Good religion, according to the Bible is this, Love mercy, act justly, walk humbly before your God
Love, act, walk.
Mercy, justice and humility.
James 1:26-27
[26] If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
Late to this party / discussion, but I wanted to chime in. I think it’s a simple as this — none of us want to be told how to live our lives, full stop. Ever since Adam and Eve rationalized disobedience of the only rule governing their perfect lives, we’ve been running from God and His authority.
“Good” religion is affirming, where “bad” religion could induce guilt, shame, or the scariest thing of all — a changed heart. So it’s not super surprising to see how childish people become in the face of orthodox doctrine. It’s very threatening to them.
We need both: time-honored traditions and personal experience. The first Christians did not believe in the Resurrection because religious authorities preached it, but because some of them had seen the risen Christ. St. Paul's conversion came not as the result of syllogisms and debate, but because he had a blinding vision of Christ. Over a thousand years ago Prince Vladimir of Kiev sent his servitors out to look into the several religious options available. They were decidedly unimpressed with Islam, Judaism and western Christianity-- but found themselves transported to Heaven in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia and so Russia followed Byzantium in faith. Tradition, theology and dogma alone get you a dead faith, void of the Spirit. One must have one's heart set on fire to truly believe.
I'm not sure that I know what this comment has to do with the post that I wrote. No one is saying that experience doesn't matter or that experience can even inspire conversion. The question is this: What is the mechanism that allows personal experiences to cancel, change or edit doctrines?
It's more a comment on the general thrust of the argument made here. Arid dogmatics cannot replace the true "fire" of the Spirit (and I say that as an Orthodox Christian whose church has a finely honed theology many centuries old). My own coming to the Orthodox Church twenty-nine years ago was less about theological argument (though I find the Orthodox take on many things more sensible than Western POVs) but rather, like Prince Vladimir's envoys, I attended an Orthodox liturgy and came away knowing in my heart that had found the place God wants me to be.
I am very much a traditionalist in religious matters, but not every lower case tradition is part of upper case Holy Tradition-- and some ugly things that have gotten wound around the Christian faith do need to be rooted out no matter how old they are. Case in point: anti-semitism.
OK, I see your point. But you are talking about life inside religious institutions -- period. I am saying that one major school of religious life, JDHunter's "progressive" school -- is now shaping how mass media separates "good" religion and "bad" religion. That's a different subject.
Here's what I don't understand: it seems as if the "spiritual but not religious" folk are all following their own path, and, often, making it up as they go along. In what other realm do we encourage this kind of behaviour? I mean, it is like if an engineer, entrusted with building a bridge, nails a couple of boards together on a whim and a prayer, and hopes that the cars driving make it across. And then, when the whole thing collapses, he says, "well, how was I supposed to know that?"
Thing is, though, those "bad," orthodox religions hold wisdom within them that was gleaned over centuries, even millenia. The truths that they espouse were often learned the hard way, and their teachings are quite often based on past failures, often spectacular failures.
It's like those people who are fumbling their way through the spiritual realm don't believe that there's anything out there that might hurt them. That's the only way that it makes sense that they wouldn't rely on the wisdom of the ages.
The most common response is that faith is a matter of emotions and opinions, whereas engineering, for example, is science based on the real world. Correct?
Good religion, according to the Bible is this, Love mercy, act justly, walk humbly before your God
Love, act, walk.
Mercy, justice and humility.
James 1:26-27
[26] If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. [27] Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
So this is the "good" religion that is driving mass media material about morality and doctrine?
Late to this party / discussion, but I wanted to chime in. I think it’s a simple as this — none of us want to be told how to live our lives, full stop. Ever since Adam and Eve rationalized disobedience of the only rule governing their perfect lives, we’ve been running from God and His authority.
“Good” religion is affirming, where “bad” religion could induce guilt, shame, or the scariest thing of all — a changed heart. So it’s not super surprising to see how childish people become in the face of orthodox doctrine. It’s very threatening to them.
We need both: time-honored traditions and personal experience. The first Christians did not believe in the Resurrection because religious authorities preached it, but because some of them had seen the risen Christ. St. Paul's conversion came not as the result of syllogisms and debate, but because he had a blinding vision of Christ. Over a thousand years ago Prince Vladimir of Kiev sent his servitors out to look into the several religious options available. They were decidedly unimpressed with Islam, Judaism and western Christianity-- but found themselves transported to Heaven in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia and so Russia followed Byzantium in faith. Tradition, theology and dogma alone get you a dead faith, void of the Spirit. One must have one's heart set on fire to truly believe.
I'm not sure that I know what this comment has to do with the post that I wrote. No one is saying that experience doesn't matter or that experience can even inspire conversion. The question is this: What is the mechanism that allows personal experiences to cancel, change or edit doctrines?
It's more a comment on the general thrust of the argument made here. Arid dogmatics cannot replace the true "fire" of the Spirit (and I say that as an Orthodox Christian whose church has a finely honed theology many centuries old). My own coming to the Orthodox Church twenty-nine years ago was less about theological argument (though I find the Orthodox take on many things more sensible than Western POVs) but rather, like Prince Vladimir's envoys, I attended an Orthodox liturgy and came away knowing in my heart that had found the place God wants me to be.
I am very much a traditionalist in religious matters, but not every lower case tradition is part of upper case Holy Tradition-- and some ugly things that have gotten wound around the Christian faith do need to be rooted out no matter how old they are. Case in point: anti-semitism.
OK, I see your point. But you are talking about life inside religious institutions -- period. I am saying that one major school of religious life, JDHunter's "progressive" school -- is now shaping how mass media separates "good" religion and "bad" religion. That's a different subject.
Here's what I don't understand: it seems as if the "spiritual but not religious" folk are all following their own path, and, often, making it up as they go along. In what other realm do we encourage this kind of behaviour? I mean, it is like if an engineer, entrusted with building a bridge, nails a couple of boards together on a whim and a prayer, and hopes that the cars driving make it across. And then, when the whole thing collapses, he says, "well, how was I supposed to know that?"
Thing is, though, those "bad," orthodox religions hold wisdom within them that was gleaned over centuries, even millenia. The truths that they espouse were often learned the hard way, and their teachings are quite often based on past failures, often spectacular failures.
It's like those people who are fumbling their way through the spiritual realm don't believe that there's anything out there that might hurt them. That's the only way that it makes sense that they wouldn't rely on the wisdom of the ages.
The most common response is that faith is a matter of emotions and opinions, whereas engineering, for example, is science based on the real world. Correct?