My God! He Wants To Teach Morals!

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Really? It doesn't apply to the Greek, Roman, Norse, Chinese, Celtic, Japanese, Sumerian, Indian, etc. polytheistic religions?

No, it doesn't. The dictates of religion in such cultures were decreed by hierarchical authorities-- generally, a class of priests. If you had asked a Dane or an Icelander religious questions about the cult of Odin, they would have told you to consult with a goši to get your question answered definitively. In Greek and Roman cultures, you would speak with the priests or priestesses at the shrine of whichever god you were wondering after. In Japan, Shinto priests were the authorities over religious discussion. Et cetera, et cetera. It wasn't simply a matter of gauging what most people believe.

It doesn't apply to 99% of Christian sects that resulted from enough people having a different idea of what Christians should believe?

No. Even in most Protestant sects, you're likely to find some sort of hierarchy-- though it might not be as strict as in the Roman Catholic rite. Generally, even in non-denominational churches, there are Church Elders and Pastors who delineate the Constitution, Mission Statement, and Core Beliefs for their congregation.

I agree that disagreement with the RCC means one is rejecting the RCC's teachings. That's obvious. The point of contention is that the RCC's teachings have some sort of authority over what a Catholics should believe. They didn't have authority over what Protestants should believe...

The RCC would argue otherwise. However, you'll notice that after a span, the leaders of the Reformation ceased referring to themselves as belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and began to identify under other nomenclature. They broke away from the Roman Catholic religion in order to establish new congregations.

...so I think the sticking point is the idea that if someone is Catholic, they agree to give credence to the Church's authority. The RCC would say that God gives them authority. Clearly a large amount of Catholics disagree.

Once again, their disagreement is irrelevant. The general populace of the RCC does not determine the teachings of the RCC. One should not be surprised that an institution which is run by a Roman Catholic parish or bishopric explicitly states that they affirm Roman Catholic teaching.

I think a comparison to the Academie Francaise is apt. Would you say that if a large percentage of French people use words the Academie disapproves of, they are not really speaking French?

Actually, yes. They'd be speaking a dialect of French and using quite a bit of slang, but they would not be speaking proper French, the grammar and vocabulary of which are delineated by the Academie.

[Epoetker]

If the leaders of a religion attained their post outside of a democracy or meritocracy then their opinions cannot be said to be representative.

Have you considered that the two terms may be shakily related at best and mutually exclusive at worst?

[Psychic Missile]

Have you considered that the two terms may be shakily related at best and mutually exclusive at worst?

Democracy at least has the facade of representation.

[Psychic Missile]

No, it doesn't. The dictates of religion in such cultures were decreed by hierarchical authorities-- generally, a class of priests. If you had asked a Dane or an Icelander religious questions about the cult of Odin, they would have told you to consult with a goši to get your question answered definitively. In Greek and Roman cultures, you would speak with the priests or priestesses at the shrine of whichever god you were wondering after. In Japan, Shinto priests were the authorities over religious discussion. Et cetera, et cetera. It wasn't simply a matter of gauging what most people believe.

If this is true, then all religious change should have an origin with those in power. We need only to look to the rise of Christianity to see this is not the case. The way religions work, and specifically these ancient polytheistic religions, is as an economy. People buy into ideas they think worth believing in. The ideas that have the most relative worth win out. This is how skaldic poetry came to the Eddas, city states and provinces localized deities, sects broke way, and religious traditions conglomerated. After all, if the people find a religion intolerable, they reinvent or apostatize.

No. Even in most Protestant sects, you're likely to find some sort of hierarchy-- though it might not be as strict as in the Roman Catholic rite. Generally, even in non-denominational churches, there are Church Elders and Pastors who delineate the Constitution, Mission Statement, and Core Beliefs for their congregation.

What stops someone from going to a church and agreeing with 9 out of 10 core beliefs? If 99 out of 100 people believe they ought to x, and 1 out of 100 believe they oughtn't x, why would we make the minority the determinator?

The RCC would argue otherwise. However, you'll notice that after a span, the leaders of the Reformation ceased referring to themselves as belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and began to identify under other nomenclature. They broke away from the Roman Catholic religion in order to establish new congregations.

The Protestants aren't an issue. I was using them as an example to show what isn't at the root of our discussion: compulsion. The root is instead the idea that if someone is a member of a religion they must accept edicts of their leader(s).

Once again, their disagreement is irrelevant. The general populace of the RCC does not determine the teachings of the RCC. One should not be surprised that an institution which is run by a Roman Catholic parish or bishopric explicitly states that they affirm Roman Catholic teaching.

I agree that the populace does not determine the teachings of the RCC. Your argument is that the clergy decide what Catholic beliefs are comprised of as opposed to the laity. My argument is that Catholic beliefs in general are determined by the majority, and there are localized variations. Also, that being Catholic does not necessitate agreeing with all the beliefs the clergy enshrine.

Actually, yes. They'd be speaking a dialect of French and using quite a bit of slang, but they would not be speaking proper French, the grammar and vocabulary of which are delineated by the Academie.

For a body to have authority, it must be recognized. At what point do French speakers recognize the Academie's authority? At what point do Catholics recognize the Church's authority?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

If this is true, then all religious change should have an origin with those in power. We need only to look to the rise of Christianity to see this is not the case.

How do you figure? The rise of Christianity was almost entirely directed by those in power. Paul was the founder of several churches across Asia, and by reason of that authority, his epistles (or those ascribed to him) make up more than half of the documents in the New Testament. It was Paul and the bishops and the church fathers who formulated the beliefs which would become orthodox Christianity, not the general populace. In the Fourth Century, the general populace was far more split on the issue of Arianism than was the teaching body of the Church; but the issue was not voted upon by the general populace, and was rather settled by an ecumenical council of bishops.

Religious change generally does have an origin with those given power. A few people take authority over a larger group of people and determine the proper expression of their particular religion.

The way religions work, and specifically these ancient polytheistic religions, is as an economy. People buy into ideas they think worth believing in. The ideas that have the most relative worth win out. This is how skaldic poetry came to the Eddas, city states and provinces localized deities, sects broke way, and religious traditions conglomerated.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but I'm a Norse Heathen and an avid student of Greek history. This is actually not how ancient polytheistic religions worked. The people were told what rituals to perform, what offerings to make, and which gods to seek by the priestly classes. The idea of "personal faith" was completely alien to such people. These religions were not about orthodoxy, or believing the right things, so much as orthopraxy, or doing the right things. And it was the priestly class which told them which rituals were correct and how to perform them.

When Alexander the Great and Ptolemy I Soter founded Alexandria-by-Egypt, they had the priests invent a new god for the city to be worshiped by all of its inhabitants, Serapis. It was not the case that the people first believed, leading those in power to accept that god; rather, it was the case that those in power told the people to worship Serapis, and therefore Serapis received worship.

What stops someone from going to a church and agreeing with 9 out of 10 core beliefs? If 99 out of 100 people believe they ought to x, and 1 out of 100 believe they oughtn't x, why would we make the minority the determinator?

We don't "make the minority the determinator," nor the majority, for that matter. We make the dictates of the core beliefs the determinator: the church's constitution, and/or its mission statement, and/or its belief statement, et cetera. Those dictates are set out by the authorities in the church.

The Protestants aren't an issue. I was using them as an example to show what isn't at the root of our discussion: compulsion. The root is instead the idea that if someone is a member of a religion they must accept edicts of their leader(s).

If they want to be a good representative of that religion, they must accept the edicts of their leader(s).

I agree that the populace does not determine the teachings of the RCC. Your argument is that the clergy decide what Catholic beliefs are comprised of as opposed to the laity.

No, my argument is that Catholic doctrine is determined by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church as opposed to the general populace of the Catholic Church.

My argument is that Catholic beliefs in general are determined by the majority, and there are localized variations. Also, that being Catholic does not necessitate agreeing with all the beliefs the clergy enshrine.

You are conflating "things which are believed by individual Roman Catholics" with "Roman Catholic beliefs." The two are not equivalent. The former has absolutely no weight over the latter.

For a body to have authority, it must be recognized. At what point do French speakers recognize the Academie's authority? At what point do Catholics recognize the Church's authority?

Recognition of authority is not necessary for that authority to have meaning. The fact that some individual Catholics do not recognize the authority of the Church is no more disconcerting to the Magisterium's authority than is the fact that some individual Americans do not recognize the authority of the IRS.

[seer]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but I'm a Norse Heathen and an avid student of Greek history. This is actually not how ancient polytheistic religions worked. The people were told what rituals to perform, what offerings to make, and which gods to seek by the priestly classes. The idea of "personal faith" was completely alien to such people. These religions were not about orthodoxy, or believing the right things, so much as orthopraxy, or doing the right things. And it was the priestly class which told them which rituals were correct and how to perform them.

You know Boxing, if you ever fall, you will fall hard. I suspect that you will end up a 5 point Calvinist...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

You know Boxing, if you ever fall, you will fall hard. I suspect that you will end up a 5 point Calvinist...

"Fall" from what?

[seer]

"Fall" from what?

Paganism...

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Paganism...

Abandoning my particular brand of paganism for Christianity wouldn't be a "fall," at all. It would involve adding beliefs which I do not hold, not removing beliefs which I currently hold. Especially considering the fact that I already was a Christian, for the majority of my life, and "fell" away from that to get where I am now.

[seer]

Abandoning my particular brand of paganism for Christianity wouldn't be a "fall," at all. It would involve adding beliefs which I do not hold, not removing beliefs which I currently hold. Especially considering the fact that I already was a Christian, for the majority of my life, and "fell" away from that to get where I am now.

Yes, well hope springs eternal...

[Epoetker]

Democracy at least has the facade of representation.

The proper term for democracy as currently practiced is "power porn."

addtext_com_MTgwMjU2NzI3MjA.jpg