Who believes in Angels?

[Magic Poriferan]

In school, we are taught that the American belief in the individual stems from the Puritan idea that success in life wins god's favor and so a good life after death.

I don't recall where you are from but I don't think you are American, correct? Because that's not entirely different from what Americans are taught anyhow, it's just taught in a manner that sounds both more positive towards and more intimate with egoism and religion (naturally).

That being said, I also think you are describing Max Weber's Protestant ethic. It is notable to be that Catholics have followed a very different path. They are often a force of socialism in Latin America, and often they had been Fascists in Europe and Africa. Libertarianism never seemed to go with Catholicism.

 

[Typh0n]

I wouldn't say moreso, that is (was) just the by product of living in such an advanced and powerful society.

The Soviets also lived in powerful society, which they saw as a machine. A machine of collective effort, as opposed to American society which is capistalist and believes in individual effort. Thats what my remark was about. But the Capitalist notion of people "working for their own welfare" is largely inspired from the Protestant outlook(if Im not mistaken especially Calvin's outlook) on money. The bible even says " If a man does not work, he shall not eat" So you're most likely on to something, since America was founded by Protestants.

 

[Nicodemus]

Puritans had no interest in earning God's favor. They believed they were God's chosen people.

I am sure there were different beliefs among those who called themselves Puritans. In any case, the hypothesis is too simplistic.

 

[cafe]

My experience is fairly narrow, but I think it's safe to say that there are chunks of Protestantism, especially Evangelicalism, that strongly push the idea that each of us is God's own special little snowflake.

Edit: I don't know how or if it relates to Individualism, etc. That's just what I've seen the last thirty years give or take.

 

[En Gallop]

He didn't call you an animal. He's just illustrating what he believes happens when you carry the philosophy you've stated here to its logical end. He would only be calling you an animal if he thinks your philosophy is true, which he doesn't. He's trying to illustrate that you do have a sense of morality despite denying it.

So the logical conclusion of deciding morality doesn't exist is to become an animal... News to me.

You're right in the sense that I "have a sense of morality" in the way that he thinks morality is. But I think that the idea of Morality is not reflective of reality external to the human perspective. Why is this even controversial?

 

[WALMART]

In school, we are taught that the American belief in the individual stems from the Puritan idea that success in life wins god's favor and so a good life after death.

Interesting.

The Soviets also lived in powerful society, which they saw as a machine. A machine of collective effort, as opposed to American society which is capistalist and believes in individual effort. Thats what my remark was about. But the Capitalist notion of people "working for their own welfare" is largely inspired from the Protestant outlook(if Im not mistaken especially Calvin's outlook) on money. The bible even says " If a man does not work, he shall not eat" So you're most likely on to something, since America was founded by Protestants.

I cannot deny that powerful machination, though I honestly have no insight into the individual's purchasing power under their economic system. I've always presumed the wealth was incredibly centralized (as people fear with developed capital-fueled entities) or the goods available very limited, it's something I've been meaning to look into.

Bitter? I'm not bitter towards anyone. I have NOTHING against either Lark or Beorn personally (how can I - I don't know them lol). It just bugs me that they put my opinions down as "self-evidently wrong" and give no justification for such a conclusion. They aren't even interested in having a discussion about it. It's just "I disagree, go away!"

Typology Central 101

You'll learn the ropes, stick around.

 

[Beorn]

I am sure there were different beliefs among those who called themselves Puritans. In any case, the hypothesis is too simplistic.

No, what you were taught is exactly the opposite of what they believed. They believed they were chosen (some, like Richard Baxter, were arminian, but for this analysis that doesn't matter). They didn't believe God rewarded success. They believe God valued virtue regardless of the result. So they were able to continue to work hard and be content because they believed God loved them despite the result of their toil.

Moreover, they were covenantalists, which meant they believed in child baptism. That is they didn't think baptism was a matter of individual choice to worship God, but rather a matter of being born into the church as a community.

The individualism comes more from enlightenment thinking and more baptist belief in emphasizing individual choice.


Edit: I will grant that the puritans were more individualistic than Catholics and so maybe represented a step towards more individualism, but I wouldn't call them the source.

 

[Nicodemus]

I don't recall where you are from but I don't think you are American, correct?

Correct. German.

Because that's not entirely different from what Americans are taught anyhow, it's just taught in a manner that sounds both more positive towards and more intimate with egoism and religion (naturally).

That being said, I also think you are describing Max Weber's Protestant ethic. It is notable to be that Catholics have followed a very different path. They are often a force of socialism in Latin America, and often they had been Fascists in Europe and Africa. Libertarianism never seemed to go with Catholicism.

The safest bet is probably to trace the difference back to Luther's deinstitutionalization of faith and ritual.

 

[Beorn]

Bitter? I'm not bitter towards anyone. I have NOTHING against either Lark or Beorn personally (how can I - I don't know them lol). It just bugs me that they put my opinions down as "self-evidently wrong" and give no justification for such a conclusion. They aren't even interested in having a discussion about it. It's just "I disagree, go away!"

You're not giving me a reason why I should defend my beliefs with you. You don't believe in shoulds. Being reasonable or not being stupid is just a preference for you. There's nothing wrong with being stupid or unreasonable to you.

I'm more than happy to defend my beliefs against people who have a reason to believe that beliefs should be in line with the truth.

 

[Lark]

The Soviets also lived in powerful society, which they saw as a machine. A machine of collective effort, as opposed to American society which is capistalist and believes in individual effort. Thats what my remark was about. But the Capitalist notion of people "working for their own welfare" is largely inspired from the Protestant outlook(if Im not mistaken especially Calvin's outlook) on money. The bible even says " If a man does not work, he shall not eat" So you're most likely on to something, since America was founded by Protestants.

The protestant work ethic and the idea of capitalism are linked, the doctrines of an elect of justified individuals destined for heaven whose names are written the book of life and therefore should have no worries about finding God's favour or salvation from death or hell underpinned a lot of capitalistic behaviour.

The idea being that if you are one of the elect you should be able to discern it and one of the ways of doing so was to become the "richest man in the cemetary", if you worked hard, became wealthy and had riches it was a sign of God's favour or divine providence.

That is the sort of mind set and habits necessary for capitalism, especially during the period preceeding modernity which Marx, and some other sociologists, would've referred to as "primitive accumulation".

The passages about if you do not work you do not eat, those would have been as popular, if not more, with socialists, anarchists and anti-capitalists as capitalists, just framed differently as those elements did not believe that capitalists actually did any work themselves, they just lived of others toil, innovations and inventiveness. In fact I didnt know about them until I read D A De Santillan's book After The Revolution which talks about syndicalist proposals to set up council communism.

Whether or not the ideas create the order or the order creates the ideas has been argued over since time began, the two opposing camps in sociology with respect of the work ethic idea are Marx and Weber. Its all pretty chicken and egg.

 

[Lark]

My experience is fairly narrow, but I think it's safe to say that there are chunks of Protestantism, especially Evangelicalism, that strongly push the idea that each of us is God's own special little snowflake.

Edit: I don't know how or if it relates to Individualism, etc. That's just what I've seen the last thirty years give or take.

A lot of the modern day religious believers, protestant or catholic are going to be influenced by their cultural mileu as much as the next person, although I do know that the principle of individual conscience was much more important in Luther's ideas about salvation in his break with the RCC, at least initially, than anything else.

 

[Nicodemus]

No, what you were taught is exactly the opposite of what they believed. They believed they were chosen (some, like Richard Baxter, were arminian, but for this analysis that doesn't matter). They didn't believe God rewarded success. They believe God valued virtue regardless of the result. So they were able to continue to work hard and be content because they believed God loved them despite the result of their toil.

Moreover, they were covenantalists, which meant they believed in child baptism. That is they didn't think baptism was a matter of individual choice to worship God, but rather a matter of being born into the church as a community.

The individualism comes more from enlightenment thinking and more baptist belief in emphasizing individual choice.


Edit: I will grant that the puritans were more individualistic than Catholics and so maybe represented a step towards more individualism, but I wouldn't call them the source.

Perhaps it was the other way around: If someone is successful, it shows god's (special) favor. Since, either way, they are thus equivalent to anyone who cannot see god's will, it is good to be successful.

 

[En Gallop]

You're not giving me a reason why I should defend my beliefs with you. You don't believe in shoulds. Being reasonable or not being stupid is just a preference for you. There's nothing wrong with being stupid or unreasonable to you.

I'm more than happy to defend my beliefs against people who have a reason to believe that beliefs should be in line with the truth.

OK give an explanation of your beliefs to [MENTION=17612]Typhon[/MENTION] then.

This is what I have to put up with!

 

[Lark]

Edit: I will grant that the puritans were more individualistic than Catholics and so maybe represented a step towards more individualism, but I wouldn't call them the source.

No I wouldnt either but they deserve to be considered within a category of important precursors but they'd not recognise post-enlightenment individualism that's for sure, definitely not the puritans, I'd suspect they'd find it all vanity and nonsense.

 

[Giggly]

What did it look like?

A very bright glow and I saw a silhouette of a female dressed in robe type clothing.

 

[gromit]

So that had me wondering two things, first of all, do you believe in angels? Second, is that the most implausible thing about Christianity or religion and if it isnt what is in your opinion?

Hm. I can't really say either way. I suppose I have felt a bit of something like a guardian presence in my life at times.

Not the most implausible, a lot of things about Christianity are implausible.

 

[Typh0n]

OK give an explanation of your beliefs to [MENTION=17612]Typhon[/MENTION] then.

This is what I have to put up with!

?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

A very bright glow and I saw a silhouette of a female dressed in robe type clothing.

When and where did you see this?

 

[En Gallop]

?

Apparently I'm not qualified to hear them.

 

[Beorn]

Perhaps it was the other way around: If someone is successful, it shows god's (special) favor. Since, either way, they are thus equivalent to anyone who cannot see god's will, it is good to be successful.

Except it's not, because they had a robust view of calling, vocation, and God's sovereignty.

"If we look externally, there is a difference between washing dishes and preaching the Word of God, but as touching pleasing God, none at all" -William Tyndale

" Let the people of God comfort themselves in all cases by this doctrine of the divine decrees[God's Master plan]; and, amidst whatever befalls them, rest quietly and submissively in the bosom of God, considering that whatever comes or can come to pass, proceeds from the decree of their gracious friend and reconciled Father, who knows what is best for them, and will make all things work together for their good. O what a sweet and pleasant life would you have under the heaviest pressures of affliction, and what heavenly serenity and tranquillity of mind would you enjoy, would you cheerfully acquiesce in the good will and pleasure of God, and embrace every dispensation, how no matter how sharp it may be, because it is determined and appointed for you by the eternal counsel of his will!" - Thomas Boston

"The action of a shepherd keeping sheep is as good a work before God as a minister in preaching" -William Perkins

Heh even found this quote by Baxter who didn't believe in predestination, but individual salvation, yet he still valued the community and it was his value of the community and God that drive his work ethic:
"The public welfare, or the good of the many is to be valued above our own. Every man, therefore, is bound to do all he can for others, especially for the church and commonwealth" -Richard Baxter