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

[Guest Raidne]

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.

And I can understand this also - my grandparents went to a Methodist church that was led by a female minister, for instance. But hence the data I posted on the majority of Christian Americans identifying as either Evangelical or Catholic, as opposed to Methodist or Episcopalian.

...despite his doctoral work on historically contextualizing the issues.

Just wanted to add as an FYI, I am aware of these arguments, but the "Paul was speaking to very particular churches where the women were dominating everyone and was not stating a general view" thing is not the majority opinion and, also, I don't think the case that it's the correct interpreration is a very good one, either.

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.

Oh certainly. The Bible is not lacking in interest as a historical or philosophical text. But it is difficult to read it that way if you see it as the Word of God and Catholicism, while it acknowledges the historical development of the Bible as a text, has its own official interpretations and resolutions of the issues raised.

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.

This is a great idea, and very well-stated, but I have not come across Christians who read the Bible like a student of Greek philosophy reads the Platonic dialogues and do not believe that this is the majority approach, either. Fully 30% of Americans say they believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. 49% endorse the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and 17% believe the Bible is a book of fables.

41% of Protestants believe the Bible is the literal word of God, while 46% believe it is the inspired word of God and should not be taken literally, and 21% percent of Catholics endorse the literal view vs. 65% who endorse the inspired view. I think it's likely that everyone, or near enough, who supports the literal view endorses a different and non-leadership role for women. Do you think that everyone, or even close to everyone, who supports the inspirational view endorses total sexual equality? I bet it's the majority, but not overwhelming. And if even half of those who endorse the inspirational view do not support sexual equality in the Church, at home, etc., then it's still the majority view. I bet it's getting pretty close.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

I personally grew up in a Church that espoused the same viewpoint as this publication by the Seventh-Day Adventists: http://biblicalresearch.gc.adventist.org/Books/role%20of%20women%20in%20the%20church.pdf

This is not to suggest that one sex is more virtuous or less sinful than the other; on the contrary, “man and woman are both sinners, just as both have been created in the image of God.” But even here in their common sinfulness there is a difference. For each sex exaggerates or distorts its typical characteristics: whereas man “sins above all on the side of freedom” and is arbitrary, dominating, and arrogant, woman tends to forget her freedom and so to fail “to rebel against evil."

I'm not saying that is the majority view, but let's just have a full understanding of the contours of this thing.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Oh certainly. The Bible is not lacking in interest as a historical or philosophical text. But it is difficult to read it that way if you see it as the Word of God and Catholicism, while it acknowledges the historical development of the Bible as a text, has its own official interpretations and resolutions of the issues raised.

This is a great idea, and very well-stated, but I have not come across Christians who read the Bible like a student of Greek philosophy reads the Platonic dialogues and do not believe that this is the majority approach, either. Fully 30% of Americans say they believe that the Bible is the literal Word of God. 49% endorse the view that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and 17% believe the Bible is a book of fables.

41% of Protestants believe the Bible is the literal word of God, while 46% believe it is the inspired word of God and should not be taken literally, and 21% percent of Catholics endorse the literal view vs. 65% who endorse the inspired view. I think it's likely that everyone, or near enough, who supports the literal view endorses a different and non-leadership role for women. Do you think that everyone, or even close to everyone, who supports the inspirational view endorses total sexual equality? I bet it's the majority, but not overwhelming. And if even half of those who endorse the inspirational view do not support sexual equality in the Church, at home, etc., then it's still the majority view. I bet it's getting pretty close.

http://www.gallup.co...-literally.aspx

I personally grew up in a Church that espoused the same viewpoint as this publication by the Seventh-Day Adventists: http://biblicalresea... the church.pdf

I'm not saying that is the majority view, but let's just have a full understanding of the contours of this thing.

Word of God: It keeps coming up, so I would like to address that a bit. I believe theologian Karl Barth actually made a useful distinction between the "word(s) of God" and the "Word of God." The Bible for Barth was the Word of God (i.e. inspired and confessional), and believing that the Bible were the words of God (i.e. God spoke) is tantamount to idolatry. It is not difficult to read it in the way I discussed you see the Bible as the Word of God. Probably the biggest name in biblical theology of this past century, Gerhard von Rad was strongly influenced by Barth's neo-orthodox theology and his understanding of the Bible as the confessional Word of God, and his methodological approach to biblical theology was highly influential to my own approaches to biblical studies. Gerhard von Rad adopted this understanding of scripture as confessional, and he believes what's important for biblical theology is not its historicity, but, rather, what the biblical authors are trying to communicate about Yahweh and their relationship throughout their understanding of history to their deity. And that approach is entirely compatible with how many Christians discuss the Bible, even if they may not discuss it explicitly in such a way. "What is this passage trying to say about God?" and "What does this passage mean for us today?" are probably the most frequently asked questions in any Bible study or Sunday school discussion but not a Classics seminar discussing Plato.

An aside:

but I have not come across Christians who read the Bible like a student of Greek philosophy reads the Platonic dialogues and do not believe that this is the majority approach, either.

I can honestly say from experience that Presbyterian ministers in seminary at least are trained to read the Bible in a similar manner. Presbyterian ministers are required to have a working knowledge of Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew for ordination, as well as to pass an exegesis examination. Wizards have to pass their OWLs; Presbyterian ministers have to pass their Ords. Going from a Presbyterian seminary to a consortium of Catholic and Protestant seminaries, I can honestly say that the language requirements do produce differing levels of sophistication in biblical discussions. (Ancient language requirements for ministerial ordination have increasingly become more lax among Protestant denominations, which is personally sad for me.)

[Guest Raidne]

"What is this passage trying to say about God Socrates?" and "What does this passage mean for us today?" are probably the most frequently asked questions in any Bible study or Sunday school discussion but not a Classics seminar discussing Plato.

Well, I had a seminar on Plato in the philosophy department not the classics department, and these were, in fact, the two most frequently asked questions.

I can honestly say from experience that Presbyterian ministers in seminary at least are trained to read the Bible in a similar manner.

I believe you. Plenty of my professors in the aforementioned undergraduate courses were of this type, also (I'm nearly positive they were all adherents to the religions they taught, especially the mystic).

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Well, I had a seminar on Plato in the philosophy department not the classics department, and these were, in fact, the two most frequently asked questions.

Point conceded.

[gryphon strike]

Aren't you ordained in an organized religious denomination?

I am a priest but not in an organised religion, I am a pagan and if you think getting a bunch of witches to organise then you are loonier than most of them are! :)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I am a priest but not in an organised religion, I am a pagan and if you think getting a bunch of witches to organise then you are loonier than most of them are! :)

Sorry for my ignorance, but how are you a priest without being a part of an organized religion? You were ordained a priest. Wouldn't being a priest inherently create an ecclesiastical distinction between clergy and lay person? I assume you were ordained by some religious body or process. How is that religious body or process that has the power to ordain you as a priest not inherently imply organization? But from some of my neo-pagan friends, I would say that organized pagan religion is not that far-fetched.

[Guest Raidne]

Point conceded.

Honestly, I think the only difference between a philosophy course and a religious study group is that people say things like "Now, can we de-God Berkeley?" in the former, whereas I think a lot of religious people have a hard time picturing what a discussion on ethics, the meaning of life, happiness, etc., would be like outside of a religious context.

One thing we haven't really mentioned is how freaking weird it is that, in the United States anyway, it's First Amendment religious freedom. If you have a worldview or core belief system that's not religious, well, apparently you can just go fuck yourself (and I say that without reference to the whole pledge of allegience "under God" thing). Ironically, it's totally okay to impede the free exercise of existentialism in the United States. Or virtue ethics or Kantian deontology or rule-limited utilitarianism or the difference principle or whatever else, even though (1) the truth of any of these philosophies cannot be proven, (2) people essentially choose them on what amounts to, basically, aesthetic preference, and (3) in a world where Catholics don't care what the Pope thinks, religion is also often chosen on nothing more than aesthetic preference, indicating that (4) in the human subjective experience, there just ain't a whole hell of a lot of difference between faith and aesthetic preference.

And I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. Just let me say I have faith in existentialism already. Then I can stop being annoying about what an atheist I am and we can leave all the post-modernism, critical studies, and everyone else who wants to spend their whole lives justifying a negative behind us and talk about something better.

ETA: Hey MFC, with regard to Griff, try thinking less "priest" and more like "The Magus" archetype. ;)

[gryphon strike]

I watched an interesting docu last night called "The battle of the Bishops" it was rather enlightening in re to the conflict between third world christianity and first world Christianity.

The big point of difference was the opposing views on homosexuality, essentially the African members of the Anglican church were threatening to split because of the modern church's liberal stand on homosexuality. This was not due so much to scripture but cultural conventions, even they seemed unconvinced by levitical law ( something so good that God then handed them the 10 commandments ) or Pauls comments on the subject.

Funny is it not how people like to take cultural conventions and them claim religious neccesity.

[gryphon strike]

Sorry for my ignorance, but how are you a priest without being a part of an organized religion? You were ordained a priest. Wouldn't being a priest inherently create an ecclesiastical distinction between clergy and lay person? I assume you were ordained by some religious body or process. How is that religious body or process that has the power to ordain you as a priest not inherently imply organization? But from some of my neo-pagan friends, I would say that organized pagan religion is not that far-fetched.

I was ordained by a high priestess, yes but it was because I spent 10 years doing the duties of a priest not because of some heirachical order. Most of my congregation ( such as it is ) were in fact rather offended that I accepted ordination from someone claiming to be a High Priestess.

I pointed out quite simply that it gave me and thus them some voice in the "witches council" ( yep that is what they call it ), the sole purpose of the council is to provide a place of discussion to avoid fights between different groups. There is no "scripture" as such, not even within a Circle/Coven/Congregation.

Essentially it is a group of people with similar beliefs ( in the main ) who get together to worship their Deity/s.

[A wilding]

I watched an interesting docu last night called "The battle of the Bishops" it was rather enlightening in re to the conflict between third world christianity and first world Christianity.

The big point of difference was the opposing views on homosexuality, essentially the African members of the Anglican church were threatening to split because of the modern church's liberal stand on homosexuality. ...

Indeed the Anglican Church has always been a famously broad one, but for some years now it has been near break up over the now vast differences between its liberal and conservative wings. The main issues being female priests and homosexuality.

This has resulted in some rather impressive contortions trying to find acceptable compromises, for example here is the number two in the Anglican hierarchy explaining why it is not unjust not to allow gays to marry: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/17/justice-equality-same-sex-marriage

[Ken Stone]

I got a letter from my Mom that reminded me why I hate religion. In it she spelled out her priorities. It said #1 God, #2 Family, #3 Job. Glad to hear that you put your imaginary friend before your family mom. I'll remember that next time you need something from me.

And to be clear, she was being serious. She misses every grandchild birthday party that falls on Sunday.

[Eponine]

Well, I had a seminar on Plato in the philosophy department not the classics department, and these were, in fact, the two most frequently asked questions.

How Whiggish :)

[Bronson]

Thread the next.

Things that seem to have developed in the previous thread:

1. Either atheists or the religious can be rude wankers.

2. Is labelling someone likely to contribute to rude wankery?

3. Is it OK to be intolerant of intolerance (and does that lead to people being considered rude wankers)?

4. Does indoctrination contribute to whether or not a person becomes a rude wanker?

That's how I've seen the topic to develop, at any rate.

I think you'll find that no one group has a monopoly on rudeness. Most believers and atheists are quite reasonable.

[Sci-2]

I believe you. Plenty of my professors in the aforementioned undergraduate courses were of this type, also (I'm nearly positive they were all adherents to the religions they taught, especially the mystic).

Oh man, having a professor who was a practitioner of Santeria is one of my fondest in class undergrad memories.

He was funny too: "I just want to say...I know I'm white. A lot of professors in the African Studies department forget this, so let me say that up front."

[lessthanluke]

I got a letter from my Mom that reminded me why I hate religion. In it she spelled out her priorities. It said #1 God, #2 Family, #3 Job. Glad to hear that you put your imaginary friend before your family mom. I'll remember that next time you need something from me.

And to be clear, she was being serious. She misses every grandchild birthday party that falls on Sunday.

If someone in my family was like that I would cut seriously cut them out of my life. I have religious members in my family but their priorities are not that messed up.

[Ser Greguh]

If someone in my family was like that I would cut seriously cut them out of my life. I have religious members in my family but their priorities are not that messed up.

In large swaths of the US at least, God is expected to come before Family. I think it stems mostly from the story of Abraham who, when asked by God to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, agrees. God relents at the last second, saying it was just a test of his fear of God, but the point resonates.

(my understanding is that there is some "theological" disagreement as to what was actually meant; some people argue that God asked Abraham for any sacrifice and Abe was nuts enough to offer his son, others argue that his faith was such that he believed God could resurrect Isaac, but any way you slice it, to me it's kind of a fucked up story)

[Galactus]

I was ordained by a high priestess, yes but it was because I spent 10 years doing the duties of a priest not because of some heirachical order. Most of my congregation ( such as it is ) were in fact rather offended that I accepted ordination from someone claiming to be a High Priestess.

I pointed out quite simply that it gave me and thus them some voice in the "witches council" ( yep that is what they call it ), the sole purpose of the council is to provide a place of discussion to avoid fights between different groups. There is no "scripture" as such, not even within a Circle/Coven/Congregation.

Essentially it is a group of people with similar beliefs ( in the main ) who get together to worship their Deity/s.

To be fair, that's kind of the definition of organized religion, a group of people who come together to worship communally.

One thing we haven't really mentioned is how freaking weird it is that, in the United States anyway, it's First Amendment religious freedom.

I hear that a lot. It's NOT weird. Because existentialists do not have a history of starting civil wars.

Religiious freeodm is eminently practical, because religious repression is really, really annoying to keep up.

[Lord Tyrion]

I got a letter from my Mom that reminded me why I hate religion. In it she spelled out her priorities. It said #1 God, #2 Family, #3 Job. Glad to hear that you put your imaginary friend before your family mom. I'll remember that next time you need something from me.

And to be clear, she was being serious. She misses every grandchild birthday party that falls on Sunday.

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. No god or being you've never met should EVER come before family and friends. And you shouldn't have to object yourself from living life because of that.

[Castel]

Yeah, I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous. No god or being you've never met should EVER come before family and friends. And you shouldn't have to object yourself from living life because of that.

This only makes sense if you don't believe in God. Otherwise the statement itself is ridiculous.

I see this among a lot of atheists and "agnostic" religious people and for the life of me I don't see what's so hard to grasp here.

[Sci-2]

This only makes sense if you don't believe in God. Otherwise the statement itself is ridiculous.

I see this among a lot of atheists and "agnostic" religious people and for the life of me I don't see what's so hard to grasp here.

It goes back to the idea that the heart should lead to the truth. So the idea that you should put God above family is as problematic as someone continuing to believe in damnation of unbelievers even when their loved ones leave the faith.

It's the whole problem with arguing after a point, b/c it's trying to sort out beliefs that are in some sense incommunicable. Certainties about invisible things.