Are you religious ?

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Seekers

How would this priestly caste be able to tell people what to do in all the multitude of their daily lives? And how would they be able to make people obey? Also, exactly what do you mean by God's "teachings"?

My mistake, let's say God's "essence". People obey not because they are forced to by the priests, but because acting against God would be like acting against the very laws of Cosmos (from an atheistic perspective), something that normally no-one does willingly. They obey also because they fear God's punishment.

To clarify my own opinion, I think that a state can be politically governed by virtuous leaders, who reward good and never reward bad, and who punish evil deeds. In our societies today, people have so many reasons and excuses to do bad things. If they didn't have all those reasons to do bad, I think they would listen more to their conscience. But I guess you are asking how to define good and bad in the first place. I say it's about that fundamental principle of virtue ethics. True morality is something that will only be discovered in the quest for truth and goodness. Some rules and guidelines are always needed in society, but I don't think that a very long list will work. Rather, a long list creates a lot of reasons and excuses for people to make misuse of the rules, which is what is happening today, when those who know the law use it for their own purposes.

Why seek truth and goodness if there's no afterlife, no God, etc? My only point here is that those rules and guidelines you speak about must be dictated by a supramundane entity. Besides that, I agree with everything you said.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Plethon

The essence of Jesus' message is not morality, but the salvation of man from the sin, which was caused by the Fall.

I understand the coherence of your answer from a Catholic perspective. But this is precisely one of the points I am most "unhappy" with the doctrine, and thats the idea that we are "sinners since we are born".

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Plethon

But morality is something incorporated into this scheme. Although there surely can be morality even without the Christian faith, the Christian faith in a way absolutizes some moral truths that we know of from within and it makes them part of Jesus' message.

Could we say that the tool that Christ uses for the purpouse of mankinds salvation is the implementation of a Moral code within us? If thats the case, wouldn´t it be that the most important part of his legacy?

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I know that this is not an answer to your question. I can't answer it, I'm afraid. If there was a church that I felt very strongly about in my neighbourhood, I would join it, but there is none except the Church of Sweden and another protestant church with much the same orientation. I don't think I'm the church-going kind. I'm too much into esoteric and mystic thought and philosophy, not exoteric religion. I used to go to church, but they don't speak to me, nor did I meet anyone like me there.


Not in an empirical sense. But I believe that spirituality and ethics are linked to each other. But my definition of spirituality is rather wide. People who live by their virtues usually believe in something. What they call it is a different matter.

Ths question is not to decide wether Catholic church is better than Lutheran or not, the question is: given your wide definition of spirituality, if in your opinion the dogmas that make Catholic and Lutheran churches different are really relevant or not?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Lagun

Could we say that the tool that Christ uses for the purpouse of mankinds salvation is the implementation of a Moral code within us? If thats the case, wouldn´t it be that the most important part of his legacy?

It cannot be thus divided, all of this should be understood as part of the whole...(I mean the deliverance from sin and the moral code)

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Lagun

Ths question is not to decide wether Catholic church is better than Lutheran or not, the question is: given your wide definition of spirituality, if in your opinion the dogmas that make Catholic and Lutheran churches different are really relevant or not?

I've met some Christians who won't admit me in their club, so to speak. But I think that the previous discussion proves that there is sufficient common ground here for a fruitful discussion. You will have to ask yourself about this one.

There are three conventional answers to the question of how qualified the truth of a particular denomination is. I'm adding my own perspective as the last alternative:

Relativism: All of the world religions are different paths that lead to the same goal. I think we may consider ecumenism as a weaker relativism: All denominations of the one true faith lead to the same goal.

Inclusivism: There can be followers of other denominations and even of other faiths, who believe in a way that is in accordance with the one true faith. Karl Rahner was a theologian who developed this position within Roman catholicism, and spoke of anonymous Christians: anonymous Christians - Google search

Exclusivism: One and only one denomination holds the entire truth.

Essentialism: There is spiritual essence and matters of spirituality that we can talk about without preconceived notions (such as the doctrine of a particular denomination).

Naturally, I don't mean to imply that my position is the only one that holds true that there is an essence.

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Essentialism: There is spiritual essence and matters of spirituality that we can talk about without preconceived notions (such as the doctrine of a particular denomination).

I usualy trend to understand that essence of things are the important part of things, and the rest are just formal elements that in some ocasions take us away from the essential.

[Gavril]

"...if with your mouth you confess [...] and in your heart believe..." (Romans 10:9)

More than anything, I want to be able to say that I believe, but...

[bombadillo]

What does "religious" mean?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by bombadillo

What does "religious" mean?

It is always important to define what words mean. Today we are more often than not subjugated to the so-called rule of the words, the tyranny of words, which some already named glossocracy or logocracy. You have a set of words, usually mutually opposed, among which you have to choose. One word has a "positive" and another a "negative" meaning (those who set the rules decide on which word will be considered positive and which negative). "Religious" is especially sensitive word in that context. It can be subject to many manipulations, for example, it can refer to some "fake religiosity" a la Leo Strauss.

Religion is a set of rituals and dogmas, usually with a professional (although not always) priesthood performing rites and thus keeping, so the belief states, the societal and the cosmic order going. In addition, there may be also religious law and regulations pertaining to all aspects of life (especially marked in Judaism and Islam). A good example of that was the Roman religion (the etymology of the word religio is unclear, some refer it to religare, "to reconnect"). Its rites were strictly connected with upholding the community and the cosmic order, whereof the community was constituent part. It had no pretentions to universality (the concept of humanity being not yet developped in the modern sense). Participation in sacred rituals was part of being a Roman civis, no faith or belief or recitation of anything like Lord's Prayer was a prerequisite to being religious in that sense. Even words like religio, pietas or devotio had more a societal meaning (devotion to the family, the gens and the respublica).

Faith is something else. It is an inner conviction about suprantural things, a conviction that arises out of a combination of indirect proofs (inductive and deductive) and a set of analogies. These (religion and faith) are two different things but are often confused in the modern vocabulary. Someone can have much faith, but not be very religious (observing rituals, going frequently to the worship etc.), and vice versa: some people observe rituals because of the societal convention, but have no faith.

As for Christianity, it was originally irreligious in nature, focused on faith. First Christians were called by non-Christian Romans asebeis or impii (impious), atheoi (godless), because being "godly" was considered to worship at the altars of different idols-gods. Later on, when it became the official creed of the Roman Empire (after Constantine), it adopted many elements of religion: it replaced the official Roman religion as the new ideological basis of the Empire.

In the modernity there arose many ideologies which truned into a kind of religions once they came into power, for example Marxism. But even atheistic materialism has very often religious character, along with the "civic religions" of the nation-states and their liberal-democratic systems.

[3rdEye]

Already witnessed in this thread, there are several possible meanings of "religious". It is often used in a derogatory sense, as a bad word, both by Christians and secularists. One way of being negative to it from a faith perspective, that we have seen a glimpse of here, reminded me of what Pentecostals, Baptists and other Christians have said to me. There is a point to it, but I see it as something that comes down to different levels. Most importantly, there is of course a difference between believing strongly and just joining like you would join the local football club. On another level I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to conform to common sense vocabulary, which in itself could come down to different levels. One of them is the general unwillingness of being defined by an outsider, but it doesn't stop there. For example, there is a resentment against the relativism that is implied by the term for a class of religions, where Christianity is just one out of many. I must say that this resentment comes with its problems, which is also illustrated by the inclusivist approach of Karl Rahner. Is it really possible to respect other faiths - and other ethnicities where other faiths are involved - with this approach? It is a brand of supremacism, where God is used as an alibi for it.

[Martín Zalacaín]

Originally Posted by Seekers

For example, there is a resentment against the relativism that is implied by the term for a class of religions, where Christianity is just one out of many. I must say that this resentment comes with its problems, which is also illustrated by the inclusivist approach of Karl Rahner. Is it really possible to respect other faiths - and other ethnicities where other faiths are involved - with this approach? It is a brand of supremacism, where God is used as an alibi for it.

The way I see it, once you admit that other religions are also acceptable paths towards Divinity and Truth, your own beliefs loose most of their meaning. That implies that you are catholic (or muslim, or whatever) just as a consequence of geographical and ethnic factors. Rejecting this relativistic ecumenism is, imo, essential for any true believer. You can call it supremacism if you want.

[bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Religion is a set of rituals and dogmas, usually with a professional (although not always) priesthood performing rites and thus keeping, so the belief states, the societal and the cosmic order going. In addition, there may be also religious law and regulations pertaining to all aspects of life (especially marked in Judaism and Islam). A good example of that was the Roman religion (the etymology of the word religio is unclear, some refer it to religare, "to reconnect"). Its rites were strictly connected with upholding the community and the cosmic order, whereof the community was constituent part. It had no pretentions to universality (the concept of humanity being not yet developped in the modern sense). Participation in sacred rituals was part of being a Roman civis, no faith or belief or recitation of anything like Lord's Prayer was a prerequisite to being religious in that sense. Even words like religio, pietas or devotio had more a societal meaning (devotion to the family, the gens and the respublica).

Faith is something else. It is an inner conviction about suprantural things, a conviction that arises out of a combination of indirect proofs (inductive and deductive) and a set of analogies. These (religion and faith) are two different things but are often confused in the modern vocabulary. Someone can have much faith, but not be very religious (observing rituals, going frequently to the worship etc.), and vice versa: some people observe rituals because of the societal convention, but have no faith.

All right, now I have an operational definition of religion -- and one I agree with (incidentally, this is one of the best posts I have yet seen on Stirpes).

In the sense described above I am not religious nor do I have faith. Certain things interest me, however: gnosis, neo-Platonism, Hermeticism, and alchemy. They have become fused together over the centuries in Europe, and arguably they represent one of the subterranean, hidden threads that provide meaning and context to European life: European culture, science and philosophy are almost incomprehensible if this living (but hidden) heart is taken out of it.

I was initially reluctant to put down the words above, but since this is a forum devoted to Europe and Europeans, perhaps it is fitting I do so.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Seekers

Already witnessed in this thread, there are several possible meanings of "religious". It is often used in a derogatory sense, as a bad word, both by Christians and secularists. One way of being negative to it from a faith perspective, that we have seen a glimpse of here, reminded me of what Pentecostals, Baptists and other Christians have said to me. There is a point to it, but I see it as something that comes down to different levels. Most importantly, there is of course a difference between believing strongly and just joining like you would join the local football club. On another level I think it has something to do with an unwillingness to conform to common sense vocabulary, which in itself could come down to different levels. One of them is the general unwillingness of being defined by an outsider, but it doesn't stop there. For example, there is a resentment against the relativism that is implied by the term for a class of religions, where Christianity is just one out of many. I must say that this resentment comes with its problems, which is also illustrated by the inclusivist approach of Karl Rahner. Is it really possible to respect other faiths - and other ethnicities where other faiths are involved - with this approach? It is a brand of supremacism, where God is used as an alibi for it.

Originally Posted by Gonzalvus

The way I see it, once you admit that other religions are also acceptable paths towards Divinity and Truth, your own beliefs loose most of their meaning. That implies that you are catholic (or muslim, or whatever) just as a consequence of geographical and ethnic factors. Rejecting this relativistic ecumenism is, imo, essential for any true believer. You can call it supremacism if you want.

One of the possible reconciliations between such extremes was a position developped by many Catholic theologians in the past, according to which there is only one truth and path to salvation, but nevertheless there exists a possibility that people who never heard of the Christian message (invincible ignorance) or were by some objective circumstances barred from being members of the Church, can attain salvation nevertheless, on condition that they lived according to the moral and natural law engraved in our hearts. In that case they are not saved by that other religion or by some other god, but through Christ nevertheless, without knowing it, although they attended to some other religious ceremonies. It was implied that Christ's saving grace can work either through ceremonies of other religions or without any rituals, through the natural law, the rituals being irrelevant (this point was debated). But that leaves no excuse for those who heard, but refused to accept. So in that case any relativism is excluded.

The positions of Karl Rahner go even some steps further, in the direction of relativism sensu stricto, as do those of Hans Küng.