Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
CFLconservative writes: “Frankly, Jim, I have no idea what you are talking about. We’re not all on the same side of this issue. Conceding 95% of this?”
What I’m saying is that of all possible social and legal outcomes for homosexuals, 95 percent of positive outcomes for homosexuals is contained within the general position of the home team right here. E.g., homosexuals can legally engage in homosexual relations. They can cohabit. They can freely associate with other homosexuals. They can appear regularly in the media, even having their own programs. They have freedom of speech. They can publish books and magazines. They can petition the government and have standing in the legal system. As far as I know, no one on the home team is suggesting that the State should be able to remove the children of divorced homosexuals merely in virtue of the fact that the parent is a homosexual. Compared with what has happened throughout history, and currently in a number of other countries, that’s really a pretty good deal for homosexuals. It could be much worse, but it isn’t.
What I’m saying is that this is probably 95 percent of what any homosexuals would want. It’s not the whole package, but most of the package. What are the remaining issues? Unrestricted marriage and adoption, and assisted reproduction. But these are relatively minor issues for most homosexuals. To some they may be symbolically important, but they probably affect a small number of individuals. I don’t think these things represent the end of civilization as we know it, and I’m certainly not going to go to the barricades over them. And in fact, they are now happening and will continue to happen.
CFLconservative: “Why? Because I don’t believe in the criminalization of sodomy? I don’t believe in the criminalization of cocaine, but ask me if I support it as a lifestyle choice. Non-criminalization and support are two separate things.”
Were I a homosexual I would say “non-criminalization is most of what I wanted, and if incidentally you don’t support my lifestyle and choices, I probably won’t lose much sleep over that.”
In other words, the home team here draws a line in the sand, but the line includes the important things that homosexuals would want. We can debate the other things all day, but in the final analysis they really aren’t terribly important.
Just for the record I DO favor criminalization of cocaine AND marijuana, based on my personal observation of and experience with stoners and coke heads. Without going into detail, I was involved with one many, many years ago. Been there, done that got the tshirt. Dude, you want to live in a world where that s*** is legal, good luck. Talk about the slippery slope. . . . Talk about the end of society as we know it . . . Talk about the corruption of youth. . . . Talk about the destruction of character . . . Legalizing that plague would make every other social problem look like a walk in the park. Home team, are you with me on this? I sure as hell hope so.
Interestingly, on the sidebar on Orthodoxy Today there isn’t one single article listed under the category of “Drugs.” That category doesn’t exist here. But in my humble opinion drug use far outweighs any other single social problem, and perhaps even outweighs every other social problem combined. Home team? Your views?
CFLconservative:
I have a dilemma concerning the libertarian approach. At first glance it seems in concord with the way God treats us. He gives us the choice to choose Him or sin. I have a profound mistrust of government, especially centralized, statist oligarcies such as we have. However, God also calls us to community and the personal sacrafice community entails. Here are a few of my dilemmas:
1. Government is instituted to provide order and protection for all peoples under its authority. It seems that the libertarian approach often violates these precepts, abandoning both the responsibility to order and to protect. Where do the restraining function of culture and that of government intersect? How should government encourage and support the restraining function of culture?
2. Libertarinaism tends to deny the necessity of commnity for the full function of human beings except in an economic sense. The polis becomes atomized tending to cultural and political anarchy. The backlash is toward tyranny, not freedom. How do we maintain the proper balance? Where is the unifying energy of the Libertarian approach? How would you answer Andrew Jackson’s famous toast that set us firmly on the course to civil war: “Liberty and union, one and inseparable!”?
3. What is the proper function of the Orthodox Christian to the un-Christian state. To what degree may we, should we actively participate in the political organizations of such a state?
4. What is the proper function of the Church in such a politic?
5. How can we Christianize econmoics? The libertarian approach in my experience tends to idolize capitalism.
6. Often Libertarinism comes across as a secular opposite to Calvin’s “total depravity of man” by refusing to come to grips with our inherent tendancy (in our falleness) to sin and commit evil against each other. Many libertarians seem to believe all will be better if people are just left alone. That is demonstrably not true.
7. When self-destructive and even evil actions are ignored, the self-destruction and evil become the defacto norm (following the well proven fact about money: bad drives out good). Once that occurs, those who hold to goodness are ostracised and persecuted. Just look at the attitude that Brent conveys. How would you prevent such a drift?
If we are going to address the cultural and political issues facing our country and our world, IMO we must come up with some answers to these types of questions.
I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Christopher writes: “Like I said upstream, I am beginning to question if he absorbed anything at all of this ‘education'”
What I think you’re expecting me to do is parrot back everything I’ve been told is true. I know what RCC doctrine is. RCC life in practice is different from the life of an Orthodox parishioner, and both are vastly different from religious life within a Protestant denomination.
So, you see, my soul’s evidently in danger for not being a practicing Roman Catholic, but it’s in danger if I decide to embrace it again (at least according to Scriptural inerrantists like Al Mohler of the SBC). It also apparently doesn’t matter what my personal conduct is, if I have the wrong political ideas, I’m apparently a lost secularist. The list of contrary reasons of why my soul is lost is so extensive and vast, at this point there’s really no hope, I guess! Which path I choose, it’s going to be the “wrong one”, at least according to several million self-proclaimed “True Christians”.
JamesK, it would help if you choos ‘a’ path directed toward Jesus Christ and consistently apply it in your life. If you want Jesus Christ and Him Crucified, He will lead you to Himself. What you can’t be is a Syncretist. If you want to be a Roman Catholic, go for it, but do it whole heartedly seek for every drop of truth and communion that can be had there. There are two ways to handle theological doubt: look for an explanation to resolve the doubt outside the tradition one is in, or look for an explation to resolve the doubt within the tradtion. The second choice is always the better one until it utterly fails.
Yes, the list of reasons I can lose my soul is almost infinite and there is only one way for me to be saved. That is basic to Christianity.
Given my historical bent, once I found the Church, it became self-evident that all other Christian theology was either derived from or intentionally departed from what the Church teaches and (frequently) practices. The Orthodox Church is the original source ‘document’ if you will for what it means to be Christian and what one must do for salvation. We are not a dead and dusty ‘document’ either. The Church is alive despite the horrible sinfulness that all of us in Her demonstrate.
The Creed says there in one Church, but it is not just any type of one, it is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. There are three traditions which have any historical or theological claim to be the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church. The Orthodox, the non-Chalcedonians and the RCC. The faithful Protestants are in the diaspora. We tend to look upon one another as heretics and schimatics, and one of us is correct.
My advice to you James which I blythely offer from my large store of arrogance: pick one of the three and be as obediant as you can full well realizing that sin is ramant in all.
In other words, the home team here draws a line in the sand, but the line includes the important things that homosexuals would want.
Jim, I think you make an interesting point. Both sides recognize the symbolic value of marriage, but, for example, when a few Hawaiian couples sued for the right to marry in the 90’s, sodomy was still criminalized in a number of states.
At the same time, despite the assurances from “the home team” (interesting phrase, that) about how they don’t have a problem with what individuals choose to do in private, I’m skeptical of how sincere that is. Lawrence v. Texas was decided this decade by a 6-3 majority, and I have trouble envisioning some of my more Orthodox friends (or some posters on this thread) screaming in anger at the ignorance of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. Or, were the issue put to a popular vote, I’d imagine that would get a slightly different response, because if you checked “yes” next to the question “Should sodomy be legal throughout this state?” it would feel like you were doing something to support it.
I thought in the nineties, and still think, that some issues were more pressing that the marriage issue (employment and housing discrimination, for example.) But, contrary to “homosexual agenda” rhetoric, there isn’t really a massive convention where all gays vote on what should be the next political issue.
Note 253, JamesK, are the bewildering array of religious ideas just cause to throw up one’s hand an walk away from God?
Yes, JamesK there are a bewildering array of religious ideas, however, you are not without the means of sorting through them. It is possible, for instance, to isolate the 4 to 6 most important differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism and spend some time reading abou the issues. The average person won’t have the grasp of a theologian but a little effort will produce results. You have an above average education, why shouldn’t we expect you to use it?
Remember, if you walk away from God, you are not hurting Michael, Christopher, Missourian or any of us. You are hurting you.
There are a bewildering array of political ideas, however, you manage to find the time to read about political events. You managed to find the time to arrive at policy positions or preferences and I think I hope that you rouse yourself to vote. The fact that life has complex aspects to it doesn’t excuse you from making your own decision.
I don’t want to invade your privacy but have you every sincerely prayed for God to give you guidance in your spiritual life? This is the third dimension, it isn’t just reading about theological or scholarly discussion of the filioque, it is about God touching your life. IMHO, see Fr. Jacobse for real direction, God touches the lives of all who sincerely seek Him, in unambiguous ways. Surely God understands your mind and your viewpoint. He does seem to come down to where we are and communicate with us.
Remember, if you walk away from God, you are not hurting Michael, Christopher, Missourian or any of us. You are hurting you.
Where do the restraining function of culture and that of government intersect? How should government encourage and support the restraining function of culture?
By getting out of the church’s way. Religion is the fountain of culture, not government.
2. Libertarinaism tends to deny the necessity of commnity for the full function of human beings except in an economic sense. The polis becomes atomized tending to cultural and political anarchy. The backlash is toward tyranny, not freedom. How do we maintain the proper balance? Where is the unifying energy of the Libertarian approach? How would you answer Andrew Jackson’s famous toast that set us firmly on the course to civil war: “Liberty and union, one and inseparable!”?
Many libertarians are actually monarchists. Most libertarians are not anarchists, merely opposed to the oppressive post-modern, centralized states we now inhabit.
3. What is the proper function of the Orthodox Christian to the un-Christian state. To what degree may we, should we actively participate in the political organizations of such a state?
Many libertarians are Catholic who fully support both monarchy and a national church. The church restrains the state, and a monarch is typically bounded by rules of tradition, religion, and the fact of having to maintain popular support. No monarch could achieve the type of absolutism that is endemic to states organized along the lines of more popular sovereignty.
4. What is the proper function of the Church in such a politic?
See the role of church throughout European history prior to the ‘democratic’ revolutions of the 18th and 19th Centuries.
5. How can we Christianize econmoics? The libertarian approach in my experience tends to idolize capitalism.
Only if you are Randian. Libertarians who are Catholic or Orthodox don’t have this tendency.
6. Often Libertarinism comes across as a secular opposite to Calvin’s “total depravity of man” by refusing to come to grips with our inherent tendancy (in our falleness) to sin and commit evil against each other. Many libertarians seem to believe all will be better if people are just left alone. That is demonstrably not true.
Not really. There is no problem with law and enforcement. Libertarians question to explosive growth of the state and its legal apparatus since the 19th Century. The state now controls and criminalizes thousands of activities which were once permitted, while simultaneously failing to lock up child predators.
7. When self-destructive and even evil actions are ignored, the self-destruction and evil become the defacto norm (following the well proven fact about money: bad drives out good). Once that occurs, those who hold to goodness are ostracised and persecuted. Just look at the attitude that Brent conveys. How would you prevent such a drift?
The Church. Governments can’t reform human souls. The role of preventing the Brent’s of the world is the role of the church. The government should get out of the way.
JamesK writes: “The list of contrary reasons of why my soul is lost is so extensive and vast, at this point there’s really no hope, I guess! Which path I choose, it’s going to be the “wrong one”, at least according to several million self-proclaimed “True Christians”.”
As far as beliefs go, the different varieties of conservative Christianity are presented as “package deals.” That’s true whether we’re talking about Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Orthodox, conservative Baptist, the various fundamentalist groups, and so on. The Catholic church also has a package deal, but they seem a little more relaxed about certain issues (e.g., birth control). The interesting question is why all of these flavors of conservative Christianity insist on the package deal, and why uniformity of belief is so important across all these conservative traditions that are so different from each other in so many other ways. But conservative Christianity is very big in the U.S., and the attraction of the package deal is a mystery to me. I guess there’s something attractive about having a self-contained, self-validating set of beliefs.
Other religious traditions have found ways to deal with that. In most versions of Judaism, the important thing is behavior, not belief. As long as you’re keeping kosher and attending to the religious duties, you’re a member in good standing, whatever your beliefs. In most versions of Buddhism, the important thing is the spiritual practice, not whether you believe that the Buddha actually said this or that thing.
James
musing & remembering Wurmbrand’s soul
Would it hurt your parents if you were to become Orthodox? Are they solidly in the Catholic church
Your thought re: Al Mohler. I’m taken back to the time we were considering Orthodoxy, and our several visits with the Baptist, John Piper. I wasn’t conscious of this at the time, but his doctorate was obtained in a mostly Catholic region of Germany, Bavaria. To this day I am indebted to his attitude in each meeting. (which I will describe as non-sectarian attitude.) His words were few: ‘I have never really understood Catholicism; and I do not know Orthodoxy.’ He put his arms around us and prayed that God would guide us, and was a most loving father. Why did he hold back his opinions? I am sure! he might have said much more than he did. But I greatly admire non-sectarian attitudes in the saints. And he received our book, magazine and icon for his wife, in itself an act of grace. At any rate, James I’ve had the same bewilderment over ‘The Church.’ I posed the question to a priest at Light and Life Bookstore “What is the Church?” He said, ‘that’s a good question..’ and couldn’t say much more because what could you possibly say to someone standing there wanting “an answer”, to a question like that? I wanted an answer that wd be the Answer to end all questions about it. I think, since Christ is the head of the church, that has to be in some real manifested way: Enough. Let him be that. He’s doing things. As hard as it is, we can be careful not to charge God with setting up a rubrics cube; better to let that very thing be a frustration for the devil himself….let him wonder why he sees Christians here, there and everywhere like guerilla warfare, can’t be won. Can you by some leap of faith, or something – let God lead?
During these days of introduction to the Orthodox Church, I was staying up reading into the wee hours, and was with Richard Wurmbrand’s _With God in Solitary Confinement._ I’m glad it’s not packed yet; perhaps I can recap a portion I particularly liked: In this passage Wurmbrand, Lutheran pastor, had been moving in/out of sanity from things endured in this particular Communist prison in Romania. In the long quietness and aloneness, he’s tormented also by ‘victims of his life.’ One line says, ‘some of you I killed while you were yet unborn.’ Another, ‘adulteries.’ And he wrestles with the line from Shakespeare over whether Christ’s ‘quality’ of mercy is strained over all his sins, or is it indeed ‘not strained.’ He comes to say yes, Christ has appropriated to himself all these sins.
Then he relapses and has another bout of entertaining more victims who visit him in his cell – those to whom he taught ‘heresy.’ He says, ‘you, who are of many religions and traditions, accuse me of the gravest of sins, heresy. All other sins are trifles in comparison with this, the distortion of the Word of God. Have I been guilty of this? What is truth? I stood for a truth once. Here, I am not sure of it any more. I am battered by many storms. The see of Rome attracts me with its prestige, and I wonder how I could have not been anything else than Catholic. Is Adventism the real truth? There are hundreds of texts teaching us to keep the Sabbath, and not one commandment about Sunday. I see the beauty of the Orthodox tradition, quiet and deep like the Pacific Ocean. Which is the right one? Which is heresy? What ought I to have preached? I am I, and nobody else. Perhaps Protestantism, in which everyone establishes for himself his own relationship with God, is the truth. Then I am not a heretic. Each man an Abraham in personal relationship with God –that is the end result of Protestantism. What is wrong with that? What I knew, I preached. And I don’t care about your accusations. “After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers,” said St Paul when he was charged as you charge me. Why are you all so angry with me? What have you lost by the fact that I sinned gravely against you? Zacchaeus stole from one man perhaps a hundred dinars, with which in any case he could not have done much. But he repented and gave back to everyone fourfold. Now the man he had cheated has four hundred dinars, enough to open a Little Shop. Christ is called in the Hebrew of Isaiah 53 “asham”, which means not only “an offering for sin”, but also “a restitution.” To all of you whom I have robbed of this transitory life, he will give life eternal. To all of you whom I have polluted, he will give the whiteness of purity. To all of you whom I have caused to weep, he will give a pearl for every tear. To all those to whom I have taught error, he will give the final truth. Will no reasoning quieten you? Can nothing stop you from haunting me? I see that reasoning cannot overcome the sense of guilt. Guilt drives a man mad. Argument cannot help a madman. (and many more paragraphs till he fears they are now to come and put him in the straightjacket again.)
I carried that lovely line with me to John Piper’s church in that Autumn month, 92 because Wurmbrand was visiting/speaking. I was blessed to speak with Mrs Wurmbrand, and asked her questions about the Orthodox Church. She said only, ‘yes, God has his Lovely Flowers in the Orthodox church and all over the world, too.’
Let’s see, I wd hate to end on a negative note, but you mentioned the persuasive Chick Tract Society. James you probably know Thomas Howard. Frederica Matthewes-Green told us this little conversation. Thomas said, “You know why Chick Tracts write that the Catholics worship Mary? Because Catholics think they worship Mary.” I don’t know what you think about that, but here is an instance where you could simply get in touch with the classic fathers of the church, stick by them, tell your priest, bishop, friends who care to hear, ‘I don’t worship Mary.’ Simple. I liked Missourian’s advice along the lines of expecting God to hear your prayer, and Michael’s that you might just choose one and stay until it’s not possible. Here is how I’ve encouraged my heart, if its overly-sensitive from time to time, when I know people are thinking ‘unstable’, church-hopping, and that common accusation, ‘the church is not a smorgasbord.’ I remind myself, Jesus leads and I cannot do any better than follow him the best way I know how. Further, I am commanded, “Seek, and you will find.” I’m not going to opt for the Turtle/Malaize/Zombie mode. At any rate I want to say – James- no one can say you haven’t been putting in time seeking, and asking. I’m not sure about actually knocking on the door 🙂 I love the Catholic story I hear that at the medeival monastery you will knock on the door for three days and three nights — to give the opportunity unto the Pilgrim that he might perchance come to know for sure as to whether this is indeed perhaps the right place where he would want to remain.
Nancy: My parents are both RC and very active within the Church. They are not as much concerned about staying Catholic as much as having a relationship with Christ, whether it’s in a Baptist or Orthodox or RC church. Although I attend a moderate/conservative American Baptist Church every week, the RC still seems like home to me. Though I’ve begun to question some of its practices and traditions, it’s disheartening to read of some of the slanderous things said against its members by those outside of it. Yes, some of it is based on ignorance, but some of it is based on theological arrogance as well. The Catholics I have known in my personal life (including my parents, of course) are exemplary people, no matter what Jack Chick or Al Mohler have to say about them.
Missourian, I hear what you’re saying, and I suppose Fr. Hans is correct in wondering if I’m not a perpetual fence-sitter, although I am improving slightly. (It no longer takes me an hour to pick out a video at the store! lol)
Note 253:
Not “parrot back”, but at least show something other than a very shallow understanding.
Also, the way you pit various “denominations” against each other reveal you have never really been inside any of them. Indeed, at the moment at least, you don’t take any of them seriously from the outside. So again, your characterization of traditional Christians reveals much more ignorance than understanding. I have had the privilege of having known atheists who rejected Christianity, but who understood it better than most Christians. I respect that, at least then know what it is they reject – what they do not believe. Your understanding (for example, what the Sabbath is, and Christian’s proper relation to it) reveals deep and profound ignorance. I don’t believe you when you claim to understand what Al Mohler/SBC refers to as “scripture inerrancy”, I don’t believe you when you claim to understand what the RC teaches. You don’t “parrot back” anything but gross caricatures, so how can you understand the actual dogma’s these various groups adhere to? You seem exasperated at the different claims, yes, but you don’t understand them in the least. Perhaps the first step in rejecting something, is to get a good idea of what that something actually is…
note 258:
The interesting question is why all of these flavors of conservative Christianity insist on the package deal, and why uniformity of belief is so important across all these conservative traditions that are so different from each other in so many other ways….and the attraction of the package deal is a mystery to me.
This “mystery” is not a mystery at all. Any basic catechism on the Orthodox side, and a few months at any SBC “bible study”(to use but one example) would reveal in very plain and understandable terms why there is an “organic consistency” to Christianity, or to most philosophies known to man.
When you guys say this stuff (perhaps unwittingly) you really reveal your deep and profound ignorance of Christianity. It is probably a bit of hard heartedness on your part also, based no doubt on what you believe are injustices done to you by “religion”.
You guys should REALLY spend your time actually trying to understand Christianity instead of “debating” Christians here at OT. To continue “debate” only shows your ignorance and Troll behavior. Come back when you have some actual understanding of what it is you reject…
Christopher writes: “at least show something other than a very shallow understanding.”
I’ve frequently seen when attempting to summarize various tenets of religious faiths that it comes across as a gross caricature. It is sometimes useful, actually, especially if you’re trying to cut through the pretty theological prose to reflect the absurdity or abhorrant nature of a particular idea. You can make just about anything sound true if you surround the idea with enough eloquence. I see it in every theological and political debate. People go to extraordinary lengths to make palatable what would ordinarily be repugnant to any thinking person. Rather than being enlightening, I just find this practice maddening. Just go read what the Calvinists are writing over at Triablogue.com. It’s just a mountain of apologetics, millions of words used to defend what are in reality incomprehensible (and sometimes some would suggest heretical) doctrines (by the way, their lead blog title today just happens to be “Universalism in Eastern Orthodox tradition”).
So, perhaps I’ve allowed myself to continue this practice of “cutting to the chase” in too many forums. It’s not that I even am attempting to refute some of the basic theological tenets being used here, it’s just that I’ve gotten used to having to sift through the pretty words and to get past the “fluff”.
James writes:
The Catholics I have known in my personal life (including my parents, of course) are exemplary people, no matter what Jack Chick or Al Mohler have to say about them.
a brief moment of identity.
It’s deep rooted. I confess morphing into Inigo Montoya, in search of the six-fingered man as recently as this year (& i might be old enough to be your Grandmother.) If you’ve ever selected the Princess Bride video, it’s both a pretty and a gruesome one.
Only in the strength of Christ, can a Christian
a) Honour and obey parents, and
b) Hate their parents by way of comparison to Christ alone – caring most for His honour, and
c) even imitating the Children of Israel, who when it was appropriate stood in the assembly and confessed the sins of their fathers (a highly Familial people group.) One of the penultimate proofs of fulfilling the First Commandment.
‘Little children, have no idols.’ I John 5.21.
#258, Jim, you say;
“Other religious traditions have found ways to deal with that. In most versions of Judaism, the important thing is behavior, not belief. As long as you’re keeping kosher and attending to the religious duties, you’re a member in good standing, whatever your beliefs. In most versions of Buddhism, the important thing is the spiritual practice, not whether you believe that the Buddha actually said this or that thing.”
I infer from your statement that you prefer hypocrisy and a Phraisitical approach to spiritual life. Either that or you deny the exisitence of anything other that the physical and nothing else makes any sense to you.
For Chrisitans, belief matters because it matters to Jesus. The Gospels are abundantly clear on that. Belief encompasses the whole of the human being. It is not limited to intellectual mentation. It is about knowing, understanding, loving as well as thinking and acting. Western philosophy and especially secularism rejects man as a whole being, atomizing and reducing man to function instead. That is why Christopher and I keep coming back to anthropology. It is also why we never get an answer because modernity has no coherent anthropology. One’s understanding of salvation and God is intimately linked to one’s understaning of humanity and vice versa. Jesus kenotic act of Incarnation (Nativity, mission, the Cross, the grave, the Resurrection, the Ascension and His Second Coming) restore the entire creation. The Victory has been won, to man is given the choice to enjoy the Victory or not. How can one have anything other than a “package deal” As the fathers put it, “What is not assumed is not saved”.
Unfortuantly, it does not seem that salvation means anything to you. Until the Person of Jesus Christ means something to you there is no point in trying to debate or argue with Christians about anything substatial.
The question we all must face now or at the final judgement (much better now): “Who do you say that I am?”
If you don’t believe Jesus the Son of the Living God, that’s your choice, but why is it so important to you to hammer at us with your unbelief? What possible difference does it make to you? If you are really trying to make sense of our belief, ask questions in humility.
I appreciate the point made re: internal consistencies
Which has been fought and even died for by the Faithful of days gone by. Even God, moving a relatively new Christian, Constantine to ‘have an ecumenical council’ — to get to a consistency. Would such another kind of council might be called to resolve the Orthodox/Catholic/Protestant divide. But I suppose it would require an Emperor, i do not know.
And it is interesting, thinking of the _Lion in Winter_, story of Henry II. At the end of a horribly depressing life-story, Peter O’Toole and Eleanor of Acquataine (Katherine Hepburn) actually attempt a pathetic manner of consoling one another, old, family in ruins and she asks, “How did we get this way?” Henry says, “Step by step.”
JamesK, the church has a lot of step by steps, looking down the corridors of history, doesn’t she. Lord have mercy.
Yet, Great is His Faithfulness
(last post for several months….i am looking forward to an opportunity to discuss the importance of the Sabbath Laws. Rooted in Creation, not Moses) and there are many sabbath laws (Moses) outside the Lord’s Day, set aside as both the first day and also the eighth………. eight of course meaning Unending Day: into THE sabbath rest.)
the Lord’s Prayer, forgive us ‘as we forgive our debtors’. The Jews forgave all debts every Seven (sabbath release of debt) years illustrating, the essense of the Gospel. God gives us this amazing release from debt, and we are to do likewise.
amend
264. I was thinking ‘identiFY’ -ing [with you] not identity
266. the link was meant to be from Lamentations 3
James writes re: American Baptist Church:
James, can’t get this off my mind. So you’re with the Anthony Campolo Liberal Mainline American Baptist Church. Clarity. While I’m surprised to hear it, I’m grateful you shared it. I think future discussions will be better. There is nothing worse than talking Past one another.
I have never understood the (intensity of) scorn heaped upon John Calvin, and I have noted that all, All, the Mainline Liberal Churches parTICularly do so. Included is the National Education Association, with an official condemnation of Jonathan Edwards famous sermon, (our horrible early American roots….reason our kids are now suffering, it’s come to this – our society has finally unravelled, etc. because of a Dark Puritan infancy we can’t eradicate) Alexandre Kalomiros isn’t in exactly lock-step, but if you’ve read River of Fire. He takes it further: Have you ever heard of Atheism? So has he and he’s Alarmed about it: It’s the fault of “Western Theology.” (snicker to myself: Hello?) In the list-of-things from the Dawn of Time? My husband wrote a paper looking at the River of Fire (in a fair amount of depth.)
James, there was a ‘great divide’ between Your Church (and My Church, to use shorthand, the BGC) eons ago. You say your church is Moderate/Conservative, however, no one will charge your church with “Fundie.” So, according to Glen — you’re not in with the “Strange Lot.” [if he has the t.v. scene in mind, then i’m with him completely. But because my mother is a Classical Fundie, I protect her.]
Your Church, the ABC has been one of the Mainline Liberal Protestant Churches for almost a century. A couple of years ago I studied my own roots (pietist Swedes, Baptists exiled from the Lutheran Church). Their start-up seminary was Bethel, in Chicago, but Mrs O’Leary’s cow kicked over the lantern, and the Great Chicago Fire destroyed the small bldg, one day before the First Day of classes. The American Baptists, which was the Divinity School of the University of Chicago, built by Nelson Rockefeller (liberal New York baptist of Harry Emerson Fosdick fame…or disrepute depending on your view) — they did a Good Deed. The ABC invited the fledgling Bethel to come over to the Univ of Chicago and start their school up as scheduled.
So in the early years the Swedish Baptists had an alliance with the “Americans.” But never a formal union, and especially not when the Fundamentalist/Modernist controversy ensued. Bethel moved the school out of the U of Chicago and quartered in St Paul Minnesota. When my Dad came home from WWII, the Bible School was conveniently in his homestate. But here is the influential sermon of the day, 1920, by Fosdick,called
“Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”
Meanwhile, J Gresham Machen was fighting for orthodox doctrine at Princeton Seminary (orthodoxy vs liberalism, then called Modernity). The University of Chicago became (in the first 1/3 of the 20th c.) the center of Protestant Liberalism. Baptists gathered Congregationalists, Disciples and Unitarian faculty. And Fosdick left a legacy, in the American Baptist Church. Did you not say you had Never! met anyone who had come out of the Gay Lifestyle? None within the American Baptist Church? Is this the legacy of Protestant Modernity.
It’s funny. When Fr Hans gave the link to the Liberal Lesbian (but in some ways she is honest, it is asserted) Camille Paglia, I read a little bit. I noticed the same thing Phil did, “tacky” in her remarks re: Frank/Bauer. Then, she seems to have a thynge for Rush Limbaugh, and I thought “o.k., that’s interesting!” Then when I read her quote about Jesus Christ, “Jesus was a brilliant Jewish stand-up comedian, a phenomenal improviser. His parables are great one-liners.” Honestly, I thought to myself — let’s see, she likes Rush. Put that together with this quote on Christ, I bet she’d like Tony Campolo! James, Campolo wouldn’t give Camille Paglia “too much of a problem” — would he? What about Lazar Puhalo? Alexandre Kalomiros, I can’t say. I do know she’d get something of a pass, because of the tragedy of being surrounded by “Western Theology.”
At any rate, I’ve been meaning to share a testimony by a fellow parishioner across the tracks at the Swedish Baptist Church, BGC, Bethlehem Baptist, Minneapolis (80’s.) (trying to make you laugh even though you are justified in hearing triumphalistic tooting, forgive me.) Let’s both say “Glory to God.” Let’s try to avoid a sectarian attitude which takes pleasure in triumphing. I will to give Sincere Glory to God. Here is the testimony of Joe Hallett. (deceased, Aids.)
p.s.
If you want to
– what “slanders”
– what “practices & traditions”
do you say you begin to “?”
I’ll respond sooner or later.
Nancy, to clarify, I was referring to the fact that I find it unfortunate that some prominent evangelical and Protestant theologians such as John MacArthur have referred to Catholics not just as errant or confused but as workers of evil. This assessment is too strong, no matter what one’s theological bent is.
That being said, I do find some of the RCC’s traditions a bit curious. The rosary was adopted during the Albigensian heresy (I believe via the revelations of St. Dominic) for the purpose of “defeating heresy and sin”. While I suppose there are practical benefits of its use due to its repetitive and meditative nature, such frequent repetition can often dull the mind and the imagination, and I can’t imagine that sheer repetition increases the efficacy of prayer. A bigger issue is transubstantiation (at least for me). At one point in time, I was attending daily mass, and I did so for about a year. Perhaps my expectations were wrong, but it did seem that communion with God in a physical way would bring about some greater capacity for virtue. After a year, I still had the same “issues”. There’s also the thing about contraception. I understand the church’s need to remain consistent, but I’m not buying the idea that its use is a “grave moral evil” for married couples who have done their Godly duty and had 2-3 children. I’m glad they eventually ejected the notion of Limbo, because I always thought that a God who wouldn’t let babies into Heaven because they weren’t dipped in holy water is not a God I could really worship.
Now, about the American Baptist Church. You must keep in mind that the ABC churches vary widely in practice from region to region and from church to church, even. In my particular case, they are very orthodox (little “o”) in the sense that they are centered around very commonly accepted tenets of the Christian faith: sin, repentance and a necessity of a relationship with Christ. They avoid political and social issues in services, and probably only bring them up when dealing with individuals in pastoral care situations if the situation warrants it.
You mentioned John Calvin. I’ll tell you why I, personally, dislike his ideas. I find the God of John Calvin to be not only wildly misanthropic but confused. It’s a God who decided from the beginning of the world that most people would remain at perpetual war with Him. Most Calvinists even deny the concept of “free will” (though they say that men are “free agents”, whatever that means), and when you ask how man can be responsible for acts he has no control over, they simply retort with Romans 9:19-21 (“Who are you to answer God back?”). In other words, “Sit down and shut up!” My experience has been that they minimize human suffering in that everything that happens is “to a sovereign God’s glory” against a “sinful humanity”. I know I’m not supposed to bring up actions, but I think it’s instructive to recall that John Calvin was not a nice man. He made life in Geneva a terror: he made Pierre Ameaux walk through town while begging for mercy, simply because the man had questioned Calvin’s methods of ordaining pastors. He also accepted torture as a means of punishing heresy, and he had played a pivotal role in the deaths of Michael Servetus and Jacques Gruet. This isn’t just rank hypocrisy, it’s turning ethics on its head and making a virtue out of vice.
Michael writes: “I infer from your statement that you prefer hypocrisy and a Phraisitical approach to spiritual life. Either that or you deny the exisitence of anything other that the physical and nothing else makes any sense to you.”
No, it’s just that I don’t think we can be too certain when it comes to religious beliefs. Perhaps this is one reason why many people favor a practice-based approach to religion rather than a belief-based approach.
As JamesK mentioned, all the conservative Christians possess the absolute truth, but many disagree with each other on important points. It just seems to me that there are some things that cannot be known with any degree of certainty. I think acknowledging that is a kind of humility. Just because certain beliefs are consistent with or bring about certain kinds of personal experience doesn’t mean that the beliefs are true, in the usual sense of “true.”
Michael: “If you don’t believe Jesus the Son of the Living God, that’s your
choice, but why is it so important to you to hammer at us with your unbelief? What possible difference does it make to you?”
Why do you feel “hammered?” I asked a fairly innocuous question — the basic premise you even seemed to agree with. But it’s interesting to me that you would feel hammered by that. For example, if I ran the “Materialism Today” web site, and you came on and asked why I thought having evidence for beliefs was so important, I certainly wouldn’t consider that as an attack on materialism. And even if you did mean to attack materialism or anything else, so what?
Michael: “The Victory has been won, to man is given the choice to enjoy the Victory or not. How can one have anything other than a “package deal”
But the package deal is not just a feature of Orthodoxy, but of many other
groups that, frankly, are outspoken opponents of Orthodoxy. I mean, it extends even to the most bizarre groups, such as those led by Jim Jones and David Koresh, and the Heaven’s Gate group. You can even see the package deal in operation in some Marxist groups.
In other words, it seems to me that the package deal must fill some kind of spiritual or psychological need that goes far beyond Orthodoxy and Christianity, and maybe even beyond religion.
Michael: “If you are really trying to make sense of our belief, ask questions
in humility.”
I was asking about a feature of your belief that is shared by many other
conservative Christian denominations. If I read you right, you are offended by the observation that the Orthodox share that with other groups.
Note 269, Jim H, why so much time?
Jim you do spend a very large amount of time here and you do little but challenge beliefs in borderline disrespectful tones.
You have shared with the fact that you had a bad experience with some religious group at some time.
I don’t think any psychologist would think you are a disinterested observer of the religious scene interested in discussions regarding the various religious/political issues of the day. I think a psychologist would classify your comments as those consistent with a bitter, anti-religious advocate.
I have acquaintance who consider themselves atheist or agnostic and their attitude is that they are too busy with their daily lives to go out of their way to locate religious believers and attempt to persuade them to abandon their faith.
Nopte 269, Jim H, what evidence of God would you accept
Part I: Would you accept my testimony regarding God as evidence?
If I report to you incidents in which God has manifested Himself in my life would you believe me?
If I supported that report which evidence from a broad range of people that I am generally considered mature, trustworthy and reasonable.
If I supported that report with evidence that I do not suffer from mental or physical illness.
Is there any circumstance under which you would accept my report as evidence of the existence of God?
Evidence is used here in the legal sense of the term; something tending to prove a proposition. Proof is usually accomplished through the accumulation of evidence.
Part II Is there any person you know whom you trust so much that you would believe their report of God manifesting Himself in their life?
If so, who? You can identify by category rather than name, i.e. “my oldest brother.”
Part III, What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?
If not, what would God have to do to convince you? I do not mean the following in any derogatory way, I do want you to communicate what it would take for God to convince you that He exists?
Would you need God to visit you personally?
What form would the visit have to take?
How many times would God have to visit you?
Just curious.,
Note 269. Jim H, is offended by those who claim “absolute truth”
Christians don’t claim to “possess absolute truth.” Christians claim that there exists an absolute truth. There is a difference. No one “possesses” truth.
The choice of words by Jim H is clearly one intended to convey arrogance. One of the most famous lines in the New Testament is that in this life we “see through a glass darkly.” We have only a partial understanding. This is quite humble intellectually, although Jim H won’t acknowledge that. Yet Christians don’t “possess” anything that isn’t equally available to everyone Christian and non-Christian. In the world of Jim Holman, people who believe an absolute truth exists are “arrogant” while those who don’t believe it exists are or who don’t think it can be ascertained as “humble.”
To use the vernacular, Jim H thinks religious people are insufferably pompous and unsupportabley superior.
While it is true that Christians disagree with each other on many points, this by itself does not mean that no absolute truth exists. As you well know, at the edge of knowledge in any scientific field there are bebates about which theory best explains a natural phenomenon. No one suggests that there is no absolute scientific truth because there exist debates among scientists.
As you well know there are many good faith debates in public policy. No one suggests that there is not point in persuing discussions about what is the best public policy because so many people have so many different opinions.
Christianity teaches the God allows people to find Him in their own way and in their own time. Everyone’s story is a little different. God allows us to read, think, pray, debate and discuss. I have held different opinions on the same topic in my life, in some cases, I have made an abrupt about face.
I am not sure what JimH means about beliefs bringing out certain types of personal experience and what he means by the “usual sense of true.” I suspect it would open the door to a lengthy discussion what why we humans can’t trust that we know what we know. Frankly, I don’t think that there is anything that Jim H would accept as evidence. He can correct me.
I think he was burnt by a religious extremist experience AND he enjoys the freedom of denying God. No need to examine oneself very closely, no need to change habits, etc, etc, etc. God is very demanding. Atheism is very undemanding. It is a void.
Some of us just don’t like to be told anything. I have a relative who would be offended if you rushed up to her and told her that the building was on fire, she just can’t stand the idea that someone would deliver information to you have she didn’t already possess. Many of us don’t want to be told anything by others, don’t want to be told that some actions are virtuous and some actions are sinful. So be it, JIm, we get the picture.
James says:
So, perhaps I’ve allowed myself to continue this practice of “cutting to the chase” in too many forums.
Gosh, if only you did. The chase you cut to is almost always a gross caricature. You occasionally get Traditional Christianity right only in the broadest moral terms (then you quickly retreat from it because you personally find it anathema to your modernism). When it come to actual, real dogma, your ignorance is as wide as the grand canyon….Have you picked up that catechism yet?? Or are you going to continue to “debate” and not learn a thing?
Note 269, Jim H, why Michael used the term “hammered”
If I may hazard a guess as to why Michael Bauman used the term “hammered” in reference to your comments, Jim H, it is because you have expressed the ideas contained in Note 269 about 269 times in the last three years.
We really have gotten your message. Of course, you can ask “who is we?”
The readers and the commenters on this blog over the last three years. This might be one of the reasons that Michael used the term “hammered.”
Also Note 269 is disingenious, nobody thinks that your are dispassionate about religion. You despise religion and religious people. Religious people are ignorant, arrogant, petty tyrants to you. You believe this so strongly that you will spend 20 hours a week posting on a religious site trying to disprove the existence of absolute truth to people who believe in it. Let’s at least be honest.
Missourian says
To use the vernacular, Jim H thinks religious people are insufferably pompous and unsupportabley superior.
Which is why his continual posting here is pure Troll. I wish Fr. Jacobse would do this site justice and do away with this sort of rude behavior.
I think he was burnt by a religious extremist experience AND he enjoys the freedom of denying God.
Why try to amateur shrink him? You can’t trust anything the man has to say – either about his past or his present. It’s all designed to further his Trollish goals here. It’s too bad, OT could be more than a place for Trolls to dump on…
Missourian does a good summary:
Also Note 269 is disingenious, nobody thinks that your are dispassionate about religion. You despise religion and religious people. Religious people are ignorant, arrogant, petty tyrants to you. You believe this so strongly that you will spend 20 hours a week posting on a religious site trying to disprove the existence of absolute truth to people who believe in it. Let’s at least be honest.
So Fr. Jacobse, why do you put up with this man? It’s not helping his spiritual “condition” by being indulged over and over and over and over and over (any more than it would a spoiled child). It does nothing for the site, indeed spoiling it’s tone and ticking off every honest poster here. Need help in keeping him from your site??
Is he $paying$ for the upkeep of the site? If so, what is the loss – I bet I can make a collection and more than make up for the difference.
WHY ARE THESE RUDE PEOPLE TOLERATED????
Christoper, most of the time I treat JimH as a troll
Most of the time I treat JimH as a troll, but, sometimes I give in and reply against my better judgment.
Both Jim H and JamesK are dumbstruck at the idea that people who agree on the existence of absolute truth disagree on some aspects of it.
This is supposed to be an argument against the existence of absolute truth.
However, all you need do is factor in free will and iand flawed human nature it is clear the people will always be in disagreement over religious matters.
As I pointed out, disagreement among scientists doesn’t make JamesK or Jim H abandon science.
Disagreements among people of goodwill about the best public policy doesn’t make JamesK or Jim H give up on self-governance.
But disagreements on religion make them both give up on absolute Truth.
Note 268:
While I suppose there are practical benefits of its use due to its repetitive and meditative nature, such frequent repetition can often dull the mind and the imagination, and I can’t imagine that sheer repetition increases the efficacy of prayer.
Why not read some of the Fathers, or any monk, or think about your own basic experience. At the most basic level: If I want to get good at something, say a sport or a musical instrument, I have to practice. You mentioned you play (is it piano?) at a church. How did you get proficient at that? This is real basic, and shows me that I am either talking to a child or a Troll.
. A bigger issue is transubstantiation (at least for me). At one point in time, I was attending daily mass, and I did so for about a year. Perhaps my expectations were wrong, but it did seem that communion with God in a physical way would bring about some greater capacity for virtue. After a year, I still had the same “issues”.
While I appreciate the honesty and the need for a substantial “result”, did you play your part? Really, did you follow God? Or where you simply looking for the magical pill to make it all go away? Really, am I talking to a child or a Troll here??
There’s also the thing about contraception. I understand the church’s need to remain consistent, but I’m not buying the idea that its use is a “grave moral evil” for married couples who have done their Godly duty and had 2-3 children. I’m glad they eventually ejected the notion of Limbo, because I always thought that a God who wouldn’t let babies into Heaven because they weren’t dipped in holy water is not a God I could really worship.
Good thing you reduce contraception and “Limbo” to such easy, personable terms. Last time I checked we ALL die – what kind of God would do that? And storms, and fires, hurricanes, and disease – and the children who suffer from all these things – what kind of God would do that, and could we really worship Him? James, you have stumbled on something really big here – something no one has ever thought of before……
REALLY, have you got that catechism yet? Were not sure we can continue suffering your ignorance!!!
Missourian says:
But disagreements on religion make them both give up on absolute Truth.
Which of course begs the question: Why are they here?
Answer: who cares, it’s besides the point – the point (at least in Jim’s case – Jamesk I think too, as he has sailed to far into Troll waters) is that they should not be – their presence is nothing but a spoiler to the explicit spirit of something called “Orthodoxy Today”…
Christopher, Note 279, up to Fr. Jacobse
Personally I treat them as trolls most of the time and I don’t let it bother me otherwise.
Jim writes:
Jim, writes against his own experience of Christianity, that’s what you have to understand. This is not the Christianity that produced Bach, the Western legal code, the great cathedrals and buildings of Europe, the art, the cities, etc. As a result, the critique is truncated in the same way so much is truncated today — like You Tube presidential debates, or MTV’s “Rock the Vote”, or marginal politicians pontificating on science, or Andy Warhol, or “Left Behind”, or Gene Robinson, you get the drift. It is not real engagement with history, theology, etc.
Jim’s challenges presume all Christianity is fundamentalist, but even there he gets a lot wrong.
James seems to struggle against a kind of fundamentalism too, even though he says his background is Catholic. But James takes his cues completely from popular culture, by which I mean, 1) the final measure of all things important are his feelings; and 2) he takes a stand when popular feeling is squarely behind him.
It reminds me a lot of the twenty-somethings I talk to (a lot like Brent). They seem to think their opinions are important simply by virtue of the fact they hold them. It does not occur to them that someone who holds a contrary position actually might understand some things more than they do.
Christopher, you’ll be happy to know I took your advice and picked up a catechism. According to the section marked “Questions and Answers about the Marks and Attributes of the Church”, “the one true Church established by Christ is the Catholic Church. Many churches which claim to be Christian have broken away from the one true Church established by Jesus Christ. These churches were founded by men who had no authority from God to found a church.”
So, according to this document written by men far more knowledgeable about these things than I am, you belong to a heretical sect. Why should I listen to you? Jack Chick is popular. I like him. He thinks you belong to a pagan cult. Thus, based on these things you must be a dangerous troll whom I should not listen to.
James, please. If you want to argue against a claim, then argue the claim. Don’t elevate skepticism to avoid engagement with the claim altogether.
Skepticism doesn’t offer an answer. It just makes you feel superior about your fence-sitting. And the moral and philosophical relativism it fosters just removes other salient factors from your sight.
Open your eyes. Look at history. Look at the tremendous advancements of the Christian west, look at the art, the music, the cities, the poets, the writers, the architecture, the hospitals, the orphanages, all the constituents that testify to a stable civilization that emerged from tribal backwardness.
Then ask yourself why and how this happened. But don’t dismiss this question by facile references to a Catholic catechism or, God forbid, a Chick track. It’s sloppy and ignorant. Don’t relativize the question by pointing to tragedies, hypocrisies, betrayals, that are also clearly a part of this history in order to strip the history of any meaning. (Read Shakespeare.)
That history is still meaningful — particularly the moral/philosophical/theological precepts that informed and shaped this culture and still have purpose and value — even if it does not rise to your private standard of perfect virtue.
Creativity takes courage, James. You have to get your hands dirty and take some hits if you ever want to create anything meaningful — or if you want your life to rise above anything higher than consumer.
Missourian writes: “Jim you do spend a very large amount of time here and you do little but challenge beliefs in borderline disrespectful tones.”
I’ve cut back quite a bit. I think you now post several times as often as I do. E.g., your six-post response to my one post.
But I’m particularly interested in this latest thing. I pointed out a characteristic shared by Orthodoxy and many other Christian and even some non-Christian groups. I inquired as to why that is, and perhaps if it really doesn’t have to do with religion per se, but with some kind of human need.
I didn’t say that Orthodoxy was “wrong.” I didn’t say that Orthodox are going to burn in hell forever. I didn’t say they were frauds or insincere. I didn’t say they were immoral. I didn’t question the existence of God. And so on. So it’s not clear to me what was so “challenging” about that question, or disrespectful. I show up with a pea shooter and everyone circles the wagons.
Missourian: “You have shared with the fact that you had a bad experience with some religious group at some time. I don’t think any psychologist would think you are a disinterested observer of the religious scene interested in discussions regarding the various religious/political issues of the day. I think a psychologist would classify your comments as those consistent with a bitter, anti-religious advocate.”
I never claimed to be a disinterested observer. I come from a particular religious background, but that is long in the past, and I’m not bitter about it, though I was for a while. But I did learn from it, though not all the lessons I learn were correct. So I have been working through these issues for the last quarter century, give or take. What’s interesting is that here I’m considered the anti-Christ, but when I hang out on the non-religious sites I’m accused of being a religious fanatic.
But let’s talk about my prior religious experience. Many people start out as fundamentalists and go all the way as fundamentalists. Others start as fundamentalists and end up Catholic or Orthodox. Others end up like me. So I don’t think there is anything in the fundamentalist experience per se that damages one beyond repair with respect to religion.
The main thing is what you take away from the experience. I became a fundamentalist by refusing to ask the hard questions about my belief. I left fundamentalism by starting to ask the hard questions. So at this point the idea of leaving behind the hard questions is not very attractive.
Missourian: “If I may hazard a guess as to why Michael Bauman used the term “hammered” in reference to your comments, Jim H, it is because you have expressed the ideas contained in Note 269 about 269 times in the last three years.”
I have asked a number of different questions over time. As with this question, people usually “talk around” the questions rather than taking them head on. This current question is typical — people spend all their time talking about why I asked the question, but no one seems to get around to answering it. Why is that?
Missourian: “Also Note 269 is disingenious, nobody thinks that your are dispassionate about religion. You despise religion and religious people. Religious people are ignorant, arrogant, petty tyrants to you.”
Not my opinion at all. The above statement makes me think that you know very little about me, though to be fair I suppose it’s hard to actually get to know someone on the internet.
Missourian: “Both Jim H and JamesK are dumbstruck at the idea that people who agree on the existence of absolute truth disagree on some aspects of it. This is supposed to be an argument against the existence of absolute truth.”
I think there is real, objective truth, but I simply question the human capacity to be able to know that, even with the help of religion. It seems to me that honest disagreement between religious people is evidence of that.
Missourian: “As I pointed out, disagreement among scientists doesn’t make JamesK or Jim H abandon science.”
No, but it does make me see statements about science as contingent and subject to revision. It makes me understand that scientific theories are models of reality, not reality itself. It is the distinction between the map and the satellite photograph. What do you think religion gives to you — the map or the photograph?
Missourian: “But disagreements on religion make them both give up on absolute Truth.”
It makes me think that religious beliefs are ways that people try to apprehend ultimate reality — that they are not true representations of reality, but symbols and metaphors — maps if you will — without with ultimate reality is not comprehensible to humans. This is why anthropomorphic terms are used to describe God. Not so much because God is like us, but because humans cannot conceived of God except through anthropomorphic categories. If we were all fish, we’d be talking about the fins and scales and gills of God.
Missourian: “Christians don’t claim to “possess absolute truth.” Christians claim that there exists an absolute truth.”
Well . . . in my experience they insist that their particular beliefs really are true. I think a while back you even used the word “certainty” to describe your beliefs. Not that you merely “believe,” but that you “know.” Is the Virgin Birth absolutely true? Highly probable? Do you believe the Virgin Birth is true or know that it is true? Do you believe it’s true but think you might be wrong? Is it a metaphor or a real historical event? I’m trying to understand what degree of certainty you attribute to your religious beliefs.
Missourian: “Is there any circumstance under which you would accept my report as evidence of the existence of God?”
That’s an interesting question. Typically people believe because of their own experiences, not because of someone else’s experience. So it would have to be a pretty compelling experience for me to take it on someone else’s authority.
Missourian: “Is there any person you know whom you trust so much that you would believe their report of God manifesting Himself in their life?”
There are all sorts of people whose experiences could make me consider that to be a distinct possibility. In fact, I already have a friend whose experience over several years made me consider that.
Missourian: “What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?”
If we’re talking about Christianity, actual miracles are a good place to start. As the atheist Sam Harris even said, a few well-placed miracles would suffice, and at that point Christianity would not be a “faith” but a “science,” so to speak. What I mean is that there wouldn’t be any serious reason to doubt it, and the basic elements of the story would be taken as fact. It wouldn’t be hard to do.
Missourian: “Most of the time I treat JimH as a troll, but, sometimes I give in and reply against my better judgment.”
What you and Christopher perhaps do not realize is that “trollhood” is not some free-floating concept that you can apply according to your own personal preference. Rather, it consists of making statements that violate the stated intentions and rules of the blog owner — who can permanently shut me down in an instant any time he wants. Also, it’s a free country, and people here can simply ignore my posts — the volume of which I have already limited quite a bit. I don’t see what the big issue is.
note 284:
But I’m particularly interested in this latest thing. I pointed out a characteristic shared by Orthodoxy and many other Christian and even some non-Christian groups. I inquired as to why that is, and perhaps if it really doesn’t have to do with religion per se, but with some kind of human need.
Why would anyone at a site called ‘OrthodoxyToday’ be interested in such a naturalistic view of religion? This stuff belongs at ‘MaterialismToday’, not here. This is what makes it Trollish – this site is NOT titled ‘AnythingyourinterestedToday’.
The main thing is what you take away from the experience. I became a fundamentalist by refusing to ask the hard questions about my belief. I left fundamentalism by starting to ask the hard questions. So at this pointthe idea of leaving behind the hard questions is not very attractive.
This is your self story, but it is as much a myth as your previous story. You have jumped from one fundamentalism to another (materialism). This has been pointed out to you by every Orthodox poster here.
people spend all their time talking about why I asked the question, but no one seems to get around to answering it. Why is that?
Because it’s an inane question. Check the title of the site, and ask your question(s) on the appropriate venue’s. Notice the title of this site is not ‘askanyquestionIwantToday’…
I think there is real, objective truth, but I simply question the human capacity to be able to know that, even with the help of religion.
So why are you here? You belong at ‘SkepticToday’, not here. Find your place in the world, and stop rudely inserting yourself/philosophy where you do not belong.
That’s an interesting question. Typically people believe because of their own experiences, not because of someone else’s experience. So it would have to be a pretty compelling experience for me to take it on someone else’s authority.
How very uninteresting, self centered, and ultimately vain. So VERY VERY boring to folks (like Christians, Jew’s, Muslims, Buddhists, indeed most any philosophy known to man) who do not think the universe begins and ends in their own mind. Could you please take this dribble to the appropriate venue? AGAIN, the site is ‘OrthodoxyToday’…
It makes me think that religious beliefs are ways that people try to apprehend ultimate reality — that they are not true representations of reality, but symbols and metaphors
Someone wake me up when he gets to the end…
This is why anthropomorphic terms are used to describe God.
uh oh, here it comes…
Not so much because God is like us, but because humans cannot conceived of God except through anthropomorphic categories. If we were all fish, we’d be talking about the fins and scales and gills of God.
Yawn…
I don’t see what the big issue is.
Hey, because everything begins and ends in your own mind, why would you give a hoot about something called “Orthodoxy”? You don’t, so keep on posting your inane humanistic “thoughts” – it’s all about you, yourself, and no one else but you…
Christopher writes: “it’s all about you, yourself, and no one else but you”
A few threads away, you said something about how you would be unwilling to part with a fingernail, even if it meant that 50 lives would be lost by refusing to do so. Far from being embarrassed over such selfishness, you seemed rather proud of this.
Can you explain how this squares with the “Orthodox view of man”?
I’ve come to the conclusion that Christopher is actually a fictional character created by someone attempting to write in the style of Lewis Carroll. How deliciously absurd! I finally get it! You remind me a bit of the Queen of Hearts. “OFF WITH THEIR HEADS! OFFFFFF WITH THEIR HEADDDDDDSSS!”
Christopher writes: “Why would anyone at a site called ‘OrthodoxyToday’ be interested in such a naturalistic view of religion?”
Because there is a human component to religion that can be studied in the same way we can study any other human activity. Thus the existence of the fields of sociology, psychology, and history of religion. You’re basically asking why would religious people be interested in the academic study of religion. Why wouldn’t they be? If you’re not, that’s your issue, not mine. Others may be interested.
Christopher: ” . . . Could you please take this dribble to the appropriate venue?”
Back in post 232 you denounced ” . . . their unwillingness to discuss their own presuppositions.” Here I discuss my own presuppositions, and you tell me to knock it off. You don’t want me to post . . . but then you respond to my posts.
Christopher: ” . . . it’s all about you, yourself, and no one else but you…”
You may have noticed that one of your aspiring co-religionists, throughout several different posts, asked me direct questions about myself. I replied to those questions. Did you miss that? You criticize me for talking about myself — by talking “all about me, myself, and no one else but me.” Ironic, yes? But talking about the people who raise issues is your way of not discussing the issues. I guess that works for you, but if you don’t want to discuss an issue, why not just keep silent?
The impression I get from your response is that you think that in this venue Orthodox religion should be immune from any kind of critical or even skeptical comment or question, or even anything that might be construed as skeptical or critical. In other words, it should be a sacred cow. Is Orthodoxy that fragile? Are you that sensitive?
Note 284 Mr. Holman:
“If we’re talking about Christianity, actual miracles are a good place to start. As the atheist Sam Harris even said, a few well-placed miracles would suffice”
I doubt it (Luke 16:27-31).
Jim, as to your “critical questions” concerning the Orthodox Christian faith I can only say: asked and answered.
You keep hammering the same questions no matter who answers them or how they are answered. I can only conclude that they are not sincere questions.
In any case the kind of questions you have cannot be answered on a blog anyway.
Note 288 D. George, yes, they have not accepted the miracles which have been performed to date and they won’t accept any new ones.
Case One: Archangel Michael personally appears to Jim Holman in blinding flashes of divine light. AM sits down and discusses every question Jim H every had about God and provides answers. Since Jim firmly considers any such thing to be impossible he relegates the experience to heartburn, lack of sleep, temporary chemical imbalances and ignores it
Case Two: Archangel Michael personally appears to Jim Holman’s best friend and sits down and discusses every question the friend ever had about God and provides answers. JimH’s friend takes notes and decides to report the experience to Jim H. Jim H suggests physical examination followed by a mental examination.
So, other than that, hope everybody is having a good week.
Note 286:
A few threads away, you said something about how you would be unwilling to part with a fingernail, even if it meant that 50 lives would be lost by refusing to do so. Far from being embarrassed over such selfishness, you seemed rather proud of this.
Can you explain how this squares with the “Orthodox view of man”?
How about you try reading a catechism? Michael has spent untold number of posts explaining in plain and simple terms the “Orthodox view of man” – where have you been? Trolling. Instead of actually engaging the idea (in this case, the rejection of modern organ harvesting) you indulge in moral posturing (in this case alleging “selfishness”). It does not even occur to you to actually wonder how Christians might reject “organ donation” – you jump right to “selfishness” as if such a conclusion is self-evident.
Try understanding what it is you reject, and for goodness sake, stop Trolling…
note 287:
Why wouldn’t they be?
because you are not “studying” anything – you are reducing the transcendent to the material, a basic philosophical mistake. Your to introverted to admit this however.
Ironic, yes?
Not at all, because you are simply asserting your philosophy, not discussing the ground of it. Keep digging however, you might come to a presupposition yet – just please, not here. Your philosophy is low materialistic humanism (with a twist of strange introversion which you are apparently proud of), and it is quite the yawner – and has nothing to do with this site.
The impression I get from your response is that you think that in this venue Orthodox religion should be immune from any kind of critical or even skeptical comment or question, or even anything that might be construed as skeptical or critical.
Again, your introversion leads you to believe your “criticisms” are worth discussing. They are not – they belong on other venues, not here. Your as much of a wart here as I would be at “MaterialismToday”….
As I consider the pain, confusion and outright animosity towards Christianity demonstrated by a number of people here, I have say I understand the pain, confusion and animosity. Many Christians lead lives that could easily be atheistic. What else have Jim and James seen but a Christianity devoid of all content and substance? I am sure that most of the time the visible life I live in the world does not bring credit to the Church or my Lord. Christian atheism
I still remember the night I felt the first tug toward Orthodoxy. A delegation of Orthodox clergy from the Soviet Union visited Wichita complete with their KGB handler (a woman dressed in a bright red dress). They spoke through her as the interpreter and we had refreshments with them afterwards. The attraction was seeing the group of American Orthodox priests who had come. On the street afterward this the group of relatively young men were standing with each other at ease talking and laughing together. All of them looked so happy and joyful. I’d never seen priests look joyful before.
It is not our words that count. It is how we live our life. In the world, but not of it is an incredibly high standard IMO, but it is the one we are called to. It is the only way in which we can reach out and ease the pain, confusion and animosity. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard than we expect from others.
I see such evidence in my parish all the time even if I’m not the evident one. I know its a long way to travel for most and I do not expect anyone to take me up on it, but all I can say is come and see. St. George Orthodox Christian Cathedral, Wichita, KS. Divine Liturgy every Sunday 10:00 AM central time. St. George web site If you come unannouced, I may not be there. I live an hour and a half away and I just don’t make it every Sunday. My boy is there serving in the altar though, praise God. But you can always ask the ushers if I’m there and they will direct you to me if I am.
Sometimes other people can see truths about ourselves, that we cannot: you do exude contempt for the certainty enjoyed by Christians
Compare and contrast the following notes: They show a lack of insight into your own thinking.
According to you, people who agree with you that “there are some things that cannot be know with any degree of certainty.” exhibits humility. These people, whom you praise, are contrasted with conservative Christians who claim to “possess the absolute truth.” Therefore the ordinary reader may conclude that the conservative Christian is arrogant rather than humble.
Here again, you slide away from my point. Earlier to clearly intimated that conservative Christians were arrogant because of the confidence they had in their beliefs. I tried to explain to you that the phrase “possess the truth” was inapposite for how Christians see their relationship to truth. Christians are confident that absolute truth exists and that some of that absolute truth has been revealed to us. As you undoubtedly know one of the most famous passages in the New Testament is about how Christians “see through a glass darkly.” This is hardly an arrogant “I possess the Truth” attitude.
By the way, yes, I do believe that the Virgin Birth is true, absolutely. Why should this be hard to believe given what God can and has done. Jesus existed in history, lived in the Holy Land, was executed in the Holy Land and was resurrected. For more details, see Fr. Jacobse.
No I cannot reconcile every phrase of scripture with every other phrase of scripture, but, there a Bible scholars who can. There are many profound teachings of the Church that I do not fully understand because I lack the ordinary and/or spiritual maturity to understand them. I understand more of the teachings of the Church as time passes and I read and study more.
Try to read this next paragraph slowly. God has graciously deigned to directly manifest Himself to me so many times that I am absolutely certain that He exists. Given this I don’t think the use of the term “believe” in one of its ordinary uses is appropriate. This does not mean that I believe that I know everything there is to know about human existence, eternity, the Lord. After quite a few years of living I have concluded that the teachings of the Orthodox Church are correct and true. They have been confirmed many times.
What you don’t acknowledge is how repulsive you find this attitude to be. How dare I be confident of something theological? This is where I think you lack insight into your own attitude. You just can’t stand the certainty, you equate it with smugness and superiority. It isn’t smugness nor superiority, my Christian faith, in fact, requires that I daily contemplate my own considerable shortcomings and strive to fight against smugness or a sense of superiority.
Holman wrote: ““If we’re talking about Christianity, actual miracles are a good place to start. As the atheist Sam Harris even said, a few well-placed miracles would suffice”
D. George responds: “I doubt it (Luke 16:27-31).”
Good answer, but keep reading.
Missourian writes: “Case One: Archangel Michael personally appears to Jim Holman in blinding flashes of divine light. AM sits down and discusses every question Jim H every had about God and provides answers.”
Actually, that would work for me. I wouldn’t even need a private session. A group session would suffice.
Michael writes: “Jim, as to your “critical questions” concerning the Orthodox Christian faith I can only say: asked and answered.”
I wouldn’t even call them critical questions. They are more about how people believe and why. My most recent question on the “package deal” no one even answered. Christopher denounced it as a “naturalistic” question.
Frankly, I reject the whole dualistic approach to answering questions here. The idea apparently is that there are “good” questions and ‘bad” questions. There are “spiritual” questions and “materialistic” questions. I don’t think that the rational/materialistic vs. the spiritual is a valid distinction. There’s no reason why a “materialistic” question can’t lead to a spiritual answer — or vice versa. In his book Philosophy of Civilization Albert Schweitzer wrote that rational thought eventually leads to mysticism, and that a mystical view of life determines how we live in the material world.
But it doesn’t seem to work that way around here. For the home team, the manichean, dualistic approach prevails. Take, for example, Christopher’s latest —
Again, your introversion leads you to believe your “criticisms” are worth discussing. They are not – they belong on other venues, not here. Your as much of a wart here as I would be at “MaterialismToday”….
You see, there I’ve asked a “bad” question, and so Christopher has to slap my hand with a snarky comment.
The opposite of religious faith is not criticism of religious faith. It is indifference to religious faith. For many years I did not argue with Christians, because I didn’t think there was anything worth arguing about. I didn’t ask probing questions, because I didn’t think there was anything to probe. I wasn’t frustrated with religion, because it meant no more to me than alchemy or astrology. When religion did come to mind, what appeared was — nothing, a blank.
When non-Orthodox people show up here, with all of their arguments and debates and materialistic questions, it means that they are willing to engage and be engaged. The issue for the home team is to decide is what is the face of Orthodoxy that they will see, what is the perception they will take away. Is it an angry, impatient face? Is it a face that is annoyed with questions and criticisms? Or is it a face that is comfortable with criticism, that can take the heat, that can speak to people where they are.
When the young fellow Brent dropped off the blog a few days ago, someone said something like “don’t let the blog door hit you in the rear on the way out.” I remember wishing that someone had said instead “Brent, it’s been nice talking to you. Please come back again, and we’ll continue the discussion.”
The home team don’t have to worry about non-Orthodox people who show up here. Those people are doing what they need to do, and to the extent they participate, the home team has a captive audience. The people the home team need to worry about are the ones who don’t show up here. And why don’t they?
One final note. I think my “hatred” of religion has been greatly exaggerated. A few years ago I got on the local commuter train. It was in the early morning on a weekend, and there weren’t many people around. A young fellow came up to me and gave me a Bible tract. I could tell that it was important to him to “witness” to me, so I figured I’d make it easy for him. I asked him about his life. He told me that he had been abused as a child and eventually gotten into drugs, but that he had been saved and was now a Christian. I asked him how his life was different now as a Christian. I asked him how he felt when he prayed, and what his favorite parts of the Bible were, and so on. I thanked him for the Bible tract. As he got off the train, I think he was feeling pretty good. That’s an example of my great hatred of religion.
Note 295, JimH, you’ll note that you haven’t been “banned” so please don’t act the martyr
Individual posters can decide whether they want to engage your questions, you haven’t been banned and you are not a martyr for free inquiry
Jim, re: package deal. I was in the midst of an answer to you the other night when lightning cut my power and the answer went away. Hmmmmm?
Faith is a package deal becuase Jesus says it is, becuase human beings are a physical/spiritual whole, because the Christian faith is about communion in love. The Fathers and the Church insist on proper Christology, because we need to know who we are in communion with, with whom we are seeking union. Sycretism is a heresy because it is spiritual adultery.
I don’t think you only married part of your wife did you? I imagine that if you started hanging out with only part of another woman some place else, she might be understandably offended. Your marriage is a “package deal” it has to be. So it is with the Christian faith.
Unfortunately, there are different understandings of Jesus: The atheist, the secular, the atheistic Christian, the Protestant, the RCC, the Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonian to name the major ones (not including all of the clearly and expressly heretical versions). Spiritually you seem to be married to the atheistic version. You come on here and keep saying to us: your wife is ugly, you ought to marry mine, otherwise you’re stupid and irrational. If we react to such an outrageous attitude, we are the problem.
Of course, as long as you insist that faith is only about a mental agreement to a laundry list of doctrines or dogmas, you will continue to miss the point. The Christian faith is about reciprocal love between Creator and the created. It is real. We either learn to share and respond to His love now or the likelyhood that we will be able to do it later when He invites everyone to share His feast in the Kingdom eternally (Rev 22:17) is greately reduced, perhaps made impossible.
Lord have mercy on us all.
Note, Jim H, who made you prosecutor?
JimH, you adopt the tone of a prosecutor. We Christians are defendants. You pose your questions from the vantage point of your worldview.
At one point, you stated that you only considered certain types of things to be evidence. Again, you will exclude from the outset the things that I have accepted as evidence. You rig the issue by excluding any evidence that I could offer.
You have stated on more than one occaision that “I just want to understand why you believe as you believe.” No, you don’t want to understand, you already know and understand everything there is to know. You want to bait me as I seek to defend my conviction that there is an absolute truth and that the Orthodox Church teaches the truth. You have stated that you have been involved in this type of debate for 25 years, it is a form of a hobby for you. It isn’t for me.
You want to invoke the standards of science (which by definition and from the outset excludes the possibility of God as a active force in the universe).
Science has its place but it does not attempt to explain all of life.
As I noted you claim that a visit from the Archangel Michael would cause you to believe in God however I think not, you would treat it as an hallucination because you exclude that kind of evidence from consideration.
Note 295. Jim writes:
Actually, this caught my eye and I was going to answer but the next day I got swamped with work and have been running for the last four days. Maybe I can get to it tonight.
Jim – I think the question is misplaced on an Orthodox Website. The primary Theological tradition of the Orthodox Church is apophatic Theology, which you must be aware of. It is the Theology of negation, meaning it is easier to say what God is not than to say what God is.
This is has led to a Theology which is much less dogmatic than RC Theology, for example, which attempts to classify and regiment practically everything. In its emphasis on the mystical and the mysterious, Orthodoxy has some elements in common with Eastern faiths.
There is a core of belief, however, which one must accept or not be Orthodox. It is a more narrow range than the RC, but yet much more expansive than Fundamentalists. For while you might ascribe uniformity of belief to Evangelical groups, the fact is that defining the belief systems in even a denomination like the Southern Baptists is extremely taxing.
One reasons the SBC probably focuses on politics is because, theologically, they can’t decide what they believe. You’ll come across Calvinism, Free Will, Primitivism, just name it.
The fact that the Orthodox do not try to define every detail or approach the divine in a cerebral manner was one of the most attractive aspects of Orthodoxy to me.
The other was that the Orthodox priests with whom I met did not dismiss the pre-Christian pagan religions out of hand. They are very forthright in that elements of the pre-Christian path were beautiful and worth preserving, which is why such practices entered the church.
The Fundies, many of them anyway, hate the pre-Christian past as much as the Muslims hate the pre-Muslim past. Not being able to find any good in thousands of years of history always struck me as an odd position to take.
So, again, I just come away reading a post from you or from JamesK and just shaking my head. I don’t recognize the Orthodox Church in your posts. It seems misdirected.
We do have a core set of beliefs, but on a large number of questions the jury is very much still out. No dogmatic stance has been implied on a great number of questions, and none is likely to be forthcoming. Lots of things simply are not possible to state with precision, nor is there any need to.