Religion
Related: About this forumSomething revolutionary new in religion
When any institution gets stuck in its own dogma, style and government, and refuses to understand that change and growth are endemic to culture, it is in serious trouble. Any wider notion of evolution posits that change and growth are in themseves a fact of existence. Few successful political strategies suggest that if we only go back or concretize the status quo, all will be well. When General Electric said, progress is our most important product, the American people said, Yes!
What is true of almost everything else, is also true of religious institutions. Those here who insist that there is no such thing as a dynamic modern religious movement, and who want to believe that all religious thought must be dated sometime back, just hope for a moribund form of faith they can more easily attack.
Just last week we saw a biting example of this truth. The Vatican has just unleashed a vigorous attack on its growing progressive edge. Once the nuns got out of their black and white habits and entered the modern world, they discovered that a religious enterprise mired in the 16th century was hopelessly out of date. Up they came from the bowels of a church that never realized that the feminist movement is real, that sex is not universally evil and that a group of old celibate men did not have the last word about life.
For a long time the Vatican has been able to control creative thought through heavy-handed juridical power. What they had not countenanced, however, was the advent of women who had come into their own and were no longer subject to an outmoded patriarchy.
For decades Catholic religious women have been abandoning their orders and the rule of the church. Now within the church the revolt is in full bloom. While the Vatican may now attack the orders in hope that those they appointed as their heads will bring their groups back into proper order, it is a losing battle. Once the Genii is out of the bottle, no amount of old-time pressure can stuff it back.
Women have unleashed something vibrant in a deadly hierarchy. Here is a single contemporary example of what is happening throughout Christianity. There are two groups which are resisting the developments. One is the established religious authorities. The second is those non-theists who are threatened by anything new in religion they cannot put down. They both come out in the same unfortunate place.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)and even managed to swallow their bile and accept evolution and modern scientific thought on the origin of the universe, as long as the theories were incomplete enough for them to use god as their first cause.
However, the viciousness they harbor toward the female half of the human race knows no bounds. This isn't the first time they've attacked female religious orders for being too progressive and it won't be the last. The hierarchy wants them swathed in Mediaeval clothing and cloistered, not out in the world and being Christlike.
And they wonder why I stomped off in disgust at the age of ten.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)The Catholic Church has always dealt with those who disagree, in small or large groups, with their dogma. When those revolts are successful, they are called schisms. When they fail, they are called heresies.
Either way, they haven't changed the Church too much in the past. Such is the job of such councils as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
I don't know where you got your rose colored glasses, but they are seriously handicapping your view of history.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Why is this such a threat?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)What I said was that your characterization of their actions is laughably off-base. There is nothing new or revolutionary about what is going on here.
I don't feel threatened at all, by this or by you, but clearly you feel threatened by something.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)Most lay Catholics, at least in America, couldn't give a rat's ass what the pope says or what the official position of the church is.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)fantastic place, suspecting a league of nontheists who don't want to see nuns reform the Catholic church. Need to see more evidence of that one. Or even any evidence of that one.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)but who just do not believe it is happening--since all religion is bad. Every time I have posted something positive about the church, that is the responses I get. Just read them here.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Not in any way you have shown here, and not in any way that matters. They're getting their habits in a twist and expressing dismay in the media, neither of which have any influence on anything of significance to the redhat club.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Every time I suggest that there are new progressive forces in religion, I get a host of negative responses, asking me prove it, claiming it doesn't exist, asking for five more proofs after I have provided a long positing, claiming it is so small it doesn't matter, accusing me of making up the whole thing, claiming that I am the only own who holds such stuff etc. etc. etc. And you are offended?
I should think that all the progressive religious evidences that have been posted would receive at least some solid support, not because people believe in the theology behind them--nobody expects that--but because there is a side of modern religion that holds the same social ethic many other progressives do.. Instead these evidences get-----. Do you want a list of those responses?
in this string just see if there is any affirming word in 1,2 3,8,13, 14
muriel_volestrangler
(101,361 posts)You had been talking about how theology had changed, and that belief in miracles, answers to prayers, virgin births and so on were old-fashioned and on their way out; and that it didn't matter any more if Jesus was actually resurrected or not. And that still seems to be the exception, rather than the rule, to me - Spong does not have many followers.
This is about how socially conservative sections of the Roman Catholic church are. The nuns aren't. But that doesn't mean they don't believe in the miracles of the New Testament.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)it is clear that the two things go together. Once the juridical power of the church is questioned, so are the doctrines. You may realize that the Vatican office that came down on the nuns is the old Inquisition, the protector of the doctrines of the faith. This is not at all a separate issue.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Look at the phrase that multiple people were offended by. What was your reason for including it? It was unnecessary and false. So why not leave it off, leave off all your snide remarks and back-handed attacks on non-belief, and see how people react?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)darkstar3
(8,763 posts)I'd like to see an answer to that as well.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Trying to blame "non-theists" for the problems faced by progressive elements in the Catholic church is laughable.
TMO isn't going to provide a decent answer, but I have a pretty good idea why he included it. Par for the course...
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)only ridicule and a demand for proof that anything progressive is happening in religion. It is as if some of who just don't accept anything progressive in religion, because it hurts your disrespect for all theism.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Someone asks you for a link and you think that's an unreasonable demand for proof?
And then you launch right into attacking again. Amazing.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)Where I have my problems is that the leaders of some religions are so concerned in protecting their church that they forget that if they truly believe in their god their church needs no one to stand up for it.
The leaders of churches make the rules and I see for the most part none of any major churches turning progressive.
All I am asking is for you to show me with facts and links where this progression is.
You are free to have any opinion you desire but when you hold things out there as fact then you need to show the facts.
And what does it really mean when you state that religion is turning progressive??
The New Testament preached love for everyone and if you are saying that is the new progressive stance then all that really means is that some religions are starting at a place 2100 years old.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)to back up your statements.
And what are the new progressive??
Do they state that all the universe is connected and we need to stop and find our way in the universe??
Do they state that man is not the ruler of the universe??
Do they state that man is just a small speck in the universe and man's passing would not change much??
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)You mostly seem like a resasonable person.
xfundy
(5,105 posts)Only when the fundamentalists of those religions have stolen enough power and brainwashed their followers into bloodthirsty hate.
BEWARE OF GOD.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Why is it impossible to affirm the progressive forces in religion?
Does it really upset your prejudices that much?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)to everyone on this board who disagrees with you as "prejudiced". It's incorrect, it's against the TOS, and it's bad form. It's also exactly the same tactic as right-wing assholes using the phrase "if you don't...then you hate America."
mr blur
(7,753 posts)to insist that non-theists are threatened in some way by your wonderful, much-trumpeted "new" religion? Does it never occur to you that, far from being worried by "progressive" theology, we just don't care?
Your paranoia and insecurity are quite revealing; could it be that it's not us you're trying to convince, but yourself?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)But what keeps you from celebrating what is breaking out all over the religious world? Don't you want what is happening? Does that threaten you?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Will you ever get tired of your false generalizations?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Have you seen the lists I posted elsewhere--and will continue to do so?
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Are you paying attention at all to the current trends regarding religion and politics? Here's a news flash: They aren't following your philosophy. Quite the opposite, in fact. As the world becomes more secular, the backlash we see from American Christians becomes more pronounced.
You're fighting an uphill battle against an avalanche, and all the people you want recognition from have already walked away from the mountain.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)Just because the delusion changes in a minor way doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to like them telling me how to live and trying to get laws passed to enforce their particular mode of delusion to ensure that I have to live according to their wishes.
If you look at my profile you'll see that I've opted out of DU juries, I have no desire to censor the words of others but it's clear to me after reading on H&M for a while that there are a good many who positively relish the though of being able to silence others.
Those who relish being able to silence others just seem to naturally end up in control, it never really changes.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)secularize an archaic, non-progressive religion?
More importantly, why do you feel the need to slam non-theists with such a statement?
edhopper
(33,615 posts)how any believing, christian Catholic, can still belong to the Catholic Church.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)You have examples?
--imm
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)about non-theists?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I think your analysis is flawed, its possible the nuns will be labeled schismatic if they don't comply, and a mass excommunication, and subsequent bolting from the church will take place as the organization is reorganized, more or less.
onager
(9,356 posts)As Mark Twain observed about the vibrant changes in Xianity more than a hundred years ago...
The methods of the priest and the parson have been very curious, their history is very entertaining.
In all the ages the Roman Church has owned slaves, bought and sold slaves, authorized and encouraged her children to trade in them. Long after some Christian peoples had freed their slaves the Church still held on to hers...
Yet now at last, in our immediate day, we hear a Pope saying slave trading is wrong, and we see him sending an expedition to Africa to stop it.
The texts remain: it is the practice that has changed. Why? Because the world has corrected the Bible. The Church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession - and take the credit of the correction...
During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. The Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live.
Therefore the Church, after doing its duty in but a lazy and indolent way for eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumbscrews, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest...
Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.
Who discovered that there was no such thing as a witch - the priest, the parson? No, these never discover anything...
There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain...
It does certainly seem to suggest that if man continues in the direction of enlightenment, his religious practice may, in the end, attain some semblance of human decency.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)There are many people who sometimes damage that pride, but reading Twain always brings it back.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)has anything to say about the revolt of the sisters, which is the subject of the post?
medicine men, shamans, druids, etc. etc., and "there was no such thing"?
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)We just don't give a shit about what hokey woo you want to subscribe to as long as you quit bothering us with it. It really is that simple.
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)If you don't want to to be bothered with what you call "hokey woo," then quit here.
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)between not agreeing with something. and not wanting to be bothered with it because it is hooky woo?
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)and is open to all opinions. You really don't get that yet?
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)NOBODY says posters have to agree with anything. But when someone tells us not to bother them even posting what they find "hookey woo," that is a write off, not a disagreement.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)and serves the same purpose.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)But you're right, it's not the "agree with me about religion" group.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)and serves the same purpose.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Everything's a group now. Religion just isn't a "safe haven" group - differing opinions are allowed here.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)Evoman
(8,040 posts)Hell, I love new stuff in religion. Nothing gets me hotter than when the church is pulled out of it's regressive positions. Doesn't happen too often, and we see a lot of false alarms. That's why we are so cynical.....we are so used to the church fighting any progressive change so hard, we doubt any lasting changes. This cynicism doubles (for me) when it deals with women....there is nothing the church is more fucked up in than it's position on women.
Maybe, some day the church will progress to the point where it fully accepts science, donates all it's riches to the poor, and stops existing. Don't count on it.
Besides, really....as long as the church keeps believing in that stupid god stuff, there will always be something for us non-theists to put down. We're not threatened....we're good!
prefunk
(157 posts)But I have a question.
In your last paragraph you state that there are two groups resisting these developments, established religious authorities and non-theists threatened by anything new in religion that they cannot put down.
While I agree with your take on the first, how could you possibly know that the reason you stated for the second group is accurate? Could not a more plausible reason be that non-theists are threatened by the history of religion, which has made change after change for thousands of years, only to continue to be oppressive and exclusionary?
As a foster parent, I equate this feeling to one of the kids I had in my home who was physically abused by his parents. Even when placed in a loving and caring environment, he resisted the love and positive attention shown to him. Is that because he is "gun-shy" or because he was just unable to find a reason to be afraid?