Something small and round

[Viking]

I said our tendency to believe in God is natural, but not all our practices are. This is because although we believe in God, we can't accept that it is our own sin that seperates us from him, and so we come up with our own gods and build idols etc in place of the real one. In this sense, Christianity is the natural form of human theistic tendencies, and all organised religion is a diversion from that.

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nah. All you have are words from other humans. Nothing more. The luthers and the calvins with all their nonsensical perversions of Christianity, that's just about all that your view contains. So, it didn't come from God, it came from a calvinist minister, who in tun got them from his predecessor, etc, etc. It's just a regurgitation of centuries old nonsense that gets passed around as a brand new revelation from God.

I thought you were a practicing Catholic? Do you not believe in regeneration through Christ etc?

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome?

But that sence is not an argument, it is a belief.

I'll come up with a theory about the 'natural form'. It appears to me, as someone who admittedly haven't studied religion too much, that there was a major shift in the religions once civilizations first arose; and perhaps also a second time when literacy became [more] common. This because religion in cities will have to fulfill other roles than religion in smaller societies; and because when you have texts to refer to, religion will become much more concrete, as opposed to a lose bunch of customs and tales.

If there was any truth at all in what I wrote, it could perhaps explain what you view as "diversion" as simply religion morphing into roles it traditionally has had. Perhaps one of the strengths of religion is that it can create internalt unity; but without traditions to cling to, this is harder to achieve.

You are right, I am not trying to make a solid argument here. It's more a case of trying to find some abstract ideas which we can generally agree upon or try to make some sense of, to use as a framework for the other stuff we were discussing.

There's probably a lot of truth in your above example as well. I guess to discuss such a topic as the origins and development of faith and institutionalised religion would require a big discussion, and it would take ages to really make a serious system out of it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

*points and laffs at the silly paddies*

Haha! Superstitious folk who see apparitions of Mary in caves and build shrines around it that serve as a place of pilgrimage for ages thereafter!

Only in Ireland! Cutesy silly folk and...

...hang on.



All apparitions start this way. Then if enough people belive it for a lengthy enough period of time, it is adopted by those supreme opportunists, the Catholic clergy. From winter solistice to virgin births, from apparitions to human sacrifice for sin, the entire doctrine of Catholicism originated outside of the Catholic hierchy.

One could say Catholicism is the unifier. That it is the institution that channels superstition into a managable social product, to unife the populace. Like languages or socially accepted behaviour, so in religious matters too there has to be a common standard if a society is to function as a whole.

Arguably, this has become less important in modern societies, where the disappearance of this necessity led to increasing secularism. Except in the staunchly individual US, where the church functions as social glue.

[rvg]

Or it is just that I couldn't possibly have had such an experience since I'm not in communion with the Church of Rome?

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Precisely. If you pervert the nature of God to the point where he's more on par with the devil and subsequently claim to receive revelations from that kind of "god", then I would seriously question the true source of those revelations. God doesn't play lottery.

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant.

This is why, as Banquo said, you end up the the Archbishop of Canterbury; a man who refuses to speak on behalf of the Lord he both Loves and obeys. It's why I'm quite a big fan, even though I don't agree with him on everything.

[rvg]

Conversely, one should not presume that only those outwardly in communion with Rome are members of the Body of the Church. To presume that the Roman Rite definitively conveys Grace and none other can is eqally arrogant....

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I do not, not at all. Orthodoxes and Anglicans (prior to their Church's implosion) were definitely on the right track.

We haven't imploded yet, we just need to sort out the Americans. Excomunication doesn't really work with us. Things will probably calm down once the current American "primate" is replaced.

Also, most Lutherans and Methodists are OK, the latter are broadly theologically compatable with Anglicans, and the former maintain the Universal Love of God; Luthor was notable for not spelling out exactly who that was reconciled with Sola Gracia.

that just leaves Calvin and his children, who are much more extreme than he was. I looked up the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" in the Library here once. The principle is merely that no part of human experience is free from the consequences of the Fall, i.e. man is in no part wholly pure. He is not, however, according to Calvin without redeeming features. The problem comes from the doctrinally irrelevant invective and rhetorical flourishes he used to make his points.

Apparently, his defence was that plain language would not convince the masses, so he dressed up his points in persuasive language. That alone demonstrates the intellectual bankuptcy of the man, who protested against fancy formulaic rituals and then used the same principles in his own sermons.

[rvg]

Well, yeah, the doctrine of "Absolute Depravity" is absolutely depraved.