not reach how people would understand, but rich spiritualy. I think the RC church was never like that. It just never was, not even today.

Its just like with jews. Were they ever strong and powerful physicaly? Just in the time of David and Solomon, but not even then, a true empire. Jews were most of the time the ruins of the nations. After Christ, they were spread across all the Earth, until they finaly founded again their state, as it is prophecied many times in the Bible. Would anyone look at jews and see anything shining in them, anything glorious in them, with a earthly eye? I doubt so. Yet they are the people of God, and God has never left them, not even after the comming of Jesus Christ, when the Church was founded.
 
Firstly, I just want to say that I am not one of those who think "all catholics will go to hell", or "all orthodoxs will go to hell". Althought I don't agree that the Romano Catholic Church is "the true Church" and also the Orthodox Church, because I think many of its doctrines are explicitly contradicting the Bible, nevertheless I think many many chatolics and orthodox, perhaps even more than protestants, were saved anyway.
One can have the right doctrine and die with it, and go to hell.

Leaving aside any doctrines I find contradicting the Bible with regard to RC, probably what is most telling to me is that historicaly, the RC church always had alot of power, PHYSICAL power, a "earthly" power. RC was even a empire.

Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

So I found that to be very contradictory with the humble beginnings of the Church, and to what is supposed biblicaly Church was to be, humble, whithout what people would consider to be earthly or swordly power, despised and mocked, not reach how people would understand, but rich spiritualy. I think the RC church was never like that. It just never was, not even today.

Its just like with jews. Were they ever strong and powerful physicaly? Just in the time of David and Solomon, but not even then, a true empire. Jews were most of the time the ruins of the nations. After Christ, they were spread across all the Earth, until they finaly founded again their state, as it is prophecied many times in the Bible. Would anyone look at jews and see anything shining in them, anything glorious in them, with a earthly eye? I doubt so. Yet they are the people of God, and God has never left them, not even after the comming of Jesus Christ, when the Church was founded.

I have no delusion that there have been a few worldly popes and many popes who also exercised temporal, not just spiritual power. When the Roman Empire fell there was no one to orgainise the most basic necessities of life for the locals in Rome. It fell to the pope at the time, who appointed a delegate, or governor. Some of the Church's control of temporal power was out of necessity, some of it out of worldliness and not following the example of Our Lord. But if any Christian, or Church is nullified as authentic through sin, or lack of zeal for holy poverty, then who in the entire world, or all of history, could be called Christian? I think the sacred power given to the Church is always protected from the imperfections of those wielding it; however, some of those who had the sacred power (of successor to apostles) were so corrupt as to become obstacles to its effective administration.


I note that you are telling me that some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church contradict Scripture. Being fairly well versed in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and in Scripture, I cannot think of any - but no one is an encyclopedia.

@LucyJr what are some of the doctrines of the RCC which contradict Scripture?

Also, Catholics never talk about certain people going to hell. It just isn't part of our focus - I guess we talk a lot about sin and forgiveness and mercy, but 'people going to hell', especially specific groups just isn't seen as acceptable for a Catholic. Is this a common thing among non-Catholics? (I ask because SovereignGrace seemed to talk about nothing else - and I was wondering if this was a common thing).
 
I note that you are telling me that some of the doctrines of the Catholic Church contradict Scripture. Being fairly well versed in the doctrines of the Catholic Church and in Scripture, I cannot think of any - but no one is an encyclopedia.

@LucyJr what are some of the doctrines of the RCC which contradict Scripture?

here are a few: the doctrine of virgin Mary, infant baptism, only some christians are declared saints, only some christinas are declared as priests, bioshops are not allowed to marry, latin mass services until 1965, special/holy days, doctrines founded on human traditions, praying repetitive words using Rosary beads, prayer to icons, adoration and prayer of Mary, prayer to saints, prayer to angels, the mass.
 
here are a few: the doctrine of virgin Mary, infant baptism, only some christians are declared saints, only some christinas are declared as priests, bioshops are not allowed to marry, latin mass services until 1965, special/holy days, doctrines founded on human traditions, praying repetitive words using Rosary beads, prayer to icons, adoration and prayer of Mary, prayer to saints, prayer to angels, the mass.

The Virginity of Mary at the Birth of Christ is very explicit in St Luke's and St Matthew's Gospel.

Infant baptism is indicated by St Paul's account that entire households were baptised (Acts 16, Acts 18) - and when he speaks of baptism replacing circumcision, which was practiced on 8 day old males. Also, many of the direct disciples of the Apostles, like St Polycarp mention infant baptism being practiced.

Priesthood. St Peter says that all Christians are part of a royal priesthood, which offers spiritual sacrifices. This is true. The fact that some exercise the priesthood in a sacramental way does not diminish this. At the altar, those who have received the laying on of hands (ordination) offer the sacrifice of Christ - and the baptised present participate in that offering in a way that the unbaptised cannot. ie. the baptised indeed have a type of priesthood. The distinction is between the group called disciples in Scripture, and the group called apostles - only apostles were at the Last Supper, where the Mass was instituted, when Our Lord took bread and wine and made/gave them as his body and blood.

The celibacy if bishops and priests is disciplinary and not doctrinal. It is the choosing of men from that group who have renounced marriage, for the sake of the kingdom. Indeed there have been many married bishops and priests in the Church's history, but the Church preferred celibacy because the truth is the Scripture was bourne out in experience: those who tend to their wives neglect the things of God; and those who tend the things of God neglect their wives.

The Mass in Latin. If any one language should be preferred in the Mass it should be Aramaic, but the use of the language of Christ is not essential. Latin was the language of Rome - and so only the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church would use Latin. Indeed, it still does. But language is inconsequential - the meaning is important.

Special Holy Days. Our Lord rose from the dead on the first day of the week, Sunday. If any day is going to be considered holy, it is Sunday. Indeed, Our Lord observed the holy days of the Jewish calender and indeed his death/resurrection occurred coinciding with the Passover, and Pentecost coincided with the feast of the Jewish feast of tabernacles. The Scriptures are replete with references to gatherings on the first day of the week. The pattern of the New Testament feasts mirrors the pattern of the OT feasts, except where the OT feasts were an anticipation, the NT are a memorial/commemoration. "Do this in memory of me".

"Doctrines founded on human traditions" is not an example, but an accusation.

Praying repetitive words. The Scriptures exhort one to pray without ceasing. The Apostles are recorded as keeping the hours of prayer both at the Temple, even after the Ascension, and elsewhere. The hours of prayer were characterised by the reciting of psalms - repetitively. There are only 150 psalms and they were recited in whole each week. This practice of the Apostles is maintained even now, as all Catholic priests, bishops, and religious are obliged to pray the psalms every week. For those who were illiterate, or children, short versions of this kind of prayer emerged out of devotion. The shortest version of a 150-fold Scriptural form of prayer involved saying 10 times the words of St Gabriel to Mary, the words of St Elizabeth to Mary (short scriptural quotes) and then an Our Father. This gives you 15 lots of 10 - or 15 decades, which the modern rosary still has. The short quotes were then elaborated into a prayer form, in what is now called the Hail Mary. This form of prayer is a simple devotional form of prayer, derived from the desire to pray as the Apostles did (150 psalms) for those who do not have the time/ability to devote to them.

Icons are not prayed to. Rather, prayers are offered to the person the icon represents. St Paul, teaching about pagan idols makes two distinctions: an idol is nothing to fear because it is simply a piece of wood, or stone; but the idols can represent devils, or other evil beings. Likewise in terms of what a figure can represent, a crucifix is just a piece of wood, but it represents Christ at his Crucifixion. The jews were forbidden from having graven images, lest they worship them - and this makes sense because God, being a pure spirit, cannot be represented by any physical thing. Nevertheless, the Jews had cherubim atop the Ark of the covenant and the bronze serpent, which healed those bitten by snakes (still used as a symbol of the medical profession). But since God became man, (man who himself was made in the image of God) it is possible to represent God by some physical form - a crucifix. As for representation of the saints - saints are representative of Christ: "he who receives you, receives me", "whosoever gives you some water on my account", "when you did it to the least of these, you did it to me". So a saint can be honoured, as an extension of honouring Christ - and only in connection to Christ.

It is condemned as heretical by the Catholic Church to worship Mary. God alone is worshiped as God (latria) and the saints are honoured, as explained above in connection to Christ (dullia) to Mary, being the mother of Christ a higher honour is given than to the other saints (hyperdullia), she is honoured insofar has she became a dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son. Moreover, when the infant St John the Baptist lept for joy in St Elizabeth's womb and St Elizabeth had called her blessed, that Mary prophesised that "henceforward all generations shall call me blessed, for the Almighty has done great things for me and Holy is His Name".

Prayer is defined as a loving conversation in Christ. That conversation can be with God, angels, or men. However, it is dangerous and to no good avail to converse with fallen angels, or the damned, so that prayers are only made with God, the angels and the saints. There are numerous examples of people speaking with Christ, with the Apostles, with the Blessed Virgin - indeed Mary interceded for the newly weds, and Christ performed his first public miracle at her prompting. Mary conversed with the Archangel Gabriel, and Tobias with St Raphael.

I think protestants probably have hang-ups with praying to saints and angels because they have jettisoned all worship of latria - ie. they got rid of the Mass; and so they cannot distinguish between worship and prayer.

The Mass is commanded by Our Lord at the Last Supper, for what the Mass is is nothing unless bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Our Lord, as the new and eternal covenant.
 
I remember as a child going to a Methodist Church (my father's preference) and then my family ending up going to a Congregational Church (where I received my confirmation.) During those years I could not tell you much about my faith b/c it was a time when church as more about my parents need for spirituality ... and they would bribe our good behavior with Duncan Donuts. My parents divorced when I was about 17, so the tradition of going to church every Sunday fell apart. I read many books about New Age Spirituality, etc. during that year.

Then I ran into an old friend that I had known since grade school, sometime after we graduated from high school. She invited me to her youth group at a First Baptist Church. I began going only to the youth group sessions at first and enjoyed the community of friends there. My first experience with volunteering was in this church, when they would serve dinner to the needy every (let's say) Monday evening. I honestly have to say this was a pivotal point in my life, not only b/c Mindy was a gentle spirit for inviting me, but also b/c there was a girl that attended this church whom I was not so nice to during school. I apologized to her and she forgave me. We didn't become friends, but she gave me peace. I accepted Christ as my savior at this church. Then I moved away to another state ....

I attended a Southern Baptist Church in Colorado, this is where I was baptized (full immersion.) They had a great program for people in their 20s, but I could not get over the hypocrisy of the church. Constant begging for tithing, and yet the pastor owned a beautiful home (and drove beautiful cars.) He was no different than a crooked CEO. Here I was ... balancing my checkbook to the penny at times, and felt bad b/c I didn't have anything to give. That church's ambition was to swallow their members whole, almost a sort of brainwashing to recruit more members during their "missions." Money money money. Though I do have to say that my attendance there did increase my knowledge about the lessons in the bible, etc. Then my mother died, and the youth pastor basically told me she was going to hell b/c she went to the Church of Scientology (she wasn't there long enough to get to the Xenu part.) They basically believed the only way to heaven is through Jesus Christ. My belief in the religious institution was dismantled.

For nearly 15 years I had not gone to church (except for weddings or funerals.) I didn't necessarily begin studying other religions, but I began exploring my own spirituality and what I believe is right for my own heart. What I saw were all the commonalities of all religions, though I will say I am a Christian. Then we began attending a Methodist Church locally (b/c we wanted to begin to expose our kids to religion.) This denomination is the right fit for me and my family. I enjoy it's relaxed atmosphere, and have enjoyed volunteering in a couple of their programs ... one my good friend leads "summer lunch" which provides a sack lunch everyday to kids during summer (who might normally be on the free lunch program at school) ... but they also give as many lunches as needed to a family.

Interesting how it seems my spiritual life has completed a circle, and the nice thing is I am more cautious about what I put inside that circle. What I like about the Methodist Church is they do see a commonality with all religions. They are not hell, fire and brimstone like the Baptist Church. It was through this church that I learned THE ONLY WAY a spirit will not go to heaven is if they denounce God from their life ... NOT necessarily b/c they have not accepted Christ as their savior (Christ is more like an insurance policy.)
 
I do have some limited training in classical Catholic theology - but mostly I have done my own reading. Sadly at the moment most Catholic theologians, I would say are not theologians but some sort of sociologists focusing on religious behaviour. The notion that religion is purely a human/anthropological construct was condemned as heretical a century ago by Pope Pius X. So, I'm not into modern "theology", but into classical, or perennial theology.

I can attest to the nature of modern theology being closer to sociology, the easiest place to spot it is in the churches who's names sound more like health clinics then gathering halls for the faithful. And even during my schooling I found that most deep theology was glanced over as to better focus on the practical matters of the faith(though it was never discouraged, just that most of the classes focused on the Bible, then ministry, then theology.)

It is funny to watch how the same arguments keep creeping up over history, Like Jesus being a Christianized version of Mithra or Dionysus or any number of other deities. That was a big thing a few years back with that whole Zeitgeist movie. Funny how that question has been asked at least as early as 400 A.D. and was shot down then as well.



This is more of a intellectual question I wanted to pick your brain about, What kind of Influence do you think Rome as an empire had on the early catholic Church(positive or negative) and do you think Christianity becoming the state religion was good thing?
 
The celibacy if bishops and priests is disciplinary and not doctrinal. It is the choosing of men from that group who have renounced marriage, for the sake of the kingdom. Indeed there have been many married bishops and priests in the Church's history, but the Church preferred celibacy because the truth is the Scripture was bourne out in experience: those who tend to their wives neglect the things of God; and those who tend the things of God neglect their wives.

That and that most of the fact that most of the Christians in charge when the Catholic Church started gaining true authority on the world stage believed that Sex basically was evil and elevated virginity well above the state of marriage which was considered a necessary evil.
 
I can attest to the nature of modern theology being closer to sociology, the easiest place to spot it is in the churches who's names sound more like health clinics then gathering halls for the faithful. And even during my schooling I found that most deep theology was glanced over as to better focus on the practical matters of the faith(though it was never discouraged, just that most of the classes focused on the Bible, then ministry, then theology.)

It is funny to watch how the same arguments keep creeping up over history, Like Jesus being a Christianized version of Mithra or Dionysus or any number of other deities. That was a big thing a few years back with that whole Zeitgeist movie. Funny how that question has been asked at least as early as 400 A.D. and was shot down then as well.



This is more of a intellectual question I wanted to pick your brain about, What kind of Influence do you think Rome as an empire had on the early catholic Church(positive or negative) and do you think Christianity becoming the state religion was good thing?
The conversion of the Roman Empire is consistent with the mission Christ gave His Apostles. They were not just to preach the truth and baptise individuals, but to preach to all peoples and nations.

I also think that the particular time, place and circumstances of Christ's coming as man (the incarnation) was not just random, but in the fullness of time - in fact Christ was born in the three year period, during which all the known world was at peace and without war. Some of the first gentile converts were Roman and Ethiopian officials.

The Roman influence on the Roman Rite is reflected in the very sober and formal nature of the Roman Liturgy (until it was changed in the 1960's). Nevertheless, the basic hierarchical structure of the Roman Church is found in Churches it never had contact with, or knowledge of until modern history: namely, the Ethiopian and Indian Churches (which are now the Ethiopian and Syro-Malabar Rites of the Catholic Church). The striking similarity between the Roman and the Syro-Malabar Churches points to the Apostolic origins of both the liturgy and hierarchical structure.

Do I think the Roman influence on the Church was good? Insofar as the society was converted, not destroyed by the faith I think it was good. It reflects the fact that grace elevates, but does not destroy nature. As for bad influences - I think the promise of Our Lord that He would be with the Church till the end of time would be nullified if that faith and Church were not protected. So any influences would be about things which are not central.

That and that most of the fact that most of the Christians in charge when the Catholic Church started gaining true authority on the world stage believed that Sex basically was evil and elevated virginity well above the state of marriage which was considered a necessary evil.
The idea that sex is basically evil was condemned very early as heretical - and was mostly associated with the Manichean heretics. St Augustine, who was manichean was especially zealous in condemning such ideas after his conversion, baptism and ordination as bishop. Indeed, Marriage has always been believed to be a Sacrament between two Christians - and the Church has always taught that the principle purpose is for the begetting and raising of children. Ie. Marriage, the begetting of children and family life are a holy thing among Christians.
 
I can attest to the nature of modern theology being closer to sociology, the easiest place to spot it is in the churches who's names sound more like health clinics then gathering halls for the faithful. And even during my schooling I found that most deep theology was glanced over as to better focus on the practical matters of the faith(though it was never discouraged, just that most of the classes focused on the Bible, then ministry, then theology.)

It is funny to watch how the same arguments keep creeping up over history, Like Jesus being a Christianized version of Mithra or Dionysus or any number of other deities. That was a big thing a few years back with that whole Zeitgeist movie. Funny how that question has been asked at least as early as 400 A.D. and was shot down then as well.



This is more of a intellectual question I wanted to pick your brain about, What kind of Influence do you think Rome as an empire had on the early catholic Church(positive or negative) and do you think Christianity becoming the state religion was good thing?

I dont believe that modern theology can be conflated with sociology at all, although in some contexts I think that is progressive, like when Mark Vernon the humanist does so to try and counter the pretty totalitarian strains of atheism seeking to eradicate religion from human experience when it has been central to human experience from time began pretty much, I dont think it is something which believers should do and for the most part I dont believe they do.

In fact I do see that or consider it to be typical of churches other than the RCC, for the reasons mentioned earlier in the thread, and also that a lot of the trends and ascending and descending ideas within the congregations other than the RCC or orthodox churches seem so closely linked to contemporaneous or contextual matters or politics. I dont mean that as sectarian and there are perhaps some, although limited, examples of it within the RCC and I do think that things such as Opus Dei on the right/traditionalist and Liberation Theology on the left/innovative side are equivocal.

The powers exercised by religious leaders within religious communities up until relatively recently were akin to political authorities, at least so far as governance of believers and members of their communities goes, this is still the case in some contexts, such as islamic communities or isolated faith communities in parts of the western world too and it is considered by many to be cultish behaviour but its exactly how it was. The adoption of Christianity as a state religion or religion of the leaders and figureheads of the political powers or as an imperial instrument is a uniqually modern question and would not have made sense to the peoples of the past. In the past they would simply have thought it would afford them protection personally or communally were previously they could expect persecution, it could have some positive religious implications, such as no statesmen being worshiped as gods or deified but that's about it I imagine.

I would say in response to the question about Christianity becomeing a state religion being a good thing, relative to what? I mean a good thing in comparison to being outlawed? Or what? A lot of political theorists suggest that it was key to the decline and fall of Rome, even some neocons and libertarians in the US have been encouraging people to read the rise and fall of Rome as similar to the rise to prominance of the Christian Right in the US.
 
That and that most of the fact that most of the Christians in charge when the Catholic Church started gaining true authority on the world stage believed that Sex basically was evil and elevated virginity well above the state of marriage which was considered a necessary evil.

Its all Pauline theology, he was totally at odds with the rest of the believers in this respect too, also all of the judaic traditions which saw marriage and children as a means of perpetuating their line in anticipation of the messiah and a variety of immortality.

Which all makes sense a lot more if you are not anticipating the second coming in your own lifetime.

The Church itself codified and made celibacy dogma at a time when they were discovering that not simply could marriage and responsiblities it implied compete with spiritual devotion but that it also resulted in dependents upon the community if religious were targetted for assasinations or were campaigning in crusader struggles. That's a very practical matter but contextual and not perrenial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flavus Aquila
I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. I looked at Buddhism, Satanism, Calvinism, Marxism, anarchism, postmodernism, surrealism, and even Evangelical Lutheranism... I am now a Missouri Synod Lutheran again. No gay pastors, no women pastors, no men with bent noses, no midget pastors, no nothing weird. Just straight old-fashioned two kingdoms Lutheranism. We'll leave the light on for you.
 
I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. I looked at Buddhism, Satanism, Calvinism, Marxism, anarchism, postmodernism, surrealism, and even Evangelical Lutheranism... I am now a Missouri Synod Lutheran again. No gay pastors, no women pastors, no men with bent noses, no midget pastors, no nothing weird. Just straight old-fashioned two kingdoms Lutheranism. We'll leave the light on for you.

When you're raptured? :p
 
My pastor doesn't believe in the rapture. I like the idea. But I meant as in Tom Bodett. You're welcome to join us, is what I meant.
 
Like Lucy Jr., I'm also Pentacostal, but every now and then I'll hear something My pastor says that I don't quite agree with. yes, I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but I don't believe it's necessary for salvation like some people.

On the contrary, my boyfriend, and ENFP, was raised southern baptist and doesn't quite agree with everything I believe, and vice versa. But most of the discrepancies we have are minor so I don't worry about starting a week-long argument since I'm so conflict-averse.
 
I was raised and baptized United Methodist, though The honest answer for this thread would be I don't subscribe to one anymore. If a leader/teacher preaches love and kindness, then my heart is open to their words. I still attend my Methodist church, for the exact same reasons [MENTION=4423]Sriracha[/MENTION] mentioned. I have a very personal, direct connection with God, and I wouldn't have it any other way :)
 
I was raised roman catholic.

Nowadays, I don't ascribe to organized religion, but I'd be what you'd call an agnostic theist. I have a strong appreciation for Kierkegaard and the tenants of Christian Existentialism.
 
I was raised Missouri Synod Lutheran. I looked at Buddhism, Satanism, Calvinism, Marxism, anarchism, postmodernism, surrealism, and even Evangelical Lutheranism... I am now a Missouri Synod Lutheran again. No gay pastors, no women pastors, no men with bent noses, no midget pastors, no nothing weird. Just straight old-fashioned two kingdoms Lutheranism. We'll leave the light on for you.

How far did you look into marxism?

I'm just interested because I considered it at length one time, I still read a lot of what Marx and Engels wrote and what others wrote in their stead, I dont think any of the modern political ideologies are good substitutes for religion as a life organising or existential principle.

Taking Fromm's idea that religion offers a frame of orientation, ie ethics, precepts, obligations, basic attitudes and expectations, and an object of devotion I think marxism could fit that frame, although it always aimed at being scientific, considered all individual ethics, morality etc. bogus, even ideology, philosophy etc. as bogus and I dont know what its object of devotion would be, the party maybe (in its more degenerate forms like stalin's marxism) or the proletariat (that's vulgar too but it happened, if you're aiming for a classless society why would you favour any particular social class, even the underdogs?) or historicism (the progress, through conflict between thesis, antithesis, new synthesis and repeating itself) I always thought the object of devotion was conspicious by its abscence.

Fromm was a marxist humanist, among other things, and would've said that humanity or humanism or the universal man and woman were the object of devotion, that Marx was a big old enlightenment liberal/progressive but I dont know. I always thought that more of Engels reading his letters and things, Marx was a lousy guy, lousy towards Engels, scrounging money of him when he was burying his wife and stuff like that.
 
I was raised roman catholic.

Nowadays, I don't ascribe to organized religion, but I'd be what you'd call an agnostic theist. I have a strong appreciation for Kierkegaard and the tenants of Christian Existentialism.

I know people think that organised religion is a big baddy but dont you think that disorganised religion could be as insidious or deadly, I tend to think that most of the religiously motivated crimes and cults are examples of disorganised religion.
 
I know people think that organised religion is a big baddy but dont you think that disorganised religion could be as insidious or deadly, I tend to think that most of the religiously motivated crimes and cults are examples of disorganised religion.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that I don't ascribe to organized religion and prefer disorganized religion because I think the former is something 'insidious,' and then, in what I presume is a defense of that assumption you made my behalf, take it a step further to link my personal choice of how to celebrate my faith with cult and criminal activity. I find that quite judgmental and offensive.

The reason why I don't ascribe to organized religion is because I don't connect with it. I have nothing against people that find solace in it; I firmly believe an individual's faith is their own. Who am I to judge God's relationship with them?
 
Last edited:
You seem to be operating under the assumption that I don't ascribe to organized religion and prefer disorganized religion because I think the former is something 'insidious,' and then, in what I presume is a defense of that assumption you made my behalf, take it a step further to link my personal choice of how to celebrate my faith with cult and criminal activity. I find that quite judgmental and offensive.

The reason why I don't ascribe to organized religion is because I don't connect with it. I have nothing against people that find solace in it; I firmly believe an individual's faith is their own. Who am I to judge God's relationship with them?

That's a pretty strong reaction for something that's typed online, anyway, I did think that you were taking that perspective and responded to that, my mistake maybe but in 99.9% cases that's generally what's meant. I make judgements all the time and I'm fine with it, I know just how judgemental most people are from studying psychology and from experience, the majority who suggest they are reserving judgement or who go further and suggest they are completely judgement free are bluffing themselves and everyone else. If all things are equal and judgements are wrongful then how do you make any sort of choice and why would any differentiation between organised and disorganised or unorganised religion be necessary in the first place?

I'm not sure but I think you said you were Christian, although there's relevence even if you are not because it pretty much serves in the case of all religious leaders, movements and scriptures but Jesus, the disciples and many of the precursors and those writing after his life and ministry judged the shit out of peoples relationships with their God and they were right to.