Rude W*nkers I have met - Atheism & Religion in the Social Context 2

[YellowDogJen]

i'm referring all persons who claim illness of any sort to the morning sickness thread now.

I'm sick of the morning sickness thread. I'm going to have morning sickness in the morning, anyhow. Today's the last day of my vacation.

Gak. :bawl:

[Masonity]

I'm sick of the morning sickness thread. I'm going to have morning sickness in the morning, anyhow. Today's the last day of my vacation.

Gak. :bawl:

Easily solved... :drool:

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Re: Matrim

And I respect people who have the fortitude to work from within the ranks to effect changes.

However.

That does mean that someone has to be actively agitating for change, and not just merely a member, right? If someone is just a member, and go to Mass and participate in other church-related functions, without taking a stance or contributing in effort to groups that seek to change the RCC, then I don't think that falls into what you're describing. In fact, that'd seem that one is passively enabling the Church in areas that one disagrees with. Any idea on how many Catholics support Dignity? Is there a group amongst the Catholics that actively work on sexism issues?

I do agree with that. These people should work towards change in the RCC, but the passive enabling you describe would certainly hold true for membership in just about all polities in which you do not agree, but I do not think that the correct choice is simply running away from the problem. I fundamentally do not think that this battle will be won in the hearts of the clergy, but through the efforts of the people and the changing tides of culture that will force the RCC to adapt or die on its own accord.

Second, what is the likelihood of the RCC changing on some of these issues? My impression is that there really are no official channels to effect these changes, unlike the Presbyterians. You would probably need to hope for enough of their members demanding it consistently so that the rule-making level bishops etc. cannot afford to ignore it any more. Given how many recruits they got from South America and Africa who do adhere to these rules, I'm not sure that the pressure from Catholics in Europe/U.S. will be enough?

The likelihood? No idea. I'm not a gambler. I think that the chance is low within the next fifty years, but their drop in numbers may either spur positive change or making their conservatives more resolute in their ways. Would anyone have guessed 150 years ago that the RCC would have adopted Vatican II? Probably not that many. Unfortunately, the conservatives took control of the RCC as a reaction against V2, so who knows how long it will be before the spirit of V2 comes back. The RCC certainly has numbers in South America, but that's changing. SA is not as Catholic as it once was. (Oddly enough, there has been a rise in Evangelical and Pentecostal Protestantism.)

*I also think the same for other Christians. I think most Christians practice a form of selective faith so they can function in a pluralistic society while being a member of a very overtly monotheistic religion that actively denounces other religions as false.

I definitely agree with this, which is why I have found debating Christianity with even some progressive Christians can be irritating, even if I agree with their socio-political stances, as their faith is so selective that I am genuinely curious as to how they can identify as their denominations, as Christians, or let alone as theists.

[Galactus]

I definitely agree with this, which is why I have found debating Christianity with even some progressive Christians can be irritating, even if I agree with their socio-political stances, as their faith is so selective that I am genuinely curious as to how they can identify as their denominations, as Christians, or let alone as theists.

Honestly, I think this applies as well to conservative christians. But then again, I've always thought a "properly" believing christian couldn't really function in society: He'd be a St. Francis-type figure at most.

[gryphon strike]

If you believe that the RCC is the "One True Church" then I suppose you have little choice in the matter. Salvation is at stake. Also, the reality is that people are illogical beings who - while they may act in their own self-interest - make choices that ultimately stem from emotional connections they have with these institutions, whether through their family or some religious experience. The RCC is a top-down organization, but if they make enough change at the grassroots level, then they may have an affect on those fellow Catholics who join the priesthood and rise to the upper echelons. The change may not happen in their lifetime, but I can see their obligation to make that change. While not Catholicism, we have seen on this very board how Ormond has helped contribute to a change in the policy of LGBT ordination in the Presbyterian Church USA. I knew it would happen within the next 20 years (make or break the denomination), but I did not expect it to be as soon as it was. And I am certainly glad that the change happened as I personally knew a fair share of LGBT students in seminary who were on the M.Div. and ordination track even prior to this change, and while I am not a believer, I definitely saw that these individuals had gifts in ministry. I also saw many people against LGBT ordination radically change their stances after going through seminary with these students.

I am a bit bias against organised religion so I am trying to take that into account.

Your describing a political organisation Mat and from what I have seen they corrupt those who gain power, real change in organisations like that are rarely forced through by "grass roots" members.

The RCC has successfully survived schisms and even outright rebellion in it's 1600 year history a little challenge to it's greed, sexism or even dictatorial nature is not likely to change it, especially if the challenge comes from it's lay members or from outside the organisation.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I am a bit bias against organised religion so I am trying to take that into account.

Aren't you ordained in an organized religious denomination?

[Guest Raidne]

If some white dude moved to India and posted here about being sick of seeing all the temples/mosques and people watching Mahabharat (yes I know it's been years) at the train station and felt ill when people had Hindu/Muslim iconography on their person....

I can't really address this because I am not and have not written about being sick of seeing all these churches around, wearing crosses, etc. You'll have to address that to TP.

What you're really saying is you don't want anything to do with an organizaton that ascribes these characteristics to God. By saying "your God", you're unfairly saying Baitac is kneeling before a deity that has characteristics that she doesn't believe He possesses.

No, it's not unfair. I'm assuming Bai is Catholic at this point? If so, there is doctrine on what the Catholic God is all about. I can understand and have my own judgments about it. If her God is the Catholic God, I don't want anything to do with her God. If she wants to believe the Catholic God is something different, then that's her right - I can't tell her what she has to think her God believes. But given what I know of Catholicism and the Pope and the way doctrine is decided, I have an independent opinion that it's not looking good for her point of view. As such, not liking her God. But, conversely, I wouldn't judge her as I judge Catholicism judge as I won't judge Catholicism purely on the basis on whatever she says about it.

If someone wants to make up their own religion and their own God and not appeal to any organization, then I will wholly judge my understanding of their God based on whatever they say about it. Otherwise, you have to acknowledge that you're not the ruling expert and/or authority on what your religion is all about and can't change what it is purely on your own initiative. That's what it means to belong to an organized religion.

To me this is like saying to a Muslim "Your God celebrates 9/11".

Because I wrapped up my statement in deliberately inflammatory rhetoric? It's a matter of opinion, but I don't think so. If people disagree with Islam because of jihad and the distinctions between the Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam, they have every right to do so. I would not appreciate someone of the Muslim faith praying for me either.

If you believe that the RCC is the "One True Church" then I suppose you have little choice in the matter. Salvation is at stake.

Isn't it, you know, kind of the same with regard to the whole authority of the Pope thing? I mean, can you really decide the Pope is full of shit on any number of things and still get into heaven as a Catholic?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Isn't it, you know, kind of the same with regard to the whole authority of the Pope thing? I mean, can you really decide the Pope is full of shit on any number of things and still get into heaven as a Catholic?

To answer your last question: I don't see why not. Agreeing with the pope or belief in the pope as infallible is not a necessary requirement of salvation in Catholic soteriology.

[TerraPrime]

Another impression I got from talking to liberal Catholics is that they believe in the spiritual aspects of Catholicism, e.g. the sacraments, the necessity of salvation through grace and work, etc., while seeing the sexism and homophobia as something that is not part of their faith. They don't see why they have to agree with the RCC's stance on, say, abortion, in order to accept its teaching on how souls are saved.

To me, that seems a bit odd, but they genuinely believe that the two sets of things are not linked. On one level, I get it - how our souls are saved, for each of us, really has nothing to do with whether the RCC spreads false information about condoms in Africa (which it has), so one can oppose the latter while accepting the former instead of having to reject both. On another level, I question the conviction that the version of salvation that the RCC peddles is correct, given how incorrect and wrong-headed and (insert appropriate term) their treatment of some segments of society is. Why would you trust them with your salvation when you can't even trust them to do the right thing for gay people and for women? I wouldn't be able to reconcile that, if I were a Catholic, which I am not, so there.

Another thing about Christians (though this is true of almost all religions) is that many of them are Christians out of habit or culture. This doesn't mean they are not genuine in their faith, only that they accept that which is the most familiar. I am guessing that most of them didn't come to choose that flavor of Christianity to follow, say Methodist versus 7th Day Adventist, after surveying the theology of the major divisions and then choosing the one that resonates the most. Frankly, I don't even know how many self-avowed Christian can even articulate the differences between the major denominations, e.g. Presbyterian versus Baptist versus Catholic versus Orthodox, etc., and yet they are quite strongly convinced that the one they choose is the correct one. Or, at least, it is right for them. Most likely they follow what their parents did, or otherwise, someone somewhere made an outreach effort to them that clicked and they joined that denomination, or they left their parent's denomination and joined their spouse's. It seems to me that in many (most?) cases there's less rational thought in choosing a religion than there is for buying a used car. But I suppose that's why they call it "faith," eh?

[Seli]

I have the impression that a significant part of the Catholic population more or less waiting for the Church to catch up to modern times, while having made the change themselves already. They seem to view the church as something like a facility, present for the ceremonies at the important stages of life.

Locally, after years of slow change under relatively progressive bishops and much lay involvement, the Roman hierarchy is attempting to dictate their interpretation of what the religion should be. And by that process seem to lose adherents at an increased rate, with at least one parish threatening to go their own way or join one of the older independent Catholic organizations.

[Eponine]

I've been wondering if there's actually a testable, significant correspondence between religious pushiness and geographical location in the US, or if it's mostly confirmation bias, or whether the correspondence is between urban areas vs. rural areas regardless of the state.

I've also been wondering if people attract like-minded people in what seems like random meetings. That is, of course if you go to a church or a skeptics meeting or a specific group designed around a belief or lack of belief, you're going to meet people who believe the way you do. But I don't go to any "belief group" things, nor do I go to many places that the stereotypical Evangelical would consider "sinful", yet it seems like almost everyone I meet in Denver is either non-religious or very casual and non-pushy about religion. So I wonder if Denver is really a much less religious place than SW Virginia, or if I'm not someone who pushy Christians see as potential friend material even from a distance (honestly, when I was in the Evangelical culture, I was both good at very quickly ascertaining people's level of religiosity and extremely intimidated from trying to be friends with someone outside that culture), or if I just notice religiosity less now.

[Sci-2]

No, it's not unfair. I'm assuming Bai is Catholic at this point? If so, there is doctrine on what the Catholic God is all about. I can understand and have my own judgments about it. If her God is the Catholic God, I don't want anything to do with her God. If she wants to believe the Catholic God is something different, then that's her right - I can't tell her what she has to think her God believes. But given what I know of Catholicism and the Pope and the way doctrine is decided, I have an independent opinion that it's not looking good for her point of view. As such, not liking her God.

Except, again, you're demanding someone attribute characteristics to God that they never claimed God possessed. What people believe about God varies greatly even within religions, so the "your" isn't inapplicable until someone tells you what they think God is like and what He/She/It/They/? cares about.

It's an unfair attribution, but also IMO a sorta nonsensical one.

[Guest Raidne]

Except, again, you're demanding someone attribute characteristics to God that they never claimed God possessed. What people believe about God varies greatly even within religions, so the "your" isn't inapplicable until someone tells you what they think God is like and what He/She/It/They/? cares about.

It's an unfair attribution, but also IMO a sorta nonsensical one.

I don't think you're really getting my point about organized religion.

For example, what if I say I'm a Muslim, and I believe that the Muslim God is the Earth Mother, the primal female force of the universe, and that all women are to be accorded special status in accordance with the feminine nature of God. Therefore, when I say I'm praying to the Muslim God for you, I am praying to the great Earth Mother and her divine feminine wisdom.

Is my claim to be a Muslim credible? Should other people be expected to know that when I tell them I'll pray for them, while wearing my (fashionable and, IMO, not at all oppressive and sexist) headscarf, that this is what I think Islam is all about?

[Seli]

Except, again, you're demanding someone attribute characteristics to God that they never claimed God possessed. What people believe about God varies greatly even within religions, so the "your" isn't inapplicable until someone tells you what they think God is like and what He/She/It/They/? cares about.

It's an unfair attribution, but also IMO a sorta nonsensical one.

Not quite, it is an attribution that makes lots of sense for someone with a background in a religion where people claim to know what god wants exactly, and claim that is easily and near absolutely determinable. It is probably difficult to understand how much more vague some of the larger established religions are by necessity, especially when they are so closely related technically they are simply a different way of looking at the religion you are used to.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I don't think you're really getting my point about organized religion.

For example, what if I say I'm a Muslim, and I believe that the Muslim God is the Earth Mother, the primal female force of the universe, and that all women are to be accorded special status in accordance with the feminine nature of God. Therefore, when I say I'm praying to the Muslim God for you, I am praying to the great Earth Mother and her divine feminine wisdom.

Is my claim to be a Muslim credible? Should other people be expected to know that when I tell them I'll pray for them, while wearing my (fashionable and, IMO, not at all oppressive and sexist) headscarf, that this is what I think Islam is all about?

There is generally a hierarchy of central tenants that define a religious tradition. Some are more core than others. There is disagreement within and between religious traditions as to the hierarchy of those core tenants and the prominence they should be given. For some reason, you are trying to make all tenants equal and have it be all or nothing. If you disagree with one then you are not a "true follower." To take an example of a secular ideology: "How can you call yourself a Marxist when you disagree with Marx about issues X, Y, and Z?"

[Castel]

There is generally a hierarchy of central tenants that define a religious tradition. Some are more core than others. There is disagreement within and between religious traditions as to the hierarchy of those core tenants and the prominence they should be given. For some reason, you are trying to make all tenants equal and have it be all or nothing. If you disagree with one then you are not a "true follower." To take an example of a secular ideology: "How can you call yourself a Marxist when you disagree with Marx about issues X, Y, and Z?"

Any comparison with Marxism or any other political ideology falls flat because those don't have an ironclad objective set of rules laid down by God. You can agree with the premise of Marxism and take a different road. If Allah tells you that you shouldn't drink turning around and claiming that Allah just wants happiness is setting yourself up as god and making decisions that as a Muslim you realise aren't yours to make. If you accept the omniscience of Allah then why the fuck are you arguing? There's no logical reason to do so, and admitting that any part is flawed leads you down a theological rabbit hole you won't get out of

And it's not just the disagreements with tenets either, it's one thing to sin and realise it, but if you come out and claim that Allah in your mind is about sunshine and roses and not about that medieval shit you are deciding to go against what Allah is explicitly said to be like. Islam being very clear on the infallibility of God and his Noble Qur'an means that you are creating your own offshoot religion, and expecting people to agree that your version of Allah or whoever should be the standard is weird.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Any comparison with Marxism or any other political ideology falls flat because those don't have an ironclad objective set of rules laid down by God.

I thought we were talking largely about ecclesiology and theology, which are both fundamentally ideologies just as much as Marxist ideologies? There are core tenants that make one a Marxist and not a republican. Most theology and ecclesiology are not "an ironclad objective set of rules laid down by God."

[Sci-2]

I don't think you're really getting my point about organized religion.

For example, what if I say I'm a Muslim, and I believe that the Muslim God is the Earth Mother, the primal female force of the universe, and that all women are to be accorded special status in accordance with the feminine nature of God. Therefore, when I say I'm praying to the Muslim God for you, I am praying to the great Earth Mother and her divine feminine wisdom.

Is my claim to be a Muslim credible? Should other people be expected to know that when I tell them I'll pray for them, while wearing my (fashionable and, IMO, not at all oppressive and sexist) headscarf, that this is what I think Islam is all about?

This isn't the same argument though, as far as I can tell.

The original, to me, was "I don't like your God."

This one, to me, is "I don't like what I think your God is like based on X."

The "Don't waste prayers on me"/"Prayer is worthless" response to "I'll definitely pray for you" seems rude either way, unless the person has prior knowledge that you don't want prayers.

Even then, if the situation is a response to traumatic news, it's still rude IMO to upbraid someone for what is likely a reflexive response.

[Guest Raidne]

There is generally a hierarchy of central tenants that define a religious tradition. Some are more core than others. There is disagreement within and between religious traditions as to the hierarchy of those core tenants and the prominence they should be given. For some reason, you are trying to make all tenants equal and have it be all or nothing.

No, I take your point, for sure. For instance, my church was very against instrumental music. Most aren't. Either way though, it's not really very relevant to one's adherence to Christianity. The majority of churches are against women having any key leadership position in the Church. If you are a woman, this is a little bit more relevant to you than whether instrumental music is A-OK or not. In fact, it's pretty crucial. In fact, it might even serve as the basis for someone deciding to leave the church. Hypothetically.

That might be my bias, but it's not as though I'm grabbing at straws or trying to make the sexism thing matter more than it does. It's a critical factor in my personal relationship to the church for very good and solid reasons and I grappled with the issue for years trying to get around it and to find a way where women aren't placed in position that is at the very least inherently different in a way that I find to be inseperable from lesser. So, it's not a casual determination - I'm not spouting this shit off on the fly for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument on the internet - this comes out of my own personal crisis of faith that lasted from the age of 15 to 19. A crisis of faith that led to me taking several college-level courses in Christianity looking for resolution before I made up my mind. I mean, the reason I mentioned Christian mysticism earlier in the thread is because I took a class on it and seriously tried to see if it was something I could believe in. That was pretty much the final effort, although I think it was the Christians in my seminar on Christian missionaries who were totally unable to understand the point of view that witnessing and trying to convert other people might not be respectful or appropriate in all circumstances that really put the final nail in the coffin.

This isn't the same argument though, as far as I can tell.

The original, to me, was "I don't like your God."

This one, to me, is "I don't like what I think your God is like based on X."

In both cases it is "I don't like your God, as defined by reference to the available objective criteria." Like I said, if a person wants to claim a religious belief divorced from organized religion, I'll totally take their word for it.

The "Don't waste prayers on me"/"Prayer is worthless" response to "I'll definitely pray for you" seems rude either way, unless the person has prior knowledge that you don't want prayers.

Even then, if the situation is a response to traumatic news, it's still rude IMO to upbraid someone for what is likely a reflexive response.

And I never would, nor did I ever say I would. That was Terra. I'm just suggesting that maybe people could try and understand that not everyone loves this. Of course, over the course of the thread, "people" actually left the thread out of the strength of their refusal to even attempt to empathize with that point of view, which doesn't exactly lend a lot of strength of the point of view of the opposition, know what I mean?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

No, I take your point, for sure. For instance, my church was very against instrumental music. Most aren't. Either way though, it's not really very relevant to one's adherence to Christianity. The majority of churches are against women having any key leadership position in the Church. If you are a woman, this is a little bit more relevant to you than whether instrumental music is A-OK or not. In fact, it's pretty crucial. In fact, it might even serve as the basis for someone deciding to leave the church. Hypothetically.

That might be my bias, but it's not as though I'm grabbing at straws or trying to make the sexism thing matter more than it does. It's a critical factor in my personal relationship to the church for very good and solid reasons and I grappled with the issue for years trying to get around it and to find a way where women aren't placed in position that is at the very least inherently different in a way that I find to be inseperable from lesser. So, it's not a casual determination - I'm not spouting this shit off on the fly for the sole purpose of trying to win an argument on the internet - this comes out of my own personal crisis of faith that lasted from the age of 15 to 19. A crisis of faith that led to me taking several college-level courses in Christianity looking for resolution before I made up my mind. I mean, the reason I mentioned Christian mysticism earlier in the thread is because I took a class on it and seriously tried to see if it was something I could believe in. That was pretty much the final effort, although I think it was the Christians in my seminar on Christian missionaries who were totally unable to understand the point of view that witnessing and trying to convert other people might not be respectful or appropriate in all circumstances that really put the final nail in the coffin.

I encounter predominately mainstream and progressive Protestant denominations, so I admit that my views of Christian perspectives are skewed towards those ends. So it's hard from my limited perspective to see that the "majority" of Christian church denominations are against female leadership when most in my surrounding context has female ordination. But you are absolutely right that sexism is a HUGE issue in the Church, even among those denominations with female ordination and clergy. And it is a tough issue within Christian dialogues. My grandparents are part of a denomination that does not have female ordination, but they have not batted a single eye or voiced a single negative opinion at churches that do, and they have even spoke highly of several of female ministers of my past churches. One of my professors initially got into New Testament studies precisely because of his mother who believed in and supported the epistles that spoke against women in the church, but he could never make her budge on the issue despite his doctoral work on historically contextualizing the issues. One of my friends told me of his Pentacostal grandmother who, despite being an otherwise biblical literalist, was finally pushed to snapping to a Pentacostal minister that Paul was wrong about women in church leadership. I once held an emotionally challenging conversation with my hospital chaplaincy supervisor who was alienated from her family because she converted from Lutheranism to Catholicism, and how when she went through Catholic seminary for chaplaincy, how emotionally rough it was for her to not be ordained along with her male classmates who could. Institutions tend to be much slower than populations in adapting to changes in social and cultural climate, especially since church leadership is predominately still controlled by patriarchal powers and the different ecclesiastical structures and cultures produce different rates of change.

Despite my atheism, I have developed a personal understanding of the role of the Biblical scriptures in Christian dialogue that I have found helpful when talking with Christians about the modern relevancy of the Bible or its contextual use. Reading through the biblical scriptures of the Hebrew Bible and New Testament reveals a great deal of contrary viewpoints of dialogue and debate between biblical authors and within redactional editing of sources on a wide variety of issues. If the biblical writers can debate each other, then Christians can debate the authors too. The Biblical scriptures provide a shared starting point for Christian dialogue, but the scriptures are not its end point. The biblical scriptures are also confessional in nature, filled with the voices of many biblical authors in dialogue, and it's the responsibility of Christians to add their own voices to the dialogue. It's okay to disagree with the Bible, but it should be done in a way that respects the historical context in which it was written, its reception history and role in Christianity's tradition, as well as our own cultural context as readers.