You Guys Need to Communicate! (thoughts from an ex evangelical Christian)

quote:

---

I know Kader tried this, but who here has remained in the religion they were raised in?

---

I'm not talking about "here".Most of the people on the planet stay in the religion they were raised in.

quote:

---

How so? You don't think there are dissident clergy in America?

---

Of course there are.I never, ever heard of any of them when I was coming up in my parish in western PA.Why do you think that is?

quote:

---

And do you think that teaching critical thinking means directly opposing what you claim allegiance to?

---

When it comes to religion, yes, very often, it does.

Why is 'here' not a cross-section of the planet? As far as continuation in the faith of parents, EvC portrays about the same stats as I see in real life. I hardly know anyone my age who still believes in the doctrines they were raised with. But, of course, I know this varies from country to country and different age groups. I don't know. I remember hearing a lot about progressive priests and non-traditional popes. I was taught to question authority, lol, but not in the usual way. Even so, you can't teach a lesson and not have the child apply it universally. No, teaching critical thinking does not mean or imply that someone should oppose an establishment. Opposition is a product of the critical thinking. You should first accurately represent the position of the church, and THEN allow someone to make up their own mind. To do otherwise is still a prejudice.

Most of the time, no it does not. I do appreciate and understand and even mostly agree your point, but I don't think that Schraf was accusing the RCC wholesale of the strict brainwashing you addressed when you said this: She was providing evidence (anecdotal tho it may be) that children can be and are brainwashed by many different religious sects (or particular groups or people within those sects, if you prefer), the RCC included, not just the fundies who isolate their kids from the world.It may not always stick, but, as she pointed out, it can be a very painful process to unstick it.

I guess it should come as no surprise that as a Unitarian I fail all of these. Couldn't you add one about believing in God so I wouldn't feel so left out? --Percy

A little further down he says... So I suppose by that statement that Harris would group jar, myself, trixie, arach, etc into moderate/liberal Christians.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You mean, why would an Internet forum dedicated to the exploration of the conflict between science and religion not represent an accurate, unbiased cross-section of humanity as a whole?How many people here speak Chinese or Hindi as their native languages? In a world where the Earth's human population is concentrated in China and India, wouldn't a truly representative sample predominantly include many more speakers of those languages - instead of, as this sample is, being totally comprised of speakers of English?Furthermore - what percentage of the world's population do you think have access to computers and the internet? A hint - it's a lot less than 100%, which is obviously how many of the EvC sample have such access.And does the term "self-selected sample" mean anything to you?From your question, I get the feeling you've never in your life thought about statistical sampling and how a truly random sample - an accurate cross-section - is generated. There are a hundred obvious answers to your question. There's no way that the population here at EvC forum could possibly be mistaken for any kind of truly representative cross-section of "the planet."

My point is that the balance of his statement is, IMHO, totally false REGARDLESS of what games he plays with classification.He says: which in my opinion is simply bullshit.First, I don't think such people demand respect for their religious beliefs. That implies we really care what Harris thinks of our beliefs.LOLHe rates himself far to high.How exactly does he see folk like me demanding respect for my religious beliefs? I can tell someone what they are, sometimes even explain the reasoning behind them, but if someone else doesn't respect them, so what?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Yea, I do disagree with the over generalization that Harris conveys.(the spelling errors were mine by the way. I was typing in the quote from the book)I do think though that Harris has a point when you consider public discourse over certain key issues where mainstream Christianity has asserted itself. Now it may just be a result of my ignorance, but I rarely see a moderate or liberal Christian when arguing, criticize the taboo of homosexuality as a dogma itself. They may argue that we need to be tolerant or such but only in the VERY liberal case do they ever seem to denounce the dogma on its merits alone.IMO this is a big reason why even in this more accepting day and age we are actually seeing MORE done to prohibit homosexual rights than guarantee them.Like I said, as a generalization, Harris is wrong. In the specific cases he brings up, I think he has valid concern that moderates are sheltering extremist views by not denouncing the basic traditions from which the extremists stem.The problem with people who believe we live in an apocalypic society is not that they are misinterpreting Revelations. The problem is that Revelations is completely and utterly invalid as prophecy. Yet most of my very liberal Christian family would never dare to question that one day Armageddon will actually occur or be critical of any fundamentalist who not just believes the same but shapes policy around it.Edited by Jazzns, : No reason given.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

As a Catholic, I was taught that there is no salvation outside the (Roman Catholic) church, except in cases of “invincible ignorance” - people who don’t know about the Catholic church. In addition, I know that this idea goes back to the 4th century with Augustine, who, along with the rest of the church, believed that sacraments were needed for salvation, and that sacraments were only proper if done by the official priest. Augustine writes clearly about this because he writes against the Donatist “heresy” (though he was originally a Donatist who converted to RCC). The donatists had said that corrupt priests couldn’t give valid sacraments. Because there were plenty of corrupt priests even back in the 4th century, the donatists seceded from the Catholic church, thus putting them out of the hierarchy, and so Augustine pointed out that their sacraments were invalid, and didn’t bring salvation.This view of the sacraments is still RCC doctrine today: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: SacramentsThe “invincible ignorance” loophole is used to counter the claim that condemning people who never heard of Christianity to Hell is cruel. Thus, people who never heard are possibly, sometimes, perhaps spared if that’s what God wants, since we can’t know what God will do. In fact, this loophole is said to be possible in an extreme case where a protestant is raised to hate the RCC, and never learns otherwise. However, Catholic doctrine is clear that it is the one true church and all other churches/faiths cannot get you salvation.From herehttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14763a.htm , we have:

quote:

---

As the true God can tolerate no strange gods, the true Church of Christ can tolerate no strange Churches beside herself, or, what amounts to the same, she can recognize none as theoretically justified. And it is just in this exclusiveness that lies her unique strength, the stirring power of her propaganda, the unfailing vigour of her progress. A strictly logical consequence of this incontestable fundamental idea is the ecclesiastical dogma that outside the Church there is no salvation (extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). Scarcely any other article of faith gives such offence to non-Catholics and occasions so many misunderstandings as this, owing to its supposed hardness and uncharitableness. And yet this proposition is necessarily and indissolubly connected with the above-mentioned principle of the exclusive legitimacy of truth and with the ethical commandment of love for the truth.

---

So Anastasia is right that at least some non-Catholics may still be saved (if God wills it) according to Catholic doctrine, though not if they know about the Roman Catholic church and stay outside of it. RCC doctrine strongly denies that any spirituality, no matter how nice and good, can win your salvation.Some more quotes are here: Catholic Answers (What the Early Church Believed: Salvation Outside the Church | Catholic Answers )Individual Catholics may often try to spin it one way or the other (for instance, trying to either eliminate the “invincible ignorance” loophole on one hand or trying to expand it to try to save those who do know of the Catholic church from hell), but the bottom line is the same - except for invincible ignorance of the Catholic church, only Catholics are saved.Oh, and I was raised Catholic. I indeed was taught to accept on faith the church’s doctrine without critical thought. Strangely, I was taught critical thought, and taught to apply it to all areas of my life EXCEPT religion. That was put in a “question free box”. I was outright told that if I heard anyone question a faith tenet, that right then “your faith should rise up” to stop that line of thought.Oh well. I guess I found out that the box was there for a reason.And, yes, those of us living in the US and Europe do have a very skewed view of Catholicism. We see a lot of liberal/moderate Catholics, including priests. This is very different from the majority of Catholics, who are closer to what we’d call fundamentalist. The RCC knows this, that’s why they selected a pretty much fundamentalist pope (Ratzinger). The Catholic bishops who preach against allowing condoms to be given out in Africa are more typical of where the worldwide Catholic church is. But, most of us open-minded westerners don’t know that, and keep pumping money into the Catholic church. The same goes for the Anglican communion - which also is more moderate (even liberal) in the US, but what we would call fundamentalist in most of it’s churches worldwide. Both churches get a lot of their money from the wealthy US and Europe, to support fundamentalist activities elsewhere.

quote:

---

She was providing evidence (anecdotal tho it may be) that children can be and are brainwashed by many different religious sects (or particular groups or people within those sects, if you prefer), the RCC included, not just the fundies who isolate their kids from the world.

​

It may not always stick, but, as she pointed out, it can be a very painful process to unstick it.

---

Thank you, Jaderis.Maybe, becasue it isn't coming from me, jar will accept your iteration of what I've been saying all along.Nice to see I have been able to explain myself understandably to at least ONE person on this thread.

Well, I do think that might be a case of ignorance, but there is also some merit.As I said earlier in this thread, one problem is that the moderate voice does not use the infomercial huckster approach of either the folk like Harris or the Televangelist snake oil salesmen. Such tactics just don't seem compatible with reason.There are voices out there though, the current MAJOR discussions in the Anglican Communion on just that issue is an example. The Episcopal Church is discussing the very issue you raise and most vocally taking the stand that the dogma itself is wrong has led to many Episcopal Churches leaving the Protestant Episcopal Church of America.What you claim is not happening most certainly is. But again, this very issue IS being discussed and addressed. For example, in January of last year the issue was discussed in an article by Fredrick Schmidt in Episcopal Life and in January of this year Rev. Rossing also spoke out on Reclaiming the Bible.The discussion is happening, not without great pain and soul searching, but it is happening.There are also voices like The Christian Alliance for Progress and Crosswalk America (be sure to watch the video for a view of a Congregationalist church) and the The Center for Progressive Christianity and No Longer Silent.The Moderate voice is speaking out. Whether we are heard will depend on whether those on either side choose to listen.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That is just too contradictory and confusing.First, God wills the salvaton of everyone. You make it sound like He has a heavenly Green Card Lotto going on.The church definitely teaches 'extra ecclesium nulla salus', but even according to your link, that is the least understood and most offensive statement to non-Catholics.Basically, it means that because of the church, the sacraments, etc, the grace of God is constantly working in the world to save souls. It means, further, that the RCC is the truth, as all religions claim, and that without God's intervention in revealing truth, there is no hope in our finding it ourselves.As far as who exactly can be saved, I think it is as simple as 'anyone who does what they believe is right'. Invincible ignorance is hard to quantify.

Anastasia wrote (about the RCC doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the RCC except for invincible ignorance):

quote:

---

That is just too contradictory and confusing.

---

I agree. That’s the whole point to most RCC doctrines.They are purposefully contradictory because that is what works best to keep people in the church. I don’t think someone thought “hey, if I make this contradictory, it’ll keep people in the church” - no, instead I think that these contradictory statements were selected for, and hence are with us today. There are tons of examples. Here are some:Do unbaptized babies go to hell?
Is Jesus a man, or a God?
Does 3=1?
Are the sacraments needed?
Do people have free will, or is God omnipotent?It’s easy to see how some of these evolved:Think of a dozen forms of Christianity competing in the 2nd century. They all have different scriptures, different numbers of gods, different everything. Say that Church E has a view that Jesus was a man, that Church G that Jesus was a god, and Church R that he was both somehow. Now they compete for converts. When E attacks G, saying “your view is wrong”, G can only attack back, since their views are clear and clearly disagree. Since E and G are attacking each other, they both suffer from the exchange. E can’t attack R very well, because R agrees that Jesus was a man. R is similarly safe from G. R, on the other hand, can attack either, saying their view is incomplete. R defends their own nonsensical position by saying that “it’s a divine mystery, beyond human comprehension”.Politically, R’s stance has even more benefits. When addressing a crowd sympathetic to E and hostile to G, R can emphasize Jesus’ human qualities, and win converts. When addressing a crowd (or a person) sympathetic to G and hostile to E, emphasize Christ’s divine qualities. Simply say whichever half is needed to win the convert, since a contradictory stance says both, so you aren't lying.From the example above, it’s no surprise that whatever church happens to win after the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you can be sure it’ll have a contradictory view of Jesus’ nature, just as you can be sure that after both vascular and non-vascular plant compete on land, after a while vascular plants will be dominant - they just compete better.The same goes for the stance that “there is no salvation outside of the Church except for invincible ignorance”. If someone is a loving person, the RCC can emphasize that some non-Catholics can be saved anyway. This works well to keep people like you (Anastasia) contributing time and money. For others, the RCC can refer back to the first part “there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church” - this is done for people considering leaving, for Catholics wondering if they should baptize their kid or send him to Catholic school, or for people wondering if it’s good to evangelize in third world countries. The contradictory stance has been selected for over the past 1800 years, because that’s what works - just like how a 4-chambered heart has been selected for, because that’s what works.Anastasia wrote

quote:

---

As far as who exactly can be saved, I think it is as simple as 'anyone who does what they believe is right'. Invincible ignorance is hard to quantify.

---

That would be nice, but it’s not what the doctrine says. Here is a cut-and-paste from the RCC doctrine, which I linked to in my last post:

quote:

---

while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). . .

​

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

---

See, it doesn’t matter how good you are. Goodness is irrelevant, according to both Paul and the RCC. What matters is: 1. Are you a member of the RCC?, and if not, then 2. Are you ignorant of the church? If not, then there is no way to avoid damnation.That’s it. People like Gandhi, or Anne Frank, who certainly knew of the RCC and of the Bible, and still were not Catholic, go to hell for eternal torture according to RCC doctrine.To feel better, I advise asking a priest if non-Catholics can still be saved, and he’ll go on for a while about how some non-Catholics are indeed saved, and since he won’t mention invincible ignorance, he’ll allow you to think that the Catholic God is kind and nice, allowing nice people to be saved even if they aren’t Catholic or ignorant, and after awhile you’ll feel fine again - just don’t read the Bible too much. That works for my relatives - I come from a big, and moderate/liberal, Catholic family.Seriously though, I’m glad you wish the best for all good people - I do too. That’s more important than doctrine anyway.Have a fun day--EquinoxEdited by Equinox, : No reason given.Edited by Equinox, : typo

I have to object to a couple characterizations, though they may have little relevance to your current debate. I can't let these go uncontested. This didn't happen in the 2nd century, at least not on the topics you chose. If you want to make the various gnostics into "a dozen forms of Christianity" with "different everything," then you can, but it's not really a good characterization of what was going on the 2nd century. The gnostic faiths really would have no reason to debate the Jesus is God vs. Jesus is man issues that came up in the 4th century. It was inapplicable to their theology. The "orthodox" 2nd century church really had no "denominations" in the 2nd century that would have issues over this. Yes, there was the Ebionites that would be closer than the gnostics, but they didn't debate that either. Jesus was just a man to them. The "orthodox" churches didn't start dividing until the 3rd century, and they didn't have any widespread divisions until the Arian controversy in the late 3rd and early 4th century. The 3rd century really only had the Donatists and the Novationists that split over readmitting the lapsed when persecution ended.There was no "debate" between 2nd century Christians and the gnostics. They were completely split by the 2nd century, with the gnostics representing a completely different religion with, as you say, different gods.Your description of the evolution of some of those doctrines is really pretty insightful, but it didn't start till the 4th century. Prior to the 4th century, the emphasis was on not changing anything but holding to "apostolic tradition," so that Scriptural debates could be solved by asking major churches that were started by apostles, such as Rome or Ephesus. That started to change in the 3rd century with the kind of honor given to brilliant thinkers like Origen (whom I really like), but it really didn't open the door to the doctrinal debates you mention until the 4th century. This isn't true, either. Your quote doesn't say that about the RCC, to whom it most certainly does matter whether you are good. The RCC adamantly defends their stand that good works are necessary to be saved. Your quote says simply that you must be in the RCC to be saved, but that doesn't mean all in the RCC are saved. The RCC teaches its members that they must do good works to go to heaven (a position I would agree with them on, though I'm not RCC).Secondly, there's nothing reasonable about attributing this to Paul. He did indeed say that we are justified by faith apart from works, but he also said no immoral, unclean, or greedy person will have an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God, and then he said to let no one deceive you about this (Eph 5:3-8). Just because Martin Luther took the utterly ludicrous position that goodness doesn't matter and he started a widespread movement that agrees with him does not mean that it's reasonable to attribute that position to Paul. No one agreed with Martin Luther for 15 centuries. Even Calvin, the next most famous reformer, didn't agree with him.

Good post, I have not gotten yet to Equinox' but willt ackle that next.I like this part; Because I feel Luther has a point...faith alone can save, if a person is on their death-bed, or in some tropical jungle where they don't know how to really be any different than their society...but faith alone is not what any follower of Luther will act upon. They will do works automatically because of faith. NO contradiction necessarily...but the RCC will say the opposite I think; works can save a man. The grace of God can work in a person who does good, and even if they have never heard of the name of Jesus, can save him.The main problem is, that the doctrine of 'faith alone in Jesus' CAN save, even without works...as in the case of a dying man...has been misconstrued IMO to 'only faith in Jesus' can save. I am not sure if Luther ever had such intentions, I have done a lot of research and I am still not sure what he meant But, no, that is not what the church teaches. They say 'without the RCC no one would be saved' but not 'no one outside of the RCC will be saved'.I daresay you can find people in both camps, but as I understand the definition of John Paul II on the matter, many people are prone to a misunderstanding of the quotes.