Religion and philosophy are closely intertwined. Personally I think that philosophy is pretty much intertwined with everything, so there you go. I’m a Christian existentialist, so I find the two terms to be nearly synonymous. If I had to draw a line, I would say that religion concerns itself with the transcendent relating to reality and philosophy deals with how humanity relates to reality. Different sides of the same coin.
They are the same in that they all present claims to the truth, but they differ in how close they get to that truth. Ultimately, you’re the subjective being that has to make your own decision. I personally think that Scientology or Mormonism are pretty hokey and whatever truths they may contain about God are largely accidental. Obviously, Tom Cruise disagrees with me. I think that some forms of Christianity are very close to the truth and I find my particular branch to be particularly close - else why would I be one? This isn’t to say that I can’t glean wisdom from say the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita, but I think that they largely are shooting wide of the mark, so I don’t subscribe to their religious beliefs.
While I admit that I have my own presuppositions that I bring into my view of reality, I would like to think that I’m not so rigid that I can’t be persuaded to change those presuppositions. I have a general religious viewpoint that I believe to be correct. Sometimes though, I am in a service and the pastor says something and it makes me think. Sometimes it is so profound that I alter my viewpoint. I am constantly growing and changing and by listening to religious guides or discussing religious topics, I am hopefully changing into something better who is closer to what God wants me to be. I guess there are some people who are rigid and reject anything that disagrees with their viewpoint, but I would like to at least pretend that I’m not one of those people.
Ultimately, we’re all just “ourselves.” I can’t be anything else other than “me.” I’m not sure who else you want me to be. I am a free-thinking individual who makes my own decisions and comes to my own conclusions. Those decisions and conclusions are influenced by the world around me, but ultimately are my own. I’m not sure what other way of viewing myself you think I should espouse. My beliefs and conclusions align largely though not completely with a particular expression of the Christian faith, so I choose to associate with others that think the way that I do and we call ourselves a denomination. By interacting with one another, we refine our thoughts and beliefs and attempt to be better people who serve God and others.
I don’t think that other holy books do exactly the same thing. I’m not a pluralist by any stretch. I believe firmly in a monotheistic God. I believe that the gulf between the physical and the transcendent is unbridgeable from the physical side. I believe that God incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ to bridge that gap. I think that these statements are truth and that other books which don’t acknowledge those statements are less true, though I wouldn’t call them worthless. It’s more than possible that other people disagree with that assessment of the transcendent. Perhaps they have read the Quran and think that that’s a much closer version to what they feel is true. We call those people Muslims. I can read the Quran (and have) and can come to my own conclusion regarding it (Good book, obvious Christian influences with distinct separation between the Mecca and Medina years, so slightly at odds with itself. Largely subscribes to a sovereign God theory that doesn’t answer the questions I have, nor seem philosophically stable. So, I’m not a Muslim. I actually have similar problems with certain branches of Christianity, so I’m not one of those either.)
What sort of life did a divorced woman have to look forward to in first century Palestine? I’ve no idea, but I’m going to guess it wasn’t great. Was Jesus’s stance on divorce based on his deep concern over where you place your pecker? Or was he more concerned about men turning their wives out on the street in favor of a younger model in a time and place where doing so condemned her to homelessness and an early death?
On the more general topic of why all Christians aren’t Biblical literalists - which is always a depressing argument to see coming from atheists - I think the main sticking point a lot of my co-non-believers have is that they view God as fictional, and can’t wrap their head around someone treating him as a non-fictional character. Sage Rat asked where someone could learn about the nature of the God other than the Bible. The obvious answer would be from God himself, who Christians believe not only exists, but is active in the world and communicates with his followers to some degree. I don’t think God exists, so obviously I don’t think he’s actually doing that, but lots of Christians have had experiences that they interpret as some sort of connection to a higher power. The Bible is largely the recollections of other people who have had similar experiences, and how they interpreted those experiences. A Christian can recognize that those people could have been pretty smart and wise, but still got things wrong, or interpreted things to best fit the nature of the society in which they lived. The idea of the Bible as a source of moral guidance, but not necessarily moral instruction, largely gibes with the Christian conception of free will, and the idea that God wants humans to come to him through their own independent understanding of morality. It certainly fits better with the concept of free will than Biblical literalism, which changes the nature of the relationship between humans and God from a test of a person’s morality, to a test of their ability to follow directions.
Um … NO. Though your post is directly under mind, you apparently didn’t read this particular Christian’s point of view.
I believe in the Separation of Church and State, which means that, just because I choose to be a Christian, I don’t have the right to force my beliefs upon everyone else. Christians who believe that they do are practicing what can only be described as the Christian version of Sharia Law and aren’t actually Christians at all.
According to our nation’s stated belief’s, EVERYONE has the right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. To deny them civil marriage is to deny them liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As an amateur historian, I can state that far too many people have suffered and died in the name of what is supposed to be a GOD OF LOVE.
When you get it, come back to me. “Reason and Faith” was the 12th grade Philosophy theme nobody understood; if we could have exorcised it from our lives we would have gladly done it. We take it on faith that Father Lupi SJ did.
This is an argument I see all the time and it’s the most confusing thing to me. I just have started to approach it as simply a poor debate tactic and not worthy of serious consideration. The crux of it seems to be that “Christians need to be biblical literalists because then it’s much easier to prove them wrong.” It’s like an argument that all physicists need to believe in the Ether Theory because then I could show them how wrong they are and when I find out that they don’t believe in the Ether Theory, I try to convince them that they should. Anytime someone approaches a conversation with “these are the wrong things that you should believe,” rather than “So, this is what you do believe.” I find that they have little to add to the conversation-I’ve probably already watched whatever youtube video they are now going to reiterate.
Really though, I think that it (not that it’s the only argument that does this, nor are these types of arguments confined to just one side) is just symptomatic of a modern culture that would rather win a debate than arrive at truth. The goal behind these types of discussions (here and elsewhere) seems much more about scoring points rather than reasoned work towards truth.
Yeah, there is an important differentiation which Americans in particular seem to have a huge problem with, although it’s caused problems in other English-speaking countries.
There are multiple types of marriage.
There is natural marriage (a specific type of bond between people, which exists whether it has been legally and socially recognized or not), there is legally-recognized marriage (whose details change greatly with location and time), and if you view marriage as a sacrament there is also sacramental marriage (not necessarily recognized legally or socially, it’s a subtype of natural marriage which fulfills additional conditions). And they are different.
The first hurdle I had when I set out to convince a bunch of old fashioned Catholic women to be in favor of civil SSM was solved in half a minute: “which kind of marriage are we talking about, here? Natural, sacramental, canonical (1), civil (2)?” “Civil.” “OK, then what matters is the conditions for civil marriage, agree?” “thinks yes.” Once that was done, they were on. Later we could talk about whether SSM exists as a subset of natural marriage (they all agreed it does), and about whether it should be recognized by Canon Law (which some churches do but our own RCC doesn’t), and about whether it can exist as sacramental marriage (all gave slow “…yyyyeees I think?” except for one who refused to answer :p). And in Spain once you have the Abuelas you have the country.
Separation of Church and State. Why do Americans specifically find that concept so difficult, I don’t get, but a lot do.
1: recognized as legally valid by Canon Law; nowadays that doesn’t have a direct impact in Spanish Family Law but these women lived most of their lives when it did.
2: recognized as legally valid by the government; in our case, the Government of Spain.
I think because we’re Protestant and there is no functional difference between civil and religious marriage. We typically only have two sacraments - baptism and communion. Marriage is not considered a sacrament because someone can get married without having any real inward grace. So saying a ‘sacramental’ marriage is not within our religious purview. American culture also places a higher emphasis on marriage and regards it as something more special than simply a civil agreement between two people. Traditionally, adultery was seen as something much more egregious than simply breaking a contract.
Because it’s not a sacrament too, Protestant churches typically recognize all forms of marriage-especially in the United States where switching denominations and religions is common. It would be a nightmare if every time a couple jumped denominations they had to get remarried by their new church. Protestants wouldn’t say that someone married in front of a civil official is ‘less’ married than someone married in front of a priest or a rabbi or an imam or what have you and they would say that violating that marriage is just as much of a violation as violating a marriage performed in front of a pastor. Protestants tend to recognize all forms of marriage as ‘true marriages.’ That’s likely the root of the problem. It forces Protestants to invalidate some types of marriages as ‘something else.’ It’s why there is typically less push back against ‘civil unions’ that are basically marriages in every way except using the word. It allows them to still maintain their line and not confront the problem with saying that some marriages aren’t ‘real’ and others are.
You’re right, that’s a fair understanding of why denominations would allow divorce for reasons other than sexual immorality.
Also thank to Senoy for presenting an interesting perspective.
Back during Jim Crow days there was a whole network of black lunch counters, clubs and hotels. You think it was okay to tell the lunch counter demonstrators that since there were a whole bunch of places to eat, they had no business bothering the racist owner?
If not, why is this case different? There were plenty of churches preaching segregation back then you know.
Just to nitpick, you don’t understand the Onan story at all. Onan’s sin was not spilling his seed on the ground, but refusing to impregnate the widow of his brother - which was done for selfish reasons involving his possible inheritance of his brother’s estate. Cite.
And of course there is nothing in Jewish culture against masturbation. Cite: Portnoy’s Complaint.
Can’t be that, you guys have that conceptual problem whether Protestant, Buddhist or atheist. IMO the root of the cause is close to what you point out, though. When y’all speak of “separation of Church and State” you’re reducing it to “the Gummint can’t tell ME how to worship”, because that was a big problem in England at the time of US independence; your partial separation of C&S is a specific (and yes, Protestant-originated) reaction to a specific situation. But it’s not because “you are Protestant”, any more than any of my concepts comes from me being Celtiberic.
In Spain the situation has been simple and straightforward for centuries because the Catholic religion was the only one allowed. For all practical purposes it was the ‘state religion’. But Catholics have a different view of civil authority, going back to medieval times when there was a single Church that dominated the whole of Western Europe, but many states, kings, and territories each with their own civil laws. So Catholics are comfortable with a distinction between church and civil law. Marriage only gradually became a sacrament from the 12th century. The Council of Trent in 1547 officially and clearly stated that marriage was a sacrament in reaction to the Protestant Reformation.
In Britain there was - and still is - an official state religion. Church of England bishops still sit in Parliament even today, and take part in making laws.
The civil rights of Catholics and of Protestant ‘dissenters’ were severely restricted in England, Wales and Scotland from the 16th century until 1829. The 1753 Marriage Act said that only Anglican, Jewish and Quaker marriages were valid in England and Wales. Catholics and others had to marry in an Anglican church and again in a Catholic church, otherwise their marriage was not recognised in law.
Many Protestant religious sects established themselves in America, where they could practice their religions free from state control. At American independence they all wanted their own religion to be the state religion, but failing that, they didn’t want any other sect to be the state religion. This led to the separation of Church and State as an acceptable solution. As a practical matter, all marriages by all churches and civil authorities had to recognised in law, and there couldn’t be different types of marriages.
Going back to the matter of scriptural authority, I think there is one important point that senoy hasn’t mentioned. Catholics give a special status to the Catholic Church and the Pope to interpret scripture. Church tradition is also held to be divinely inspired, going back to the apostle Peter, the first Pope. Only the Catholic Church has the authority to accept or reject doctrine. So there is a combination of scripture together with evolving traditions and rulings on points of doctrine and interpretation.
*“The Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence’” *(Catholic Catechism CCC 82).
Well, yeah: Sage Rat (and he’s not the only one) seems to be simultaneously sneering at “flights of logic you can plunge into, to convince yourself that it’s not saying what it’s saying” while reading things into the Bible that it doesn’t actually say even if taken literally at face value.
Um… you do realize that a lot of people who aren’t Christians believe in God? Or Gods?
Homosexuality doesn’t conflict with my faith because my Gods don’t have an issue with it (NeoPagan since 1977)
But that aside… plenty of Christians seem to have no problem with it. Especially they seem to have no problem with it as a secular rite. And I don’t know anyone who wants to forces churches that don’t approve to sanctify same-sex marriages, that’s a bugaboo fear from the conservatives who assume, since they want to force their views and practices on everyone else that everyone else wants to do the same. We don’t.
That’s not some sort of peculiarity of the RCC, though: the Orthodox and the Anglicans and… also do the same. Some of us (RCC, Orthodox, Anglicans…) above the table, some under.
The difference is that Catholics and (I think) Eastern Orthodox consider scripture and tradition to have equal weight and importance.
Anglicans, Episcopalians, and others consider the scriptures to be primary, and all traditions, commentary, learning, etc. to be secondary and subordinate to the scriptures - though still valuable.
My impression came from the various entries on what is allowed in sex, and the relatively military aim of the OT, not from the story of Onan - though possibly Onan featured into it as well. I do not recall and would need to go back and give another read to refresh myself.
