The Spiritual Crisis in America

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I disagree. America has moral and financial crisis ... I really don't see some abstract problem such as (spiritual crisis).


In the other words you have destroyed your education systems and you have systematically kept hard science as far as possible from education. However hard science is the foundation of modern manufacture/economy and now you have to import experts or goods through huge trade deficits. As the result of all that you lost economic edge and advantages because various countries managed to catch up or even surpas you. What has created the economic problem and since you never changed and adressed the real problem the country is continuing to go down. Especially since there even isn't the defined will to restructure the society in a way that would fix this, since you resist anything that would impact the whole population. Since good chunk of you thinks that values are the most important things in life, even if those values have questionable empirical background.


Your problem isn't spiritual, as a matter of fact it is very concrete and earthly. (and I don't see the point of running away from that)

We agree with each other, you just agree with a fedora on top.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

"Only if we're all the same will we stop hating each other." Not really an enlightened way to go forward. Sounds like a dangerous recipe for burning people for being different.

 

[kyuuei]

I neither understand why the picture showcased is specific to women (do men not listen to both sides of a situation and lack empathy towards others? If so, I wasn't informed of this), nor do I understand why one seems to be implied superiority to the other. As if it would be a bad thing to consider anything in the first picture.
In fact, I find the first picture to have some decent points, like basic empathy, realizing your whole existence and set of viewpoints doesn't invalidate and isn't superior to another person's, and stepping back for some objective reasoning. I find both to have merit though depending on the situation. I typically find people to be douchier the more they 'commit' to a singular way of thinking (All x is bad, all y is good) rather than being able to flex one way or the other (I typically try to do x, I strive for x, but if it starts to cause z I flip to y.)

People don't have to just be 'cold' or 'hot'. There's a wide range of temperatures for a reason. Maybe that isn't as easy, or satisfying in some ways, but that's the reality of the world.

It is an interesting choice to use an 'angry Jesus' sort of picture, as Jesus wasn't a smitey kind of guy... Most of his stories talk of compassion, understanding, caring... he helped lepers and prisoners, fed those who could not get food for themselves and performed miracles to help his fellow man. Seems like the Hulk would be a better choice for the picture in the second column.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I neither understand why the picture showcased is specific to women (do men not listen to both sides of a situation and lack empathy towards others? If so, I wasn't informed of this), nor do I understand why one seems to be implied superiority to the other. As if it would be a bad thing to consider anything in the first picture.
In fact, I find the first picture to have some decent points, like basic empathy, realizing your whole existence and set of viewpoints doesn't invalidate and isn't superior to another person's, and stepping back for some objective reasoning. I find both to have merit though depending on the situation. I typically find people to be douchier the more they 'commit' to a singular way of thinking (All x is bad, all y is good) rather than being able to flex one way or the other (I typically try to do x, I strive for x, but if it starts to cause z I flip to y.)

People don't have to just be 'cold' or 'hot'. There's a wide range of temperatures for a reason. Maybe that isn't as easy, or satisfying in some ways, but that's the reality of the world.

"Analysis paralysis" <---------------------Christ----------------------> "Extinct by instinct"

It is an interesting choice to use an 'angry Jesus' sort of picture, as Jesus wasn't a smitey kind of guy... Most of his stories talk of compassion, understanding, caring... he helped lepers and prisoners, fed those who could not get food for themselves and performed miracles to help his fellow man. Seems like the Hulk would be a better choice for the picture in the second column.

I noticed that Atheists practice Sola Scriptura as well.

 

[Coriolis]

It is an interesting choice to use an 'angry Jesus' sort of picture, as Jesus wasn't a smitey kind of guy... Most of his stories talk of compassion, understanding, caring... he helped lepers and prisoners, fed those who could not get food for themselves and performed miracles to help his fellow man. Seems like the Hulk would be a better choice for the picture in the second column.

Nevermind that, the sentiments associated with the picture on the right hand side are just plain incoherent.

 

[Typh0n]

It is an interesting choice to use an 'angry Jesus' sort of picture, as Jesus wasn't a smitey kind of guy... Most of his stories talk of compassion, understanding, caring... he helped lepers and prisoners, fed those who could not get food for themselves and performed miracles to help his fellow man. Seems like the Hulk would be a better choice for the picture in the second column.

Jesus was probably an 8w9...he preached forgiveness but I think people have a rosy mage of his actual personality. I'm not saying the gospels are completely accruate in that regard, but they're all we've got to go by, Jeus definitely wasn't this chill, laid back guy at all, he was blunt, tense, and seemed like an overbearing Enneagram type 8.

Just saying that because I think people focus on his teachings and assume the teachings are a reflection of the personality or character which isn't at all the case.

Also, the words on the right side image are from the book of revelation, which is subject to extreme misinterpretation and confusion for alot of folks, not sure what those words are doing on a meme nor why they are being used in contrast to the words on the left image since it is a passage wirtten almost 2,000 years ago, translated from Greek and which means relatively little in this context, so I'm just as confused as you are.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Also, the words on the right side image are from the book of revelation, which is subject to extreme misinterpretation and confusion for alot of folks, not sure what those words are doing on a meme nor why they are being used in contrast to the words on the left image since it is a passage wirtten almost 2,000 years ago, translated from Greek and which means relatively little in this context, so I'm just as confused as you are.

Sola Scriptura

Perhaps the most daunting feature of Protestantism — the feature which has given it a reputation of stubborn resiliency is its numerous differences and contradictions. Like the the mythical Hydra, its many heads only multiply, and though it is a worthy task to seek to understand and confront these heresies individually, this is not the key to their defeat. In order for one to understand the unique beliefs of each individual sect, it requires a knowledge of the history and development of Protestantism in general, a great deal of research into each major stripe of Protestant theology, worship, etc., as well as a lot of contemporary reading in order to understand some of the more important cross-trends that are currently at work (such as liberalism, or emotionalism). Even with all this, one could not hope to keep up with the new groups that spring up almost daily. Yet for all their differences there is one basic underlying assumption that unites the amorphous blob of these thousands of disparate groups into the general category of "Protestant." All Protestant groups (with some minor qualifications) believe that their group has rightly understood the Bible, and though they all disagree as to what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible — on your own! — apart from Church Tradition. If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Scriptures, then any Protestant of any stripe may be engaged with understanding. Even groups as differing as the Baptists and the Jehovahs Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear once you have understood this essential point — indeed if you ever have an opportunity to see a Baptist and a Jehovahs Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different Scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible, and because neither questions this underlying common assumption neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the problem. Herein lies the heart of this Hydra of heresies — pierce its heart and its many heads at once fall lifelessly to the ground.

The U.S. being that it was formed by Deistic Protestants, infused into its tradition this practice of "Sola Scriptura" so much so that even atheists have adopted this heresy.

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3:
"Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church."

Though many Protestants would take issue with the way this assumption is worded, this is essentially the assumption that prevailed when the Reformers first advocated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The line of reasoning was essentially that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by simply reading it for oneself, and thus they rejected the idea that one needed the Churchs help in the process. This position is clearly stated by the Tübingen Lutheran Scholars who exchanged letters with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople about thirty years after Luthers death:

Perhaps, someone will say that on the one hand, the Scriptures are absolutely free from error; but on the other hand, they have been concealed by much obscurity, so that without the interpretations of the Spirit-bearing Fathers they could not be clearly understood.... But meanwhile this, too, is very true that what has been said in a scarcely perceptible manner in some places in the Scriptures, has been stated in another place in them explicitly and most clearly so that even the most simple person can understand them.8

Though these Lutheran scholars claimed to use the writings of the Holy Fathers, they argued that they were unnecessary, and that, where they believed the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers conflicted, the Fathers were to be disregarded. What they were actually arguing, however, was that when the teachings of the Holy fathers conflict with their private opinions on the Scriptures, their private opinions were to be considered more authoritative than the Fathers of the Church. Rather than listening to the Fathers, who had shown themselves righteous and saintly, priority should be given to the human reasonings of the individual. The same human reason that has led the majority of modern Lutheran scholars to reject almost every teaching of Scripture (including the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.), and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves — on which the early Lutherans claimed to base their entire faith. In reply, Patriarch Jeremias II clearly exposed the true character of the Lutheran teachings:

Let us accept, then, the traditions of the Church with a sincere heart and not a multitude of rationalizations. For God created man to be upright; instead they sought after diverse ways of rationalizing (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Let us not allow ourselves to learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the tradition of the Holy Fathers. For the Divine apostle says, "if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:9).9

In other words, they project on to scripture (and in this case, Christ) their own beliefs. Rather, Protestants (and cultural Protestants who continue to protest the protestants) argue for the subjective interpretation of the Objective (The Way). It's in the blood of this nation. They can't help but to project onto religion the same standards reserved for science, which is also the Protestant approach to religion, ironically.

"Chasing its own tail" comes to mind. I'm not innocent of this, either for I did the same when I was atheist.

The question Protestants will ask at this point is who is to say that the Orthodox Tradition is the correct tradition, or that there even is a correct tradition? First, Protestants need to study the history of the Church. They will find that there is only one Church. This has always been the faith of the Church from its beginning. The Nicene Creed makes this point clearly, "I believe in... one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." This statement, which almost every Protestant denomination still claims to accept as true, was never interpreted to refer to some fuzzy, pluralistic invisible "church" that cannot agree on anything doctrinally. The councils that canonized the Creed (as well as the Scriptures) also anathematized those who were outside the Church, whether they were heretics, such as the Montanists, or schismatics like the Donatists. They did not say, "well we cant agree with the Montanists doctrinally but they are just as much a part of the Church as we are." Rather they were excluded from the communion of the Church until they returned to the Church and were received into the Church through Holy Baptism and Chrismation (in the case of heretics) or simply Chrismation (in the case of schismatics) [Second Ecumenical Council, Canon VII]. To even join in prayer with those outside the Church was, and still is, forbidden [Canons of the Holy Apostles, canons XLV, XLVI]. Unlike Protestants, who make heros of those who break away from another group and start their own, in the early Church this was considered among the most damnable sins. As St. Ignatius of Antioch [a disciple of the Apostle John] warned, "Make no mistake brethren, no one who follows another into a schism will inherit the Kingdom of God, no one who follows heretical doctrines is on the side of the passion" [to the Philadelphians 5:3].

The very reason there arose a Protestant movement was that they were protesting Papal abuses, but prior to the Roman West breaking away from the Orthodox East these abuses did not exist. Many modern Protestant theologians have recently begun to take a second look at this first millennium of undivided Christendom, and are beginning to discover the great treasure that the West has lost (and not a few are becoming Orthodox as a result).19

Most Protestants, because their theological basis of Sola Scriptura could only yield disunity and argument, have long ago given up on the idea of true Christian unity and considered it a ridiculous hypothesis that there might be only one Faith. When faced with such strong affirmations concerning Church unity as those cited above, they often react in horror, charging that such attitudes are contrary to Christian love. Finding themselves without true unity they have striven to create a false unity, by developing the relativistic philosophy of ecumenism, in which the only belief to be condemned is any belief that makes exclusive claims about the Truth. However, this is not the love of the historical Church, but humanistic sentimentality. Love is the essence of the Church. Christ did not come to establish a new school of thought, but rather, He, Himself said that He came to build His Church, against which the gates of hell would not prevail (Matthew 16:17). This new community of the Church created "an organic unity rather than a mechanical unification of internally divided persons."20 This unity is only possible through the new life brought by the Holy Spirit, and mystically experienced in the life of the Church.

 

[kyuuei]

[MENTION=35148]Isk Stark[/MENTION] if that's your entire reply, we have nothing more to discuss here. Enjoy your crusade.

(Why do I feel like every single emoji I actually want to use gets deleted before I use it? I could have SWORN there was some emoji tipping his hat, and yet... ah fuck it.)

Nevermind that, the sentiments associated with the picture on the right hand side are just plain incoherent.

I'm just as confused as you are.

So I wasn't the only one then. Hahaha. The picture was about all I could possibly comment on.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

[MENTION=35148]Isk Stark[/MENTION] if that's your entire reply, we have nothing more to discuss here. Enjoy your crusade.

(Why do I feel like every single emoji I actually want to use gets deleted before I use it? I could have SWORN there was some emoji tipping his hat, and yet... ah fuck it.)

Just thought it was a funny meme in context of your post in the "well, that escalated quickly" sense.

Following the immediate butthurt and atheistic branding of "Hippy Jesus", I decided to refrain from milking that particular lolcow, and tackle the subject of Sola Scriptura instead which is a more substantive topic and hits closer to home.

Good bye.

 

[Qlip]

Hmm... it seems like maybe the Spiritual Crisis in America is using Religion as a stick to beat people on the head with...

Jesus was probably an 8w9...he preached forgiveness but I think people have a rosy mage of his actual personality. I'm not saying the gospels are completely accruate in that regard, but they're all we've got to go by, Jeus definitely wasn't this chill, laid back guy at all, he was blunt, tense, and seemed like an overbearing Enneagram type 8.

Just saying that because I think people focus on his teachings and assume the teachings are a reflection of the personality or character which isn't at all the case.

Also, the words on the right side image are from the book of revelation, which is subject to extreme misinterpretation and confusion for alot of folks, not sure what those words are doing on a meme nor why they are being used in contrast to the words on the left image since it is a passage wirtten almost 2,000 years ago, translated from Greek and which means relatively little in this context, so I'm just as confused as you are.

So, any sources here? I mean, the Gospels is nearly all was have about the existence of Jesus. I'm really curious what you're typing from here.

 

[Typh0n]

So, any sources here? I mean, the Gospels is nearly all was have about the existence of Jesus. I'm really curious what you're typing from here.

Yeah, basically his behavior in the gospel is what i'm going by, it's not much I'll admit though.

I know the enneagram institute types him as a two, I see this as unlikely as in the gospel he was more the outspoken type, blunt and assertive it seems, he didn't reach out to help people, but he did help people who came towards him. Just from the way he expressed himself in the gospels it seems his willingness to help others came from a feeling of justice and desire to protect the weak and the poor, and less from a desire to get close to people. Of course that is my interpretation, the gospels are old texts and don't really reveal anyhing about the deeper psychology of its characters, at least not intentionally.

 

[Lark]

"Only if we're all the same will we stop hating each other." Not really an enlightened way to go forward. Sounds like a dangerous recipe for burning people for being different.

Well, while I think there's a big difference between disliking difference and burning people for that difference, I tend to think difference and diversity is a good thing, provided some sort of harmony can exist.

I actually think it doesnt matter if people hate each other, I know lots of people who probably hate my beliefs but I dont mind, they are free to do so, I'm not cracked up about their ideas either.

The importance of orthodoxy and concern about divergent opinions, at least on the important points of the faith, were apparent even before all the original disciples died, when the gospels were being drafted because it was apparent Jesus wasnt coming back in the life times of the first witnesses.

Plus if you consider the stuff in the new testament towards its finish, the things discovered by the "bible hunters" who discovered all the weird and wonderful alternative bibles or books which didnt make the cut, there were a ton of whack ideas around at the time.

That said, Jesus himself seemed pretty chill about differences, he said to his disciples that if people were preaching in his name they couldnt be against him.

 

[Qlip]

Yeah, basically his behavior in the gospel is what i'm going by, it's not much I'll admit though.

I know the enneagram institute types him as a two, I see this as unlikely as in the gospel he was more the outspoken type, blunt and assertive it seems, he didn't reach out to help people, but he did help people who came towards him. Just from the way he expressed himself in the gospels it seems his willingness to help others came from a feeling of justice and desire to protect the weak and the poor, and less from a desire to get close to people. Of course that is my interpretation, the gospels are old texts and don't really reveal anyhing about the deeper psychology of its characters, at least not intentionally.

Well, I'd like to believe he's a perfectly integrated 4. But I'm definitely willing to say we don't know enough. It's actually pretty contested that he existed as an actual historical figure at all. I actually disagree with this, but even so I think the Bible, as you said, is a poor source for biographical information.

 

[á´…eparted]

Hmm... it seems like maybe the Spiritual Crisis in America is using Religion as a stick to beat people on the head with...

We have a winner!!

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Hmm... it seems like maybe the Spiritual Crisis in America is using Religion as a stick to beat people on the head with...

*Lack of religion.

(Low-Church) Protestants themselves discourage using the term "Religion" to describe their "practices", and even shy away from that word.

I do, too because if going to rock concerts and drinking lattes were considered a "religion" many more would be "religious."

Nah, (Low-Church) Protestants lack religion which is why I'm asserting the spiritual crisis.

Low-Church Protestants (Baptists, Evangelicals, Christian Zionists, etc.) dominate in numbers over Liturgical Protestants (Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.).

 

[Qlip]

*Lack of religion.

Protestants themselves discourage using the term "Religion" to describe their practices, and even shy away from that word.

I do, too because if going to rock concerts and drinking lattes were considered a "religion" many more would be "religious."

Nah, Protestants lack religion which is why I'm asserting the spiritual crisis.

Dude, you "became" Eastern Orthodox like a week ago, now you're posing as a world authority. This is clearly part the problem.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Dude, you "became" Eastern Orthodox like a week ago, now you're posing as a world authority. This is clearly part the problem.

Nope, still seeking and getting closer. Not even a catechumen and...

Yet, this ad hom doesn't argue anything I've said/quoted.

 

[Qlip]

Nope, still seeking and getting closer. Not even a catechumen and...

Yet, this ad hom doesn't refute anything I've said/quoted.

I wouldn't presume so, but it does shed some light on this nearly personal blog-like thread you've started. Sometimes people are the subject.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I wouldn't presume so, but it does shed some light on this nearly personal blog-like thread you've started. Sometimes people are the subject.

Then, start a biography about me in the appropriate section while I talk about spirituality in the spirituality section.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Awesome documentary that touches on the thread topic.