It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by phi1618
Sounds pretty good, id say i identify with 1 and slightly with 2.
Originally posted by silent thunder
3) Orthodoxy: This is the word I picked out for "bread and butter," everyday religion (i.e., I don't mean literal "Orthodox Christianity" as in Russia, for example). This is your grandpa's church...go to church once a week, go through all the major life rituals like baptism and funerals, don't think too much about the deeper aspects, "go through the motions," don't ask too many questions, etc.
[edit on 7/12/09 by silent thunder]
Originally posted by OmegaPoint
reply to post by silent thunder
The only thing that I would object to, would be the apparent negative judgements towards the Fundamentalists in catagory 4.
I was a 3, trying for 1 now, and as a 1, I can see some value in 4 to be perfectly honest, and I don't think they should always get the bad rap, which I myself always gave them. There is something to be said for a structured discipline within which we submit ourselves. That can take courage, insight, willingness, discipline, even rigorous thinking and deep contemplation to penetrate through to the heart of the structure.
Originally posted by Praetorian Guard
Originally posted by silent thunder
3) Orthodoxy: This is the word I picked out for "bread and butter," everyday religion (i.e., I don't mean literal "Orthodox Christianity" as in Russia, for example). This is your grandpa's church...go to church once a week, go through all the major life rituals like baptism and funerals, don't think too much about the deeper aspects, "go through the motions," don't ask too many questions, etc.
[edit on 7/12/09 by silent thunder]
I don't think you're correct on this one. I am Reformed...a theological descendant of John Calvin of the Protestant Reformation. I think of myself as doctrinally orthodox within that line of Christian thinking.
If you read even a small sampling of Calvinist, Reformed, and Presbyterian literature, I think you would conclude that we Reformed do indeed think deeply about the deeper aspects of our theological tradition.
Also, we ask a large variety of questions about all kinds of things related to life, the universe, and everything.
Not too sure what you mean by "going through the motions". We do indeed participate in ritual observance...baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the liturgy. But these are called for in Scripture and are the vital center of Christian worship and are not merely rote rituals. Baptism is our entrance into the covenant and the community of Christ...even Christ himself. The liturgy is the setting and script of our worship of the Triune God. And the Supper is a participation in the body and blood of Jesus...it regularly joins us to Him and grants to us the benefits of His death and resurrection.
So...your description may fit "dead orthodoxy", but completely misses the mark when it comes to vital orthodoxy and orthopraxy.
And segregating these elements into categories may not be too helpful with some groups. I see all four within Reformed tradition. John Calvin is noted for his rich theology of the Holy Spirit and of prayer...making him perhaps one of the high mystics of the Reformed faith. And fundamentalism was defended by no less notable stalwarts as B.B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen in the 1920s. These, and other men, came from Princeton and started Westminster Theological Seminary when Princeton was overrun by theological liberals. Orthodox, and yet defenders of fundamentalism. These really go hand in hand.
Originally posted by silent thunder
this kind of simple, all-encompassing pure faith can be a powerful salve and a healing balm to those in deep anguish. Just so long as it doesn't become a permanent crutch....
Originally posted by silent thunder
Interesting post and I'm not sure how to answer it...sounds like you are advocating a "deep #3" which to my mind may take you either to #1 or to #4. Personally, I think some of the Reformed people fit more in #1 or #4. As with any schematic breakdown of a continnuum, there is room for debate and one can quibble with where I've drawn the line....also, I think people can and do show mixtures; although the idea of a "fundamentalist mystic" seems contradictory to me, I supposed one's faith can contain aspects of both at different times or in different individuals...so your points are worth considering carefully.
Many, perhaps most, people view their own religion as the only top-down religion in the world. They believe that their God is the only deity in existence. Their God created humans and the universe, and gave humanity its only valid moral codes. Their fellow believers are often believed to be the only people who are assured of salvation and eternal life in Heaven or Paradise. Those of other faiths have no such certainty of an afterlife. Knowing that their religion is true and that other religions are in various degrees of error, it can become difficult to extend religious freedom to persons of other faiths. Some top-down believers accept the Golden Rule, but apply it mainly to fellow believers, to the exclusion of followers of other faiths.
Followers of the only top-down religion often consider all other religions to be bottom-up faiths -- ones that teach false Gods and a false moral code. These other Gods are created by humans rather than vice-versa. Their Gods may even be considered as demons. These bottom-up faiths are seen as leading their membership down a trail of destruction. They are often viewed as having a negative affect on society.