Protestantism

» redback - Is It Really Religion?

In response to Is It Really Religion? posted by pink101:

There is a sense of a macro and micro version to your question. If you look at a stack of pancakes, does maple syrup add the best flavour...or the (buckwheat?) pancake...the best option...for our palate? Or are there other ORs?

What the very few of us here get from a Christian-focused 'Mind & Soul' exchange within suite101 today suggests a pre-occupation with religion but tis a superficial analysis of the worldview...and us.

And what is this 'worldview' but an umbrella term for a whole range of disparate views based on relative or subjective facts and not particularly binding on any one individual or community group? I think I've mentioned before some hold to the view that a 'worldview' is routinely defined as being of a North American perspective.

Having said that, I would have thought (all) religion is something that divides AND joins us depending which part of its life cycle you meet. But are you asking if religion is predominantly the divisive factor whenever it is a factor? Or religionism?

I'm guessing answers will be different depending on the macro and micro perspective. I reckon my eyes are reasonably open. I'm not seeing religion as a dominant divisive factor...if we need to focus on division aka differences.

Is 'division' a difference without compromise or capitalulation? Or is it principally perceived as a threat? I ask because how we use these terms affects our view. I don't routinely see 'threat' when 'division' is used.

If there IS external division between the irreligious and religious, by what measure is it a 'religious' phenomena? There are also internal divisions within the irreligious and religious...on matters that matter, aren't there? And Christianity is only a part of the term 'religious' in my post.

-- posted by redback

» paper_turtle - Is It Really Religion?

In response to Is It Really Religion? posted by pink101:
.
I think religion is only one manifestation of a basic difference in people. For want of better words, I will use conservative and liberal--but this should not be taken to imply a basically political or religious reference.
.
Conservatives
** tend to be uncomfortable with ambiguity.
** They want everything in black and white, right or wrong, yes or no.
** They tend to be extrapunitive--that is, they place the blame outside of themselves, in another person, way of thinking, nation, or what-have you.
** Being extrapunitive tends to cause them to think in terms of "us V them."
** It also means they look to others for validation rather than looking within themselves.
** They value external indicators of success.
** They place great importance in winning and tend to be skeptical of compromises.
** They tend to be very disciplined, organized, and goal-oriented.
** They value logic and rationality over intuition or emotion.
.
Speaking very generally, they are this way because it gives them a sense of security and power. Therefore, anyone who is seen as a threat to their foundation of security and power is treated as an outsider. They usually try to change this threat into an ally/asset, or if that fails, they seek to eliminate it.
.
Liberals
** tend to be more comfortable with ambiguity.
** They love asking "what if."
** They believe that not all things can--or even should--be divided into right/wrong, black/white, yes/no.
** They tend to be intrapunitive, placing the blame on themselves rather than others.
** They are more interested in peaceful relations with others than in belonging to the right group.
** They seek validation within themselves and are less interested in external indicators of success.
** They care more about harmony than winning and seek to examine all possible solutions which will promote harmony.
** They may tend to be less disciplined and more spontaneous, less organized and more spur-of-the moment, and their goals usually involve a personal best rather than being better than anyone else.
** They appreciate logic, but they also understand that intuition and emotion can be of great use in determining the best course of action.
.
Again speaking very generally, liberals tend to be more intrinsically secure, and they are more interested in internal rather than external power. They love the challenge of new ideas and experiences and tend to discount tradition (or at least give it less importance than conservatives).
.
Most people are blends of the two, leaning more one way than another (sometimes depending on the circumstance).
.
What a person believes is based on how he/she experiences the world. And what a person believes influences the way in which he/she perceives his/her reality. Growing up in a politically or religiously conservative household does not necessarily mean that a child will automatically adopt a conservative view-point (and vice-versa). I think how a child is treated also influences his/her liberal/conservative tendencies (but it also seems clear, to me, that some people are just born with strong tendencies one way or the other).
.
Either way, I think the key to understanding is in listening and responding impartially. I don't think we persuade anyone, or achieve harmony with anyone by getting in his/her face and yelling "You're wrong!" Extreme conservatives may coerce someone into going along with their beliefs/practices--but true conversion comes from the heart. We reach understanding and cooperation through peaceful relationship with others.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - A Classless Society?

.
Thanks to each of you for your input.
.
I think we're getting a "feel" for the ideas involved here.
.
Anyone who has ever had a long time association of any church knows the importance some individuals have in any decision making when it comes to policy. Generally, who are those individuals that the rest of the members pay attention to their input? Is it their superior intelligence; their financial contribution; their spirituality; their personality; or is it some other characteristic?
.
If we take our answers and extrapolate them onto a view of society regarding those that have had an influence in "the church" in an historical sense, we begin to see that society might be divided by those that USE religion as a lever rather than it being the factor that actually sets people apart. I know it is a very complex question and most difficult to articulate. The very nature of my hypothesis makes it so.
.
America--the "glorification" of Western Civilization--is said to be a classless society. If you live in America or if you observe it from some other society, do you believe that is true?
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - A Slightly Different Sense

.
Maybe the original question could be posed in a slightly different sense?
.
What separates us from each other?
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - A Classless Society?

In response to A Classless Society? posted by pink101:

Generally, who are those individuals that the rest of the members pay attention to their input? Is it their superior intelligence; their financial contribution; their spirituality; their personality; or is it some other characteristic?
.
I think it depends on the individual(s) and whether or not they are conservative/liberal (as per my descriptions, above). Conservative people are usually persuaded by:
--authority (spiritual, intellectual or political/group)
--external indicators of success (wealth, achievement, status, popularity)
--appeals to tradition, or a set of commonly held beliefs/practices.
--whatever will ensure security, predictability, order, and conformity with group norms
.
liberals are more apt to be persuaded by:
--appeals to the common good
--wisdom
--whatever will promote harmony, growth, learning, and personal advancement
.
If we take our answers and extrapolate them onto a view of society regarding those that have had an influence in "the church" in an historical sense, we begin to see that society might be divided by those that USE religion as a lever rather than it being the factor that actually sets people apart.
.
Did you mean leveler rather than lever? IMO a *lever* wouldn't much be much different than that which divides. The root meaning of religion is, "that which binds together." When people of faith take seriously Jesus' words about love, then religion DOES make us one--even if we don't always agree.
.
America--the "glorification" of Western Civilization--is said to be a classless society. If you live in America or if you observe it from some other society, do you believe that is true?
.
There are definitely classes--rich/poor, educated/non-educated, and so on. The sad thing is, very often we segregate and divide ourselves, choosing to live next to, work with, marry, or otherwise associate with, only our own.
.
But I see the differences between the classes growing. I see an increase in intolerance and judgmentalism. I see a lot of bitterness among the have-nots, and a lot of hoarding among the haves.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - A Slightly Different Sense

In response to A Slightly Different Sense posted by pink101:

What separates us from each other?
.
The fear-based delusions of our ego.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Definition of Class

In response to A Slightly Different Sense posted by paper_turtle:
.
Here is a good definition of the word, Class:
.
"In our terminology, 'classes', are not communities, they merely represent possible and frequent, bases for social action. We may speak of a 'class' when (1) a number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, insofar as (2) this component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income, and (3) is represented under the conditions of the commodity or labor-markets. This is 'class situation.'"**
.
I think you made some good points in your above post #8.
.
Do any of us struggle?
.
.
.
** Max Weber in "Economy and Society". Copyright 1978, Regents of the University of California University of California Press

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - reply to PT

In response to Is It Really Religion? posted by paper_turtle:

Very comprehensive post, PT. I don't agree with all of it, but I concede that much of it is on target. I would add that - if God is real - then this offers strong support for an external morality (not an internal, intuitive one).

» paper_turtle - reply to PT

In response to reply to PT posted by BrianTubbs:

I would add that - if God is real - then this offers strong support for an external morality (not an internal, intuitive one).

But Jesus said, "The kingdom of god is within you." We learn who God is through relationships which we experience, and process, within.

Besides, "internal" and "intuitive" are not necessarily joined at the hip. One can derive data intuitively from external stimuli.

Tell me how the great masters who painted all those moving scenes from the Bible were *not* reacting to an internal moral compass, or were *not* inspired by an intuitive sppreciation of God's presence everywhere.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Definition of Class

In response to Definition of Class posted by pink101:

Do any of us struggle?
.
In what way, in relation to class, or ...?

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle