The importance of understanding for belief

[DrZoidberg]

Christianity and Islam is unique in that they care about what the believer thinks. Most gods can't read minds. All the other gods (including the Jewish God) only cares about what the religious person does. The god wants sacrifices, or that the correct magical words are said, or it's more like a smorgasbord of guidance the believer can pick from, for their own benefit. Most gods are largely indifferent toward humans. We have to make an effort to be noticed and get favour. Or make an effort to offend them. Most religion's god concepts are formulated in a way that they can be interpreted metaphorically if you like, and the meaning is intact. Their holy texts are written on many different levels at once.

That's what's so funny about calling other religions for "faiths" or "beliefs". You've already loaded the dice with the question.

Christianity and Islam are perhaps the least sophisticated religions ever devised.

The philosophy of Christianity is to posit an all powerful God whose function is to accomplish this incredible miracle of resuscitating the faithful at some point in the future. Almightiness allows for simplicity. Once you have an all powerful God there's really no need to explain anything. God will resuscitate you just because He can, and He can just because He is almighty. Of course, the Church needs you to love the Church so if you want to be resuscitated you really need to go to church, just to show that you love God. And that's it. So being Christian is to attend church to show you love God so that you can be sure to be resuscitated. The rest is accessory and essentially cultural.

Now, your point about belief may perhaps explain that parallel to the simple philosophical scheme I just outlined, there's been a secondary but very strong development of the theology, which has become very sophisticated but that only the priesthood need to be interested in. The explanation is that once the early Church had somehow opted for a relatively strong requirement on belief by comparison to other religions, then belief takes on a life of its own. It becomes the focus of interest and communication between priests, it becomes a bargaining chip between members of the high clergy, it becomes the currency by which to decide who is going to lead the Church. It may also work as a substitute for the middle ranks of the priesthood, who have to forfeit their right to a normal life, give up on feeling they are a member of the civil society, especially since they have to give up on married life. Theology works then as a substitue for the culture that comes with taking part to the life of the city. It's a fantasy to occupy the mind of the priest and stop him feeling cut off from the real life. And there's a need for that so it develops until it becomes too complicated and absurd. And there would be no purpose asking ordinary Christians to take an interest in that.
EB

Aha... ok, I think I get it. The almighty is basically a super-parent? So the only belief necessary is to trust the super-parent to have it all worked out. So we don't have to. And that's what Christians have faith in? Did I get that right?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Aha... ok, I think I get it. The almighty is basically a super-parent?

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is all that at the same time. The Holy Trinity. You can't drop the other two elements. The Father is punishment. The Holy Spirit is mysterious because unknowable. The Son is love. Different people may feel closer to one or the other but it's frown upon by the Church. To favour one is to risk falling into heresy, which is very bad. Giordano Bruno wanted to keep the Holy Spirit and do away with Jesus and probably the Father as well. Look what happened to him!

So the only belief necessary is to trust the super-parent to have it all worked out. So we don't have to. And that's what Christians have faith in? Did I get that right?

Well, that's my own belief about how it works... And I think there's always the risk that the Church suddenly decide to collect its due, like organising a bonfire for Bruno. You think you've signed in for a straightforward attendance requirement but bishops are real people and they can choose to ask you for some more, although nowadays that's certainly less of a problem. But a son can suddenly decides to join the priesthood because the bishop has called him. Things like that. Or the Church forbid you to use contraceptive means. You don't investigate the belief system you sign in for at your peril. You're still not required to read, let alone understand, the small prints but you do have to follow the admonestations. It's the rituals, and it's a check on your freedom. Not so cheap.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is all that at the same time. The Holy Trinity. You can't drop the other two elements. The Father is punishment. The Holy Spirit is mysterious because unknowable. The Son is love. Different people may feel closer to one or the other but it's frown upon by the Church. To favour one is to risk falling into heresy, which is very bad. Giordano Bruno wanted to keep the Holy Spirit and do away with Jesus and probably the Father as well. Look what happened to him!

So the only belief necessary is to trust the super-parent to have it all worked out. So we don't have to. And that's what Christians have faith in? Did I get that right?

Well, that's my own belief about how it works... And I think there's always the risk that the Church suddenly decide to collect its due, like organising a bonfire for Bruno. You think you've signed in for a straightforward attendance requirement but bishops are real people and they can choose to ask you for some more, although nowadays that's certainly less of a problem. But a son can suddenly decides to join the priesthood because the bishop has called him. Things like that. Or the Church forbid you to use contraceptive means. You don't investigate the belief system you sign in for at your peril. You're still not required to read, let alone understand, the small prints but you do have to follow the admonestations. It's the rituals, and it's a check on your freedom. Not so cheap.
EB

Thanks. For the first time ever, I think I understand the mechanic by which Christians are suckered in. Because this is a psychological mechanism that makes sense. My respect for Christians went up now. Not for Christianity. I still think that's as retarded as ever. But it happens to the best of us, that we have strong opinions about something that turns out to be utter bollocks. I certainly have.

 

[Speakpigeon]

You're welcome.

Catholicism is certainly retarded. That's probably essentially because it's been hampered by the choice to preserve the bulk of the theology. They can't resolve themselves to evolve it with the times as it would be an admission that the Church has been wrong all along. New Christian denominations have more leeway to introduce novelty, as seen in many of them. What keep their own brands of Christianity retarded I think is themselves. Most of them are probably small-minded conservative by temperament. The early Church had been revolutionary, especially in being universalist, and in developing a somewhat more abstract view of God. So, it's not entirely impossible that a new Church could appear with a more "advanced" perspective on things, even one with a distinctly Christian flavour.

I guess we can also all relate to the Christian urge. Who wouldn't wish Heaven to exist?
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

You're welcome.

Catholicism is certainly retarded. That's probably essentially because it's been hampered by the choice to preserve the bulk of the theology. They can't resolve themselves to evolve it with the times as it would be an admission that the Church has been wrong all along. New Christian denominations have more leeway to introduce novelty, as seen in many of them. What keep their own brands of Christianity retarded I think is themselves. Most of them are probably small-minded conservative by temperament. The early Church had been revolutionary, especially in being universalist, and in developing a somewhat more abstract view of God. So, it's not entirely impossible that a new Church could appear with a more "advanced" perspective on things, even one with a distinctly Christian flavour.

I guess we can also all relate to the Christian urge. Who wouldn't wish Heaven to exist?
EB

Churches, religion and spirituality are all different things.

The church is an institution, and the first imperative for an institution is its own existence. Insisting on a historical, at least semi literal interpretation of scripture enabled the church's supremacy, but in the modern age that historicity or literalness has become a straitjacket.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Insisting on a historical, at least semi literal interpretation of scripture enabled the church's supremacy

And why would that be? How or in what sense a literal interpretation, as opposed to a more allegorical, or metaphorical interpretation, would enable the Church's supremacy?
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

Insisting on a historical, at least semi literal interpretation of scripture enabled the church's supremacy

And why would that be? How or in what sense a literal interpretation, as opposed to a more allegorical, or metaphorical interpretation, would enable the Church's supremacy?
EB

Because salvation must come only from an Authorized Representative who can trace spiritual lineage directly to the historical event of Jesus' commission to Peter, the first Pope. Also known as apostolic succession.

Protestants seem to have finessed this idea into a form where historicity and the AR is still required, but without the justification of AS. Not sure exactly how that works.

Whereas the Gnostics believed that revelation elevated the believer to a status comparable to Jesus. They recognized it as an interior process. AFAICT some form of Gnosticism is the only viable path for organized Christianity

 

[bilby]

And why would that be? How or in what sense a literal interpretation, as opposed to a more allegorical, or metaphorical interpretation, would enable the Church's supremacy?
EB

Because salvation must come only from an Authorized Representative who can trace spiritual lineage directly to the historical event of Jesus' commission to Peter, the first Pope. Also known as apostolic succession.

Protestants seem to have finessed this idea into a form where historicity and the AR is still required, but without the justification of AS. Not sure exactly how that works.

Whereas the Gnostics believed that revelation elevated the believer to a status comparable to Jesus. They recognized it as an interior process. AFAICT some form of Gnosticism is the only viable path for organized Christianity

It worked extremely well in an age of hereditary absolute monarchy.

It's become a handicap in an age of representative democracy and republicanism, wherein the people are mistrustful of tyrants, and disinclined to obey.

 

[Horatio Parker]

It worked extremely well in an age of hereditary absolute monarchy.

It's become a handicap in an age of representative democracy and republicanism, wherein the people are mistrustful of tyrants, and disinclined to obey.

I think it could be argued that the enlightenment was a result of the renaissance, which in turn was a result of the fall of Constantinople. As the Moslems closed in, the Byzantines sent their archives to the west, which included ancient Greek bibles. This was a big deal because all bibles in Western Europe were copies derived from st Jerome's translation. The Donation of Constantine was proved a forgery, an event which contributed to the reformation.

 

[sdelsolray]

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is all that at the same time. The Holy Trinity. You can't drop the other two elements. The Father is punishment. The Holy Spirit is mysterious because unknowable. The Son is love. Different people may feel closer to one or the other but it's frown upon by the Church. To favour one is to risk falling into heresy, which is very bad. Giordano Bruno wanted to keep the Holy Spirit and do away with Jesus and probably the Father as well. Look what happened to him!

So the only belief necessary is to trust the super-parent to have it all worked out. So we don't have to. And that's what Christians have faith in? Did I get that right?

Well, that's my own belief about how it works... And I think there's always the risk that the Church suddenly decide to collect its due, like organising a bonfire for Bruno. You think you've signed in for a straightforward attendance requirement but bishops are real people and they can choose to ask you for some more, although nowadays that's certainly less of a problem. But a son can suddenly decides to join the priesthood because the bishop has called him. Things like that. Or the Church forbid you to use contraceptive means. You don't investigate the belief system you sign in for at your peril. You're still not required to read, let alone understand, the small prints but you do have to follow the admonestations. It's the rituals, and it's a check on your freedom. Not so cheap.
EB

This seems rather ritualistic and pathetic. No curiosity, no skepticism, no exploration, no rationality. Just absorb and believe the dogma. It reeks of cowardice, laziness and feigned self-importance.

Were you indoctrinated into this curious world view?

 

[Speakpigeon]

And why would that be? How or in what sense a literal interpretation, as opposed to a more allegorical, or metaphorical interpretation, would enable the Church's supremacy?
EB

Because salvation must come only from an Authorized Representative who can trace spiritual lineage directly to the historical event of Jesus' commission to Peter, the first Pope. Also known as apostolic succession.

I don't think you could support this view as a matter of the official doctrine of the Church. Salvation isn't supposed to come from the Church. Salvation is a matter for God and God only.

Obviously, the Church has a representational function but believers pray to God, to angels, to Saints, not to the Pope or any bishop.

So, as far as I understand, the Church is just there to keep delivering the message. It's a caretaking role. The Church does not pretend that its role goes beyond making sure the rituals can be performed and performed properly. And rituals are merely what is supposed to allow the Church to deliver the message. Rituals don't guaranty salvation.

I may be mistaken but there are so many people, Christians themselves, who just like to go beyond what the Church says, that I'm skeptical.
EB

Protestants seem to have finessed this idea into a form where historicity and the AR is still required, but without the justification of AS. Not sure exactly how that works.

Whereas the Gnostics believed that revelation elevated the believer to a status comparable to Jesus. They recognized it as an interior process. AFAICT some form of Gnosticism is the only viable path for organized Christianity

Christianity has already exploded into thousands of distinct denominations. The Catholic Church is still the biggest organised chunk. Nobody can talk authoritatively for all protestants. Other denominations are implanted locally or regionally, never over the entire planet as is the Catholic Church. I'm no prophet, so I don't know what is supposed to happen next.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is all that at the same time. The Holy Trinity. You can't drop the other two elements. The Father is punishment. The Holy Spirit is mysterious because unknowable. The Son is love. Different people may feel closer to one or the other but it's frown upon by the Church. To favour one is to risk falling into heresy, which is very bad. Giordano Bruno wanted to keep the Holy Spirit and do away with Jesus and probably the Father as well. Look what happened to him!


Well, that's my own belief about how it works... And I think there's always the risk that the Church suddenly decide to collect its due, like organising a bonfire for Bruno. You think you've signed in for a straightforward attendance requirement but bishops are real people and they can choose to ask you for some more, although nowadays that's certainly less of a problem. But a son can suddenly decides to join the priesthood because the bishop has called him. Things like that. Or the Church forbid you to use contraceptive means. You don't investigate the belief system you sign in for at your peril. You're still not required to read, let alone understand, the small prints but you do have to follow the admonestations. It's the rituals, and it's a check on your freedom. Not so cheap.
EB

This seems rather ritualistic and pathetic. No curiosity, no skepticism, no exploration, no rationality. Just absorb and believe the dogma. It reeks of cowardice, laziness and feigned self-importance.

Were you indoctrinated into this curious world view?

You seem to be the perfect idiot.

God bless you.
EB

 

[rousseau]

I'm convinced that religion is less about 'belief' as it is about 'affiliation'. Religion is like a social club that you're often born into, and that it's in your material interest to stay in. The logic behind the theology of your social club is usually less important.

People who believe, and who are inclined to believe, get comfort from the prospect of a God existing, and there being an afterlife, and that's just about all that matters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'm convinced that religion is less about 'belief' as it is about 'affiliation'. Religion is like a social club that you're often born into, and that it's in your material interest to stay in. The logic behind the theology of your social club is usually less important.

Although I'm sure this aspect plays a part, it can't possibly be the explanation to the success of Christianity, or other religions.

Christianity expanded largely through the conversion of the political elite and I don't see how this idea of social club could have been a motivation for them. It also wasn't a motivation for the populace since I don't think they had much of a choice once their emperor or king had converted. The early Christians were persecuted so there again your idea doesn't work.

I'm sure that priests nowadays rely on the social club effect but there is so much competition in this respect that it's not going to be that effective. Those who insist nowadays to practice a religion in the West are probably the small minority of the population which is somehow naturally sensible to religious ideas.

In America, I suspect you also have something else which is a siege mentality, like the Afrikaners in South Africa at the time of the apartheid. People congregate which those they think ressemble them because you're stronger joining a community. There's a similarity with the idea of social club but it's much less benign. Then, yes, belief may be less important in this case but it may still provide the ideology of the community so that you join for the ideology. Yet, even there, I think the religious belief is an essential ingredient. It tells people that their community is somehow morally right.

People who believe, and who are inclined to believe, get comfort from the prospect of a God existing, and there being an afterlife, and that's just about all that matters.

I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

People who believe, and who are inclined to believe, get comfort from the prospect of a God existing, and there being an afterlife, and that's just about all that matters.

I can understand getting comfort from the idea of going to Heaven but what about the existence of God? What would be comforting in that?
EB

God belief possibly as an answer to "Why me".

 

[Horatio Parker]

Because salvation must come only from an Authorized Representative who can trace spiritual lineage directly to the historical event of Jesus' commission to Peter, the first Pope. Also known as apostolic succession.

I don't think you could support this view as a matter of the official doctrine of the Church. Salvation isn't supposed to come from the Church. Salvation is a matter for God and God only.

Obviously, the Church has a representational function but believers pray to God, to angels, to Saints, not to the Pope or any bishop.

So, as far as I understand, the Church is just there to keep delivering the message. It's a caretaking role. The Church does not pretend that its role goes beyond making sure the rituals can be performed and performed properly. And rituals are merely what is supposed to allow the Church to deliver the message. Rituals don't guaranty salvation.

I may be mistaken but there are so many people, Christians themselves, who just like to go beyond what the Church says, that I'm skeptical.
EB

I'm painting in very broad strokes. This is from the perspective of the church. You can have all the revelations you want, but if you're not baptized, confirmed, confessed, granted absolution etc, it doesn't mean squat to the Authorized Reps of Jesus God-man on earth. Sure, you can attempt to make all the private deals with God you want, but that's outside the church.

I think you stated it similarly:

You think you've signed in for a straightforward attendance requirement but bishops are real people and they can choose to ask you for some more, although nowadays that's certainly less of a problem. But a son can suddenly decides to join the priesthood because the bishop has called him. Things like that. Or the Church forbid you to use contraceptive means. You don't investigate the belief system you sign in for at your peril. You're still not required to read, let alone understand, the small prints but you do have to follow the admonestations. It's the rituals, and it's a check on your freedom. Not so cheap.

Protestants seem to have finessed this idea into a form where historicity and the AR is still required, but without the justification of AS. Not sure exactly how that works.

Whereas the Gnostics believed that revelation elevated the believer to a status comparable to Jesus. They recognized it as an interior process. AFAICT some form of Gnosticism is the only viable path for organized Christianity

Christianity has already exploded into thousands of distinct denominations. The Catholic Church is still the biggest organised chunk. Nobody can talk authoritatively for all protestants. Other denominations are implanted locally or regionally, never over the entire planet as is the Catholic Church. I'm no prophet, so I don't know what is supposed to happen next.
EB

Neither am I. But church attendance is falling rapidly, yet people still pursue spirituality. If one has any respect for science, the traditional(historic, literal) doctrines of the church present a problem. Denying reality is not seen as an intelligent survival mechanism. At the same time, there are western traditions of spirituality, some of which were(and to a small degree still are) compatible with Christianity, that don't require belief in the supernatural. So my best guess is that something along the lines of a rational, spiritual religion based on Christian and pagan writings would find a wider appeal.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't think you could support this view as a matter of the official doctrine of the Church. Salvation isn't supposed to come from the Church. Salvation is a matter for God and God only.

Obviously, the Church has a representational function but believers pray to God, to angels, to Saints, not to the Pope or any bishop.

So, as far as I understand, the Church is just there to keep delivering the message. It's a caretaking role. The Church does not pretend that its role goes beyond making sure the rituals can be performed and performed properly. And rituals are merely what is supposed to allow the Church to deliver the message. Rituals don't guaranty salvation.

I may be mistaken but there are so many people, Christians themselves, who just like to go beyond what the Church says, that I'm skeptical.
EB

I'm painting in very broad strokes. This is from the perspective of the church. You can have all the revelations you want, but if you're not baptized, confirmed, confessed, granted absolution etc, it doesn't mean squat to the Authorized Reps of Jesus God-man on earth. Sure, you can attempt to make all the private deals with God you want, but that's outside the church.

The Church is an authority and many believers will respect that but we're no longer in the Middle-Ages and most people will form their own views about God, including members of the Catholic Church. People just can't stop themselves. Most have other things to do than conjecture about God so they will go along with what the Church says, more or less, willy-nilly. But those who want to conjecture are not going to be impressed by a bishop or even a pope. The bishops know full well that the character of God, once it has been explained to the flock, is by definition understood as the only authority. The Church has a pastoral mission but could not possibly claim, and effectively does not claim, to have exclusive communication with God. If you're a believer, you can talk to God directly and if you think God is talking to you then so be it. Many people who think God talked to them haven't been excommunicated. Many have been made saints by the Church. The Church definitely presents itself as the only body competent on God but it does not claim to be the body that will decide on your salvation. Only God could possibly do that.
EB

 

[Horatio Parker]

The Church is an authority and many believers will respect that but we're no longer in the Middle-Ages and most people will form their own views about God, including members of the Catholic Church. People just can't stop themselves. Most have other things to do than conjecture about God so they will go along with what the Church says, more or less, willy-nilly. But those who want to conjecture are not going to be impressed by a bishop or even a pope. The bishops know full well that the character of God, once it has been explained to the flock, is by definition understood as the only authority. The Church has a pastoral mission but could not possibly claim, and effectively does not claim, to have exclusive communication with God. If you're a believer, you can talk to God directly and if you think God is talking to you then so be it. Many people who think God talked to them haven't been excommunicated. Many have been made saints by the Church. The Church definitely presents itself as the only body competent on God but it does not claim to be the body that will decide on your salvation. Only God could possibly do that.
EB

That's exactly why a gnostic/Greek philosophy orientation makes more sense. It recognizes that the issue is to cultivate a relationship with reality as opposed to submitting to an authority.

Meanwhile, the churchs position is still:

Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession",

So if you desire salvation within the church, your deviations are at your peril.

As to why that formulation won out over Gnosticism, I'd guess that one, it had a more consistent organization. The gnostic churches didn't even have fixed pastors, the role rotated among members. The more authoritarian structure would be more attractive to the civil authorities. Two, the Catholics had the advantage of simplicity and accessibility: do as we say and you'll be saved, as opposed to the studying and reflection required by Gnosticism.

 

[Rayschism]

Why wouldn't Christianity, and other religious beliefs be a philosophy?

How do you define philosophy?

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's exactly why a gnostic/Greek philosophy orientation makes more sense. It recognizes that the issue is to cultivate a relationship with reality as opposed to submitting to an authority.

Who knows reality?

The founding of the Church is based on the premise that people need a shepherd. This principle seemed to have worked well even at the time of the Early Church when Christians had the political power and all Jewish sects against them. The Gnostics have basically remained a curiosity. So, I don't see how a "gnostic/Greek philosophy" could be said to make more sense. Christians are, and have always been, in fact largely free to opt for a Gnostic perspective, because you can't police free thinking. Did they?

Meanwhile, the churchs position is still:

Wherefore we must obey the priests of the Church who have succession from the Apostles, as we have shown, who, together with succession in the episcopate, have received the certain mark of truth according to the will of the Father; all others, however, are to be suspected, who separated themselves from the principal succession",

Who says?

This is a quote from one individual called Kevin Knight, who clearly doesn't speak for the Church. Please.

So if you desire salvation within the church, your deviations are at your peril.

Again, what does it mean "salvation within the Church"?

As to why that formulation won out over Gnosticism, I'd guess that one, it had a more consistent organization. The gnostic churches didn't even have fixed pastors, the role rotated among members. The more authoritarian structure would be more attractive to the civil authorities. Two, the Catholics had the advantage of simplicity and accessibility: do as we say and you'll be saved, as opposed to the studying and reflection required by Gnosticism.

So, effectively, this is to say that the pastoral principle adopted by the Church made more sense even to you now.

As to the future, you still haven't explained why Gnosticism would be more effective.
EB