Politicians vs. Clerics

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

melon

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Oct 2, 2000
Messages
11,790
Location
Ásgarðr
Politicians gain followers by saying "yes."

Clerics gain congregations by saying "no."

Agree or disagree?

Discuss.

Melon
 
I disagree...well at least in my case. My dad's a preacher...he couldn't imagine saying "no", and turning people off and away. The politician bit I agree with though.
 
Well, I'm not saying that they turn people away. After all, they don't gain congregations by turning people away.

But politicians make promises by spending more. Clerics, on the other hand, demand self-denial and telling you that you can't do things. And the fastest growing religions in this country are also the most intolerant. Do people not trust a religion that trusts them?

Coincidence or connection?

Melon
 
it strikes me that it should be the opposite.

clerics should tell you yes -- shouldn't belief in God be an act of empowerment rather than a method to strap you to a list of arbitrary, inadequate, human-created rules?

shouldn't politicians then, in order to have law and order in society, be in the business of making said arbitrary, inadequate, human-created rules?
 
Well once again I disagree...my dad doesn't do negative sermons...he doesn't tell people "don't do this don't do that", he tells them to make up their own minds, plus he says what he thinks is the right thing to do to make life better and the world better based on Jesus' teachings.

But then again my denomination is very liberal so we're an exception. :shrug:
 
Depends on the religion.

There is short term growth in Protestant churches under the "Yes" model. Sin is not emphasized and seeker services tend to have a feel good goal.

There is significant growth in Islam, which is works based and does contain many "restrictions" on daily life.

Politicians follow the "yes" model by and large. Promises of money always boost your standing.
 
Irvine511 said:
clerics should tell you yes -- shouldn't belief in God be an act of empowerment rather than a method to strap you to a list of arbitrary, inadequate, human-created rules?

I guess it depends on the approach you take with faith. For me, a good sermon is one that makes me aware of where I fall short of God's perfect standards (if you see them as human-created rules, there really is no point in faith).

Seeing that gap underscores (i) that God is Holy and Perfect, (ii) I am a sinner, (iii) my need for a Savior, and (iv) my need to change to be more like God.

Call it conviction if you will.
 
Pelagius, an English monk who lived from A.D. 360-435, visited Rome and was appalled at the moral laxity he saw, which he blamed on the theology of St. Augustine, which he saw as an infiltration of Manicheanism into Christianity.

Pelagius taught the following, as a counterpoint against Augustine's theology of "original sin":

1. Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not.

2. The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race.

3. Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall.

4. Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again.

5. The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does.

6. Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless.

Pelagius also condemned St. Jerome, who first translated the Bible into Latin, of being a Manichean as well. Drawing from Christianity, Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism/Mithraism and Greek paganism, the main theme of Manicheanism was that all creation (flesh) was evil. They believed all sex, even in marriage--including the birth of children--was evil and sinful. Thus, celibacy was best. Lastly, Manicheans were dualist and apocalyptic believing in good verses evil, Satan verses God, etc. (Zoroastrianism). The Book of John and Book of Revelation are heavy on Gnostic symbolism and perhaps proto-Gnostic. Manicheanism were declared heretics and supposedly wiped-out by the Church. And, yet, all these became a hallmark of the Christian Church for well over a millennium.

So why was Pelagius declared a heretic instead of St. Augustine? Why would man purposely choose a theology of self-loathing and contempt over one of more optimism and self respect? Is it because we trust man to hate us, but not to love us?

Melon
 
I'll skip the politicians part.

For the last 100 years, I would say that is true religion in America. But for the recent 15-20 years, there has been a strong movement toward more positive messages and attitudes. My perspective is obviously limited, but the majority of growing churches I've seen have adopted this philosophy.
 
melon said:
So why was Pelagius declared a heretic instead of St. Augustine?

I'd say #6 has a lot to do with it. Jesus as the first and only sinless man is central to the theology of salvation.

That's skirting the bigger issue you raise, I realize, but may still answer your question.
 
nbcrusader said:


I guess it depends on the approach you take with faith. For me, a good sermon is one that makes me aware of where I fall short of God's perfect standards (if you see them as human-created rules, there really is no point in faith).

Seeing that gap underscores (i) that God is Holy and Perfect, (ii) I am a sinner, (iii) my need for a Savior, and (iv) my need to change to be more like God.

Call it conviction if you will.



so a good sermon is like advertising? create a sense of need and inadequacy in the consumer/worshipper?

i am genuinely curious as to what people mean when they say god is "perfect."
 
Irvine511 said:
so a good sermon is like advertising? create a sense of need and inadequacy in the consumer/worshipper?

i am genuinely curious as to what people mean when they say god is "perfect."

I appreciate the discussion, because we approach this from very different angles.

Instead of "create a sense of need” if would characterize it as identifying a real existing need.

Perfection is a way of summarizing many of God's attributes: all knowing, all-powerful, etc. and recognizes God's sovereignty.
 
stammer476 said:
I'd say #6 has a lot to do with it. Jesus as the first and only sinless man is central to the theology of salvation.

That's skirting the bigger issue you raise, I realize, but may still answer your question.

But, you see, a lot of the doctrine of salvation ("divine grace") is Augustinian in nature.

Interestingly enough, the Western Church (which became Roman Catholicism) declared Pelagius a heretic at the insistence of St. Augustine, while the Eastern Church (which became Eastern Orthodox) rebuffed Augustine and accepted Pelagius. This was one of the starting moments of the rift between the two Christian churches, and is undoubtedly one reason why Catholic priests are expected to be celibate (in keeping with Augustinian philosophy), while Orthodox priests can marry.

A lot of these moral questions are a matter of what came first: the chicken or the egg? Did Augustine reflect existing Christian doctrine or did he, instead, create it?

Either way, a lot of Catholicism and Protestantism hinges, unknowingly, on Augustinian philosophy. But his theology is highly Manichean, a declared heresy, rather than Christian. So should we call the modern church "Christian" or "Manichean"?

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Perhaps his points are unsupported by Scripture? Taken together, they say there is no need for Christ, no need for God.

This is a good question too. I think one of the questions we have to ask is how much of Christian tradition is built upon the Bible or merely extracted from Christian theologians, which we assume to be Biblical in nature. After all, St. Augustine believed in the power of "divine revelation" to the point that it superceded the Bible and Jesus, if need be.

In fact, a lot of the theology of "original sin"--that is, presuming that man is born in sin, due to the sin of Adam--is not particularly Biblically supported. In fact, the Bible does say the opposite:

"Only the father, since he violated rights, and robbed, and did what was not good among his people, shall in truth die for his sins. You ask: 'Why is not the son charged with the guilt of his father?' Because the son has done what is right and just, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. The virtuous man's virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man's wickedness shall be his own." -- Ezekiel 18:18-20

Who knows. Maybe Pelagius reflected what early Christianity believed before Augustinian influences.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


I appreciate the discussion, because we approach this from very different angles.

Instead of "create a sense of need” if would characterize it as identifying a real existing need.

Perfection is a way of summarizing many of God's attributes: all knowing, all-powerful, etc. and recognizes God's sovereignty.



i appreciate the distinction.

i'm curious, and perhaps this is better left to a PM, but how do you picture god? can you picture god?

when you imagine what god must be "like" (for lack of a better word), what do you see, think, feel, and hear?
 
melon said:


But, you see, a lot of the doctrine of salvation ("divine grace") is Augustinian in nature.

Interestingly enough, the Western Church (which became Roman Catholicism) declared Pelagius a heretic at the insistence of St. Augustine, while the Eastern Church (which became Eastern Orthodox) rebuffed Augustine and accepted Pelagius. This was one of the starting moments of the rift between the two Christian churches, and is undoubtedly one reason why Catholic priests are expected to be celibate (in keeping with Augustinian philosophy), while Orthodox priests can marry.

A lot of these moral questions are a matter of what came first: the chicken or the egg? Did Augustine reflect existing Christian doctrine or did he, instead, create it?

Either way, a lot of Catholicism and Protestantism hinges, unknowingly, on Augustinian philosophy. But his theology is highly Manichean, a declared heresy, rather than Christian. So should we call the modern church "Christian" or "Manichean"?

Melon

And that's the crux of the matter for me. Like NB said, for me and my teachings in the church it comes down to being able to divide what is Biblical and what's "Biblically based." There's a lot of theology to weigh against the source material, and I think that most Christians at some point have to judge what they do and don't believe.

But, for the record, my theological standpoint of Jesus' sinless nature has more to do with Biblical reasoning than Augustine's conclusions. And I've never agreed with original sin. :wink:
 
melon said:


This is a good question too. I think one of the questions we have to ask is how much of Christian tradition is built upon the Bible or merely extracted from Christian theologians, which we assume to be Biblical in nature. After all, St. Augustine believed in the power of "divine revelation" to the point that it superceded the Bible and Jesus, if need be.

In fact, a lot of the theology of "original sin"--that is, presuming that man is born in sin, due to the sin of Adam--is not particularly Biblically supported. In fact, the Bible does say the opposite:

"Only the father, since he violated rights, and robbed, and did what was not good among his people, shall in truth die for his sins. You ask: 'Why is not the son charged with the guilt of his father?' Because the son has done what is right and just, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. The virtuous man's virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man's wickedness shall be his own." -- Ezekiel 18:18-20

Who knows. Maybe Pelagius reflected what early Christianity believed before Augustinian influences.

Melon

I think the Ezekiel passage address that old notion that children would be punished by God for the sins of their father.

In my opinion, there is Scripture that addresses Original Sin directly:

Romans 5:12-13 “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.”

And again in Romans 5:18-19 “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Psalm 58:3 “Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.”

And Romans 3:23 “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”

It is interesting to read how the early Church wrestled with these concepts, just as we do today.
 
Irvine511 said:
i appreciate the distinction.

i'm curious, and perhaps this is better left to a PM, but how do you picture god? can you picture god?

when you imagine what god must be "like" (for lack of a better word), what do you see, think, feel, and hear?

Not an easy question, but I'll give it a crack. There are few description for picturing God, and that is probably a good thing (so we don't worship the image instead of God Himself).

From Scripture, we know that we are all made in God's image (not the other way around), so there is infinite diversity in His Image. We know that at some point we will not need the sun or moon for light. We will live in the light of God's Glory. We know that God does not speak with a loud voice, but uses a quiet whisper.

For me, the only way I can begin to scratch the surface in trying to imagine what God is like is to look at my relationship with my children (especially when there were very young). I would enjoy watching over them, looking out for them, caring for them (whether they could see me or not). There is joy just watching them breathe while they sleep, discover new things, or simply looking at you. God wants/has that relationship with us.
 
The situation changes over time, I think. Things happened in a particular century and then completely different things happened in a different century. Why was Pelgaius declared a heretic and not St. Augustine? The temper of the times, I'd guess, I'm not an expert on Augustine, to put it mildly, even though I've read his Confessions, that was a long time ago. What with the history of corruption in the Catholic Church, and I say this as a practicing Catholic, you might want to say that its power structure has lent itself to corruption at certain times. So for awhile in Europe it seemed like the people might have supported corruption, but after the Cluniac reform the moral climate of the church improved because of the acts of a few people.
 
nbcrusader said:


Not an easy question, but I'll give it a crack. There are few description for picturing God, and that is probably a good thing (so we don't worship the image instead of God Himself).

From Scripture, we know that we are all made in God's image (not the other way around), so there is infinite diversity in His Image. We know that at some point we will not need the sun or moon for light. We will live in the light of God's Glory. We know that God does not speak with a loud voice, but uses a quiet whisper.

For me, the only way I can begin to scratch the surface in trying to imagine what God is like is to look at my relationship with my children (especially when there were very young). I would enjoy watching over them, looking out for them, caring for them (whether they could see me or not). There is joy just watching them breathe while they sleep, discover new things, or simply looking at you. God wants/has that relationship with us.



very interesting, thank you for your response.

i appreciate the clarity and logic.
 
Back
Top Bottom