A Traditionalist view of Personal Religion

Thomas said:
I don't agree that all religions are boutique religions — 'boutique' was Hart's term for a process that others have terms 'pick-n-mix', 'cherry-picking' and 'smorgasbord' — basically you take the bits you like from a spectrum of religions, and leave the stuff you don't
Click to expand...

Here is where we will always disagree.

I understand Hart's term but I suggest all religion is composed of cherry picking. If we merely concentrate on Christianity we find, according to The World Christian Encyclopedia, that there are approximately 34000 Christian groups alone. That to me is the broad spectrum and a smorgasbord. Without intent though, I suppose I did go outside your thread. I will try to get back on board.

Devils' Advocate said:
Could you expand on this difference? I am not understanding what the difference is. And how one tells the one from the other.
Click to expand...

I was simply (or maybe poorly) making the distinction that all choice is not free, if ever, but all individuals can freely make choices.
 
EdgyDolmen said:
I understand Hart's term but I suggest all religion is composed of cherry picking. If we merely concentrate on Christianity we find, according to The World Christian Encyclopedia, that there are approximately 34000 Christian groups alone.
Click to expand...

That sure does seem to suggest cherry picking of Christianity on a Grand Scale. Thoughts, Thomas?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
That sure does seem to suggest cherry picking of Christianity on a Grand Scale. Thoughts, Thomas?
Click to expand...
That argument doesn't really hold in his specific case, he is Catholic remember, it's all them Protestants that are doing it wrong.
If we hold his position it is natural to disagree with the splits that followed the Protestants from Catholic Church. It could even be seen as what started this whole snowballs effect he describes in the OP.
But I'm really interested in his comments here because I have noticed that he is really careful when talking about other Traditions.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
That argument doesn't really hold in his specific case, he is Catholic remember, it's all them Protestants that are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...

I DO remember he is Catholic. Not sure what that has to do with it. The point was made that there are thousands of variants of Christianity. Why are there all those denominations? Because every single one cherry picked certain aspects of the Bible to accept and other parts to reject.

Unless you are saying that anything beyond Catholicism is not appropriate Christianity? Which I cannot imagine that is what you mean.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Why are there all those denominations? Because every single one cherry picked certain aspects of the Bible to accept and other parts to reject.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's so much a matter of cherry picking. Just a different interpretation of what's there. Never cared for the idea of denominations myself. My ancestors simply identified themselves as Christian and left it at that.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Unless you are saying that anything beyond Catholicism is not appropriate Christianity? Which I cannot imagine that is what you mean.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying >I< believe that, but is it unreasonable that a Catholic would?

You are a science geek, if I said that evolution could be equally valid as creationism because there are scientists who support it, I think you would reject that notion and point to the science. I think a Catholic, I'm not saying Thomas would(!), would equally dismiss such an argument and point to the Theology.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I am curious how you perceive this comment in regards to the American versus European versions of Catholicism.
Click to expand...
Oh, wow! That's a question and a half.

Devils' Advocate said:
American Catholics very much see themselves of the Catholic faith; the Pope their spiritual leader. Americans have also accepted and rejected various portions of Catholic theism to conform with how our society differs from European society.
Click to expand...
Really?

Devils' Advocate said:
American Catholics are more like to co-habitate with a member of the opposite sex (i.e. outside of marriage).
Click to expand...
Same here, I think.

Devils' Advocate said:
They are much more likely to use contraception controls within a marriage rather than risk an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Same here.

Devils' Advocate said:
Even more so to avoid the transmission of sexual diseases as American Catholics are much more likely to have sex outside of marriage.
Click to expand...
LOL? You mean the transmission of sexual disease is more likely within marriage? Not sure the way I've read it is quite what you meant to say?

But so far the same issues apply in Europe and America.

There are distinctions. The rate of Catholic annulments in the diocese of New York was, at one point, ten times greater than any other equivalent European metropolitan area. That says to me the bishops have a far more lenient view and are more flexible in their interpretation of the canons than their European counterparts.

Devils' Advocate said:
Yet Americans do see themselves as Catholics and by inference, meaning they follow the tenants of Catholicism. In most other respects they follow the rules that the Vatican imposes. Are they a variant of Catholicism? A bastardization of Catholicism? Are they not Catholics at all because they have altered some of the rules of the faith to the realities of life in America? Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Interesting question.

The 'Big One' here is the Paul VI encyclical in 1968 called humanae vitae. The stated the church's position on contraception — a blanket no — and was seismic with the Church.

The fact is clear that the use of contraception is widespread within the Church. Is this boutique-ing? No, because there was no alternative for those wishing to remain in communion with the Church. No-one set up an alternative church, offering all the benefits of the RCC, but without the ruling on contraception.

There may well be those who thought 'OK, I'm off' and went looking for another community to join. That may well be be boutique browsing. But the majority underwent a crisis on conscience. It was, and remains, very painful for Catholics.

As balance: There was a time when I moved strongly towards Soto Zen. Won't go into the reasons, but that was me boutique-ing.

As you've asked for my thoughts, I stand on the side of the community, I think the ruling against contraception is wrong, although my disagreement points to a far deeper question with regard to the Church than the average secular issue which is about population control and freedom of choice.
 
Hi ED —
EdgyDolmen said:
Here is where we will always disagree.
Click to expand...
OK.

EdgyDolmen said:
If we merely concentrate on Christianity we find, according to The World Christian Encyclopedia, that there are approximately 34000 Christian groups alone.
Click to expand...
OK.

The WCD offers sets and subsets ... where the 34000 comes from I have no idea.

Are all these boutique-ing? I don't think so. The early schisms — Arianism, Nestorianism, etc., were theological disputes, revolving around questions regarding the nature of Christ. They were not motivated by the same voluntarist mindset that Hart identifies as those who 'shop' in the 'spiritual marketplace' (quite a caustic description, I'll admit).

I would argue that boutique-ing did not happen until the Reformation. Here we see the split within the Protestant denominations, and we can see that in some cases the nature of the denomination reflects the prevailing socio-political demographic. Zwingli's audience was Swiss, for example, and his theology reflects that. Likewise Luther had no problem with the sale of indulgences for his bishop, but when the money was going out of the province, then he complained (a bit unfair, but not entirely untrue).

With religious freedom in America, and once consumerism began to make an appearance as a social driver, then we see a proliferation of Christian 'Bible Tract' sales organisations, the more successful of which evolve into religions as formulated in the Constitution. Here the market really begins to play to Hart's thesis, but it doesn't come to fruition until the last century, because the last century saw the emergence of the idea of the state as the servant of the self, rather than the other way round. The emergence of the idea of 'my rights' and 'my freedoms' when in reality, neither exist outside the state, along with religion as a commercial enterprise, TV evangelists, etc., etc.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
... it's all them Protestants that are doing it wrong.
Click to expand...
LOL, They certainly are!

Although we will begrudgingly admit they do some things right. They read the Bible a lot more than we do, for a start.

(As an aside to that, the idea that the laity should read the bible and draw their own conclusions is not at all what the Reformers meant. Rather that they should read the Bible and interpret it as instructed by their community leaders, rather than by the Catholic Church.)

A Cup Of Tea said:
... I have noticed that he is really careful when talking about other Traditions.
Click to expand...
As stated above, I don't think the historical schisms were the product of 'the boutique marketplace' that Hart is talking about. The pre-Reformation schisms, for example, are all on theological grounds, on intellectual rather than volitional grounds ...

Nor is the Reformation a manifestation of the boutique. For all Luther's aims at the good, it seems his pessimism flavoured his theology to the point that human nature was seen as fundamentally corrupt, and therefore incapable of doing good, whereas the Catholic view is human nature is fundamentally good, capable of doing good, but wounded and inescapably susceptible to concupiscence (this latter is often narrowly defined as a tendency to the sins of the flesh, that is anything to do with sex. In facts it's a far broader term, although still to do with the desires that rise in the senses, and in that corresponds much to the Buddhist notion of the tendency to hang on to the causes of suffering).
 
Thomas said:
. For all Luther's aims at the good, it seems his pessimism flavoured his theology to the point that human nature was seen as fundamentally corrupt, and therefore incapable of doing good, whereas the Catholic view is human nature is fundamentally good, capable of doing good, but wounded
Click to expand...

Rejection of original sin... I'll put that in my cart.
 
Sorry, Will ... my post looks a bit off.

Just meant ... OK, what can I say? Kind of thing — Your post does kinda highlight the issue, Jesus definitely included original sin, guilt, fire and brimstone, devil critters and a place called hell. So it does kinda do away with the idea of 'salvation', 'redemption' etc.,

In fact, it rather poses the question ... if there is no sin, etc, etc ... then why did He bother speaking at all? What was His message?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top