God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[JenniferB]

Have you read the Blog & Mablog lately? I can't link the article, but Douglas Wilson is actually blaming Eastern Christian practices for the terror that's going on in the Middle East. Nuts!

 

Does anyone take him seriously anymore?

[JenniferB]

Here it is

 

http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/5-reasons-for-thinking-that-putin-is-no-constantine.html

[albeto.]

[n/m: answered before the link]

 

 

[Little Nyssa]

Nuts.

[Tanaqui]

Doug Wilson, epic jerk, author of "Slavery wasn't so bad, because after all, the slaves got to be Christians!!!"? That Doug Wilson?

 

Forgive me if I leave no comment but this. I don't care to dignify him with any more of my mental energy.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

I pretty much only read ancient faith blogs so no, I haven't read the blog in question and I'm glad about that! I am supremely happy to have ditched my former gnostic and iconoclastic ways! Dear Mr. Wilson, (that's giving mister a bad name) please read about the images God commanded Moses to engrave on the Ark of the Covenant and in the Tabernacle. Exodus 25:10-22. Thank you.

[mommaduck]

Not surprised. I was wondering how many on the fundamentalist side of Reformed, and fundamentalists in general, would basically applaud the work of ISIS in the Middle East and how long it would take them to do so. I found it ironic that many would talk about "the Christians in the Middle East" when those Christians are the same that they rail against in sermon after sermon. Then, when refugees and immigration come up, they forget about them again and now they're all Muslim. :eyeroll:

 

Same thing with the Palestinians in Gaza. Christians here have donated to Israel and root on the bombing and terrorizing, because the assumption is both eschatological and all Palestinians are Muslim anyhow, right? (Not... And I'm not for terrorizing them either)

[DawnM]

Isn't that special

[FaithManor]

Doug Wilson is a horrible excuse of a human. I gave up on his soul after his pro-slavery blather came out, and will never, ever own or buy anything that puts a single penny in his pocket. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Whew, so glad I'm not a Christian.  I guess I can worship whatever I want. 

 

Right now I'm worshiping my coffee.

 

 

[Mimm]

Ooookay then. I'd like to say I'm shocked but it's Doug Wilson so....

[Guest]

Sadly, being an a-hole gets more attention than being a decent human with an opinion. I'm putting him on ignore.

[Laurie4b]

I think it's worth noting that Doug Wilson is taking some heat on another front that happens to intersect with Eastern Orthodoxy. Maybe he would have written this same blog piece, maybe not, without the other controversy.

 

But the other issue is DW's support for the "repentance" of two young men in his seminary who were sexual predators. One was revealed to have serially sexually abused multiple children. DW wrote a letter to the judge stating that he thought the perp showed repentance. Though sentenced to life, somehow the perp got out after a year and DW subsequently presided over the wedding of a young woman in his church to this serial pedophile . They've now had a baby and I think the state has ordered the husband out of the home. He's taking no responsibility for having presided over the wedding. 

 

In the other case, a seminary student was boarding with a family who had a young 13 year old daughter. He molested her for a long time before it was found out. The father was pounded by DW and his elders for "failing to protect" his daughter and the "sins" were pretty much made equivalent (Perp needs to repent, but so do you, father.) DW described the daughter as being 8 inches taller than the perp, which was a gross exaggerationg but also carried the obvious implication that she could have fended him off. DW implying that it was immoral but essentially consensual behavior.  He wrote a letter supporting the repentance of the perp for the judge. That perp got out after several months.  That guy was also married and his wife left him for abuse. As all this has come to light, the daughter (now an adult woman) and father have now both written blog pieces about the experience and the father has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. (The parents ended up separated, with the mother remaining in DW's church after all that.) So I think this blog piece might have been a "twofer" : it both expounds his opinion on Eastern Orthodoxy, EO in Russian politics, and gets a jab in at the dad, who many on the blogosphere are defending. 

[Bluegoat]

If he's right, maybe it means that the woes of Christian America today are a result of iconoclasm.

[Guest]

Well our hearts are little idol factories and that is something we must always guard against. We are worshippers by nature, and if we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we WILL insert other things in there, be it money, celebrity, or even saints.

 

Doug Wilson is a moronic ass and I'm so glad I haven't heard of him outside these boards.

 

 

Both of the above statements are true at once :D

[gardenmom5]

I've never read (or head of) the blog.  I've only heard of DW because of the hive.

 

I'm sure there are people who listen to him (somebody has to be giving him money.  why else would he be doing this?) - but I doubt there were ever very many.   he should be good friends with the westboro group. 

[gardenmom5]

Isn't that special

 

and bless his heart . . . .

[HRAAB]

Doug Wilson is an arrogant, bombastic ass. I doubt he would find fault with his congregation 'venerating' him.

[gardenmom5]

Doug Wilson is an arrogant, bombastic ass. I doubt he would find fault with his congregation 'venerating' him.

 

from what has been said on the hive - he'd probably expect it as his due.

[albeto.]

Well our hearts are little idol factories and that is something we must always guard against. We are worshippers by nature, and if we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we WILL insert other things in there, be it money, celebrity, or even saints.

 

Doug Wilson is a moronic ass and I'm so glad I haven't heard of him outside these boards.

 

 

Both of the above statements are true at once :D

 

I have to say, this makes absolutely no sense to me. For example, my heart is not a "little idol factory" and there's been no negative consequences one can attribute to my lack of guarding it against idols. Whatever you mean by "worship" doesn't seem to fit my approach to life if you consider it the same meaning for both religious and non religious things of importance. Why would god insert other things? That just sounds mean and nasty, especially if the consequence is eternal torture. Guantanamo Bay has nothing on the bible's idea of eternal damnation. It isn't logical for a good god to set a person up for failure when that failure includes eternal horror. Why would it be god alone who inserts these things? Have humans no agency? No capability of making decisions based on needs, desires, hopes, fears? Are we incapable of making predictions, or do they not count, as god implants idols when we turn away from him? Wilson is a moron for holding a religious position that offends some, what does that make other xians who offend others?

 

Just free-form thoughts I have when reading comments like this.

[Ellie]

It would not occur to me to read his blogs. Because Doug Wilson.

[maize]

It would not occur to me to read his blogs. Because Doug Wilson.

But herein lies the problem: only by reading DW's blog will you find the direction you need to remain free of idol worship and of following false prophets. You MUST read this blog. In fact, you should read only this blog. You should keep it prominently displayed on your computer screen and return to gaze at it frequently throughout the day. If you light a candle nearby that might help to draw your attention back should it wander elsewhere. The beneficial effects of reading the blog will be multiplied exponentially if you also make regular contributions to its author. Only thus will you be able to ensure that you heart remains on the right path, free from all improper idolatry.

[FaithManor]

But herein lies the problem: only by reading DW's blog will you find the direction you need to remain free of idol worship and of following false prophets. You MUST read this blog. In fact, you should read only this blog. You should keep it prominently displayed on your computer screen and return to gaze at it frequently throughout the day. If you light s candle nearby that might help to draw your attention back should it wander elsewhere. The beneficial effects of reading the blog will be multiplied exponentially if you also make regular contributions to its author. Only thus will you be able to ensure that you heart remains on the right path, free from all improper idolatry.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:

 

YUP!

[Spryte]

Well our hearts are little idol factories and that is something we must always guard against. We are worshippers by nature, and if we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we WILL insert other things in there, be it money, celebrity, or even saints.

 

Doug Wilson is a moronic ass and I'm so glad I haven't heard of him outside these boards.

 

 

Both of the above statements are true at once :D

Yes, he's an ass. I thank WTM for that bit of education - the things we learn here.

 

I am stuck on your comment that we are worshippers by nature, though. Worshipping is a social and cultural aspect of being human. Not nature. And, yes, I'm an anthropologist, so I speak through that lens.

[albeto.]

You might want to re-read the post you quoted. She didn't say god would insert things.

 

"If we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we will insert other things . . ."

 

Thank you. Mia culpa there. Although, I am not aware of inserting any idols in my non-existent little idol factory. And if god is chastising me, how would I recognize that apart from natural cause and effect effects? And come to think of it, how does everyone know Wilson is wrong, as he clearly solely and mindfully worships god alone and therefore doesn't insert any idols in his little idol factory. He can be assured because A) he reads the bible, and B) he is personally assured by the holy ghost that he understands the mind and will of the god of the bible accurately (at least, accurately enough, until he sees him face to face, etc etc). And if Wilson is wrong but doesn't know it, how can other xians be assured they too are not wrong but are similarly innocently ignorant? After all, if a believer cannot discern correctly whether or not the holy ghost has assured them about the right thing, then how does any xian know they have the right assurance and they're not actually, secretly leaning on their own understanding instead?

 

Just more questions that come into my head.  

[Laurie4b]

I've never read (or head of) the blog.  I've only heard of DW because of the hive.

 

I'm sure there are people who listen to him (somebody has to be giving him money.  why else would he be doing this?) - but I doubt there were ever very many.   he should be good friends with the westboro group. 

 

Alas! I wish that you were right. Search Christianity Today or The Gospel Coalition website, and you'll find that he's a lot more mainstream than one might wish. 

[gardenmom5]

Alas! I wish that you were right. Search Christianity Today or The Gospel Coalition website, and you'll find that he's a lot more mainstream than one might wish. 

 

 

I've heard of CT - but don't read it. (it didn't do anything for me.)  I've never heard of the other.

[Ellie]

But herein lies the problem: only by reading DW's blog will you find the direction you need to remain free of idol worship and of following false prophets. You MUST read this blog. In fact, you should read only this blog. You should keep it prominently displayed on your computer screen and return to gaze at it frequently throughout the day. If you light a candle nearby that might help to draw your attention back should it wander elsewhere. The beneficial effects of reading the blog will be multiplied exponentially if you also make regular contributions to its author. Only thus will you be able to ensure that you heart remains on the right path, free from all improper idolatry.

 

::smacks forehead::

 

Of course! How foolish of me!! I must rush right over there and read everything he writes!!!!! :zombie:

[Chris in VA]

butthead

 

 

 

 

 

(Oh, excuse me--too much Back to The Future lately)

[Guest]

I read the blog entry.  

I'm Orthodox Christian.

 

Here's the offending sentence in his essay about Putin's involvement in the Middle East:  "Islam will be with us as long as Christians are praying to paintings."

 

Which was couched in this mediating statement:  Some of my reasons below are critical of Eastern Orthodoxy, and so I want to place some important context here as a preamble. We live in a generation when not a small number of eastern Christians have been beheaded rather than deny Christ, and nothing said here should be taken as disparaging the honor of those martyrdoms. They bowed to icons more than they should have, but they have also died for the sake of Jesus Christ more times than I have. So that should be kept in mind. 

 

I have three points I would like to make, and I'll be brief for once.  

 

1.  Orthodox don't pray to paintings.  :::insert eyeroll:::  He should know better than that.  

 

2.  Laurie4B upthread made a good observation about the conversion to Orthodoxy of the father of a young woman sexually assaulted by one of the students from Wilson's college.  I heard about this conversion a long time ago, and heard from someone affiliated with Wilson's organization that the man's conversion was the cause of a lot of trouble for Wilson's church.  But there was no mention of the abuse of the convert's daughter as having any connection to the trouble or to the family.  Read Laurie4B's comment to get a little more info.  

 

In addition, others from Wilson's organization have converted to Orthodoxy, and this sticks in his craw.  I think this is part of the reason he makes his ridiculous assertion about "praying to paintings"--to ridicule and mock.  

 

3.  Again, Laurie4B, upthread, referred to the scandal swirling around Wilson at the moment regarding pedophilia and the treatment of its victims, in the Wilson organization.  THAT is the ball.  Keep your eye on the ball.  It is entirely possible that the post under discussion is an attempt to deflect the attention to another topic.  

 

That's my opinion.  

 

[mommaduck]

Agreed. I know at least two families personally that left a CREC church for Orthodoxy (not Wilson's personal congregation, but he is losing then from other congregations as well as his own).

[JenniferB]

And come to think of it, how does everyone know Wilson is wrong, as he clearly solely and mindfully worships god alone and therefore doesn't insert any idols in his little idol factory. He can be assured because A) he reads the bible, and B) he is personally assured by the holy ghost that he understands the mind and will of the god of the bible accurately (at least, accurately enough, until he sees him face to face, etc etc). And if Wilson is wrong but doesn't know it, how can other xians be assured they too are not wrong but are similarly innocently ignorant? After all, if a believer cannot discern correctly whether or not the holy ghost has assured them about the right thing, then how does any xian know they have the right assurance and they're not actually, secretly leaning on their own understanding instead?

 

Just more questions that come into my head.

These questions are great. I've been away from the computer most of the day. But I want to come back to these questions when I get back online. I'm on my phone now.

[JenniferB]

I'm still on my phone but in a parking lot while kids are in dance class, so I have a little time. :)

The questions regarding how do we know Doug Wilson is wrong are excellent. Orthodox and Protestant Christians would answer this differently, and those in different P. Denominations and non-denominations would as well.

For Orthodox, we test the truth of something in a holistic way. There are the Scriptures and their interpretations by holy and faithful men and women of the faith, historical established practice over a great expanse of time and continuity in that practice, there is the consensus of the Fathers and Saints writings over time, there are the hymns and placement of Scripture readings on the calendar which bring particular truths to light, and of course the Councils and Cannons of the Church. These are all in harmony singing the truth to us, and when something goes beyond and outside of this harmony we say it's not illumined or fully true. There could be a partial light or truth involved but if it's not in harmony with the full consensus then there's probably something off.  If it totally contradicts the consensus, well then we would say it's not true.

Doug Wilson's blog post has so many "off" and out of harmony elements that we would say, well I would say, it's mostly dark. There may be a single spark of light, but not much.

Many of his statements fail many points of consensus: Scripture as interpreted over time by holy men and women, writings of Fathers and Saints, historical practice, and the Councils and Cannons.

To test the truth according to another measure, like the Protestant non-denominational way is more difficult, to me. Too many variables, opinions, interpretations and not much consensus.

[Mergath]

Well our hearts are little idol factories and that is something we must always guard against. We are worshippers by nature, and if we are not solely and mindfully worshipping God alone we WILL insert other things in there, be it money, celebrity, or even saints.

 

Doug Wilson is a moronic ass and I'm so glad I haven't heard of him outside these boards.

 

 

Both of the above statements are true at once :D

I thought he was denigrating Christian icons? (I haven't read the article, btw.) Where do idols come into this? I'm confused.

[Mrs. A]

I thought he was denigrating Christian icons? (I haven't read the article, btw.) Where do idols come into this? I'm confused.

 

 

Well, the major objection to icons is the mistaken idea that the veneration of icons is equivalent to idol worship. Graven images and all that. So I'm assuming that's where she was going with the comment on idols. 

[chiguirre]

The questions regarding how do we know Doug Wilson is wrong are excellent.

 

I've got nothing on icons, but he's wrong about who the Russians are bombing in Syria. They haven't been targeting ISIS, they've been targeting more democratic leaning rebels who pose a closer threat to the Assad regime.

 

If he can't get the facts straight on stuff that's been in the news for the last week, I wouldn't take him seriously on iconoclasm.

[albeto.]

I'm still on my phone but in a parking lot while kids are in dance class, so I have a little time. :)

 

The questions regarding how do we know Doug Wilson is wrong are excellent. Orthodox and Protestant Christians would answer this differently, and those in different P. Denominations and non-denominations would as well.

 

For Orthodox, we test the truth of something in a holistic way. There are the Scriptures and their interpretations by holy and faithful men and women of the faith, historical established practice over a great expanse of time and continuity in that practice, there is the consensus of the Fathers and Saints writings over time, there are the hymns and placement of Scripture readings on the calendar which bring particular truths to light, and of course the Councils and Cannons of the Church. These are all in harmony singing the truth to us, and when something goes beyond and outside of this harmony we say it's not illumined or fully true. There could be a partial light or truth involved but if it's not in harmony with the full consensus then there's probably something off.  If it totally contradicts the consensus, well then we would say it's not true.

 

Doug Wilson's blog post has so many "off" and out of harmony elements that we would say, well I would say, it's mostly dark. There may be a single spark of light, but not much.

 

Many of his statements fail many points of consensus: Scripture as interpreted over time by holy men and women, writings of Fathers and Saints, historical practice, and the Councils and Cannons.

 

To test the truth according to another measure, like the Protestant non-denominational way is more difficult, to me. Too many variables, opinions, interpretations and not much consensus.

 

These don't answer the questions, though. They just push them back another step. While I was satisfied with this kind of answer for a long time (I was a roman catholic myself), ultimately, the same questions sneaked back up to the front. Leaving aside the implication that only the orthodox faith knows how to successfully test the truth of something in a wholistic way (whatever that means), you say Wilson's blog has so many "off"s about it, but dismiss the same criticism against your faith. So my mind is back at square one - how does everyone "know" Wilson is wrong when he's doing the same thing they are (worshiping a god according to his conscience, guided by study, believed to be sanctioned by a holy ghost personally)? The funny thing is, even they don't agree with each other, other than someone else is wrong! Ultimately, all you or Wilson or ArcticMom can offer in response to these questions is personal assurances you're right. Personal assurances may quell emotional distress, but they don't answer questions. 

[FaithManor]

Well, Albeto, all I can say is I have no dog in the fight. My faith is my own. I have given up explaining it to anyone. I doubt it's explainable. Maybe some day, like the existence of black holes, I'll have a really good theory. All I can say is that I follow my conscience. Period. So the likes of Gothard, Phillips, and Wilson are people I will always say are wrong, just wrong. Doesn't matter about scripture, doesn't matter about interpretations. Doesn't matter. They are slimes in my book, and my conscience wouldn't permit me to incorporate their colossal sliminess into my faith journey.

 

I seem to have this rather strong thing inside me that squawks like U of Michigan after being beaten by MSU, and it can't be squelched. That's not logical  or rational either because I can't prove that a conscience even exists, but I intend on continuing to follow my little internal non-provable voice because it's been pretty darn accurate so far. I am not certain that there is any other answer in matters of faith and conscience that anyone can give another person who finds it all to be nonsense. It isn't faith in anyone or any thing that makes me say what I say about dominionism/reconstructionist, slavery loving, woman hating, fundamentalist whackos like these guys. It's my conscience squeaking.

 

So there you have it. I don't want to explain what I believe to anyone anymore because it gets so, so tiresome, and I follow a thing called a conscience for which there is no rational proof of existence. I guess one could say "So much for her well trained mind."

 

 

[albeto.]

Well, Albeto, all I can say is I have no dog in the fight. My faith is my own. I have given up explaining it to anyone. I doubt it's explainable. Maybe some day, like the existence of black holes, I'll have a really good theory. All I can say is that I follow my conscience. Period. So the likes of Gothard, Phillips, and Wilson are people I will always say are wrong, just wrong. Doesn't matter about scripture, doesn't matter about interpretations. Doesn't matter. They are slimes in my book, and my conscience wouldn't permit me to incorporate their colossal sliminess into my faith journey.

 

I seem to have this rather strong thing inside me that squawks like U of Michigan after being beaten by MSU, and it can't be squelched. That's not logical  or rational either because I can't prove that a conscience even exists, but I intend on continuing to follow my little internal non-provable voice because it's been pretty darn accurate so far. I am not certain that there is any other answer in matters of faith and conscience that anyone can give another person who finds it all to be nonsense. It isn't faith in anyone or any thing that makes me say what I say about dominionism/reconstructionist, slavery loving, woman hating, fundamentalist whackos like these guys. It's my conscience squeaking.

 

So there you have it. I don't want to explain what I believe to anyone anymore because it gets so, so tiresome, and I follow a thing called a conscience for which there is no rational proof of existence. I guess one could say "So much for her well trained mind."

 

Sure. That's good and fine. I think it does matter, especially when you take into consideration people like Wilson, or Gothard, or the Pearls all appeal to the same thing - "trust me, I know what to do here." And people do. And people get hurt. Some, irreparably. So when someone comes out with a claim like the heart is a little icon factory and people shove crap in there if god isn't filling the space, this nonbeliever is all, lolwut? Am I supposed to trust that to be a real thing? Srsly? How is that any more credible than Michelle Duggar's claim that wives can protect their marriages by spreading their legs for their dhs without reservation? 

 

What people say matters. What people believe matters. In a community of educators, it shouldn't be surprising that someone asks about the details of some claim. That's logic 101.

 

So I can't help but wonder, what possible icons am I shoving in my factory hole? What negative consequences have I incurred because the god of the bible doesn't have a place of honor in my little heart factory? Because I can tell you, and I need not appeal to faith, my good intentions, or anything else, how cause and effect works. 

 

I know there's no answer. It's an impossible claim to back up. I find it bizarre, and I doubt I'm the only one. 

[FaithManor]

Out of curiosity though, if anyone claims anything is "wrong" where does this come from? If you believe something is wrong, why do you believe it? How do you know you are not wrong in your belief that action a or action b is wrong or right?

 

I think we all want to believe that what we think is good or bad or whatever is right. But if people who base their morality in a faith based system are entirely bizarre for doing so, it does beg the question where does morality come from, is there even such a thing, and if one believes there is such a thing but that such belief is not "faith" in self or conscience or instinct or whatever, where is the verifiable evidence for those assertions? I sense that you do have a strong sense of morality, a sense of how you believe people should or should not treat one another. Where does that come from, and how is your assertion that such things are right, wrong, good, bad or whatever verifiable?

 

I'm not trying to be personally offensive. I just always find that those who point fingers against any religion based on the beliefs being illogical or bizarre, have a real tendency to produce no more rational an argument for their own beliefs, moral consciences, whatever. So I am sincerely asking on what you base your own moral code and what your rational, provable answer is for that code.

 

I think these questions are just as instructive as the ones you pose to believers in whatever faith is begin discussed at the moment because the bottom line in discussions like these is always morality. You either believe that these kinds of guys are morally right or morally wrong. Who gets to decide? What's the rational argument that they are wrong? I don't have one. Maybe you do. If you don't, so be it. I still think these horrible men are wrong. Maybe that's just superstitious belief, but I am perfectly fine with that and more than happy to lie with it. If you think they are right, I'd be really curious as to why.

[Tanaqui]

I'm not trying to be personally offensive. I just always find that those who point fingers against any religion based on the beliefs being illogical or bizarre, have a real tendency to produce no more rational an argument for their own beliefs, moral consciences, whatever. So I am sincerely asking on what you base your own moral code and what your rational, provable answer is for that code.

 

Humans are highly social animals. We function better in groups, as a group.

 

Most social animals evolve behaviors that help the individuals of a group to function. For example, if you lock a bunch of rats in a cage that's easily opened from the outside, and you put one rat on the outside with all the food, that rat will unlatch the cage and free its ratty comrades (comrats?) before eating. This behavior pushes a small cost on that solitary rat right here and now (less food), but the payback is huge in the future so long as all the rats do the same thing and don't cheat. (And social animals frequently evolve ways to punish cheaters.)

 

Nearly every human thinker has stumbled upon the ethic of reciprocity (aka "the golden rule") as a guideline for how to act. Put in selfish terms, you should be nice to other people because if everybody is nice all the time, everybody wins. (Also, if you're a jerk, people won't like you. And probably the gods won't either.)

 

The selfish rationale behind the rule can be logically deduced, but we can equally view this as a justification for evolved behavior. Social animals do better when they help each other.

 

There are other things which frequently come under the aegis of "morality" as well which can usually be explained as post hoc rationales for evolved behavior.

[albeto.]

Out of curiosity though, if anyone claims anything is "wrong" where does this come from? If you believe something is wrong, why do you believe it? How do you know you are not wrong in your belief that action a or action b is wrong or right?

 

I think we all want to believe that what we think is good or bad or whatever is right. But if people who base their morality in a faith based system are entirely bizarre for doing so, it does beg the question where does morality come from, is there even such a thing, and if one believes there is such a thing but that such belief is not "faith" in self or conscience or instinct or whatever, where is the verifiable evidence for those assertions? I sense that you do have a strong sense of morality, a sense of how you believe people should or should not treat one another. Where does that come from, and how is your assertion that such things are right, wrong, good, bad or whatever verifiable?

 

I'm not trying to be personally offensive. I just always find that those who point fingers against any religion based on the beliefs being illogical or bizarre, have a real tendency to produce no more rational an argument for their own beliefs, moral consciences, whatever. So I am sincerely asking on what you base your own moral code and what your rational, provable answer is for that code.

 

I think these questions are just as instructive as the ones you pose to believers in whatever faith is begin discussed at the moment because the bottom line in discussions like these is always morality. You either believe that these kinds of guys are morally right or morally wrong. Who gets to decide? What's the rational argument that they are wrong? I don't have one. Maybe you do. If you don't, so be it. I still think these horrible men are wrong. Maybe that's just superstitious belief, but I am perfectly fine with that and more than happy to lie with it. If you think they are right, I'd be really curious as to why.

 

To be clear, I don't believe, nor do I promote the idea that people who base their morality in a faith based system are entirely bizarre for doing so. I wouldn't agree with that for a moment. Rather, I'd argue that people who base their morality in a faith based system actually base their morality in system born from our evolutionary drive to be at the same time social, and yet autonomous. We are social creatures, we are interdependent, we are capable of formulating intelligent thought, recognize complex patterns, and predict likely outcomes. We learn to do this alongside others who are doing the same. Sometimes our goals are aligned, and sometimes they are not. Morality comes from solving these fundamental issues. For a helpful introduction to the topic of morality as a biological drive, I'd suggest watching this 20 min video by Stanford Neurology professor Robert Sapolski.

 

The process of determining what is moral is cultural, often inspired by religion, but the process itself is perfectly natural. It is biological, increasingly demonstrably so. Biological processes aren't always rational, but because we are intelligent creatures, we do have the ability to identify parts of an argument that defy rational expectations. It's just that people suppress that in some measure when it comes to challenging their own strongly held belief. That's not a xian thing, or even a religious thing; it's a cognitive thing. Here's a longer video, but absolutely fascinating, I think. It introduces the process of religious belief as explained by biological drives. Onceuponatime shared it here. 

 

[Violet Crown]

Eastern Orthodox get to worship paintings?!? I am so signing up. There's some Kandinskis I'd like to start worshipping, and definitely a few Chagalls.

[milovany]

Hopefully everyone out there would understand that we're not worshiping paintings (Violet Crown, this is not in response to your post!) or even the people depicted in the icon (well, except Christ).  At all. 

 

For those who don't really know or understand about icon veneration, who might be reading this thread out of curiosity, a foundational idea behind iconography is that the icon speaks of Christ's incarnation. Because God came in the flesh, He can be pictured.  You don't typically see God the Father in icons, or the Holy Spirit (except as represented by a dove), but Christ became man and so like any other man, could be imaged.  So when I look at and venerate an icon of Christ, I'm reconfirming that I believe in the incarnation.  Another foundational idea is that icons are a window to heaven.  We're not venerating the wood and paint, we're looking "through" that material item to the real person who's alive in heaven but invisible to the eyes (the saints aren't dead, so yes, we can ask them for their prayers just like I can ask my husband for his).  Oh, and I just thought of this foundational idea, too ... icons are a pictorial representation of our faith; they're instructive.  In societies where literacy is low or where Bibles limited, iconography can teach the faith.  Before there was a written Bible, there were icons, in addition to disciples, teaching Christians the faith.

[Seasider]

Hopefully everyone out there would understand that we're not worshiping paintings (Violet Crown, this is not in response to your post!) or even the people depicted in the icon (well, except Christ). At all.

 

For those who don't really know or understand about icon veneration, who might be reading this thread out of curiosity, a foundational idea behind iconography is that the icon speaks of Christ's incarnation. Because God came in the flesh, He can be pictured. You don't typically see God the Father in icons, or the Holy Spirit (except as represented by a dove), but Christ became man and so like any other man, could be imaged. So when I look at and venerate an icon of Christ, I'm reconfirming that I believe in the incarnation. Another foundational idea is that icons are a window to heaven. We're not venerating the wood and paint, we're looking "through" that material item to the real person who's alive in heaven but invisible to the eyes (the saints aren't dead, so yes, we can ask them for their prayers just like I can ask my husband for his). Oh, and I just thought of this foundational idea, too ... icons are a pictorial representation of our faith; they're instructive. In societies where literacy is low or where Bibles limited, iconography can teach the faith. Before there was a written Bible, there were icons, in addition to disciples, teaching Christians the faith.

Thank you for this thoughtful explanation.

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Albeto and others discussing how we know anything is right:

 

For Eastern Orthodox, we do have Tradition that tells us what is universally embraced as true teaching for our Faith as was mentioned up thread.

 

We also have a very clear understanding as Christians that God made people in His image and likeness. As such, we are endowed by our Creator with the faculties of the Nous (a Greek term that roughly means reason, intellect, rationality) for the express purpose of being able to discern what is true and chiefly to be able to know God to the limited degree that we are humanly able. This is very important in Eastern Orthodoxy and we would argue that all people have God-given nous or intellect that gives us the power of discernment.

 

We don't subscribe to the belief that being social creatures leads to intellect and judgement about what is fitting or not. The non-human animal kingdom is made up of many species of social creatures and what sets us apart from them is the nous.

[albeto.]

Albeto and others discussing how we know anything is right:

 

For Eastern Orthodox, we do have Tradition that tells us what is universally embraced as true teaching for our Faith as was mentioned up thread.

 

We also have a very clear understanding as Christians that God made people in His image and likeness. As such, we are endowed by our Creator with the faculties of the Nous (a Greek term that roughly means reason, intellect, rationality) for the express purpose of being able to discern what is true and chiefly to be able to know God to the limited degree that we are humanly able. This is very important in Eastern Orthodoxy and we would argue that all people have God-given nous or intellect that gives us the power of discernment.

 

Sure, and so too does Douglas Wilson. and AcrticMom, and JimBob Duggar, and Bill Gothard, and the president of the Church of Latter Day Saints. 

 

And everyone else who is sure they've got their finger on the pulse of the god of the bible.

 

And interestingly, each and every one of you appeal to the same thing - knowledge gained from reading the words, studying the arguments, and prayer. 

 

This process, reading, studying, and prayer, is historically, and for all practical purposes, utterly unreliable. So when people scoff at someone like Wilson, the hypocrisy double standard similarities overlooked, and rationalization for being "different" and "right," stands out to me. I find rationalizations such as hearts being little idol factories, and idols taking over when Jesus isn't occupying one's every thought to be... well, odd. And wouldn't you know it, at least four other people publicly "liked" that sentiment, so it's not like AM is on her own here. But it's no more or less odd and logically problematic than Wilson's ideas, or the ideas of your church, the mormons, or anything preached by the Duggars. 

 

We don't subscribe to the belief that being social creatures leads to intellect and judgement about what is fitting or not. The non-human animal kingdom is made up of many species of social creatures and what sets us apart from them is the nous.

 

Yours isn't the first theology to reject information in order to maintain a traditional belief. Approaching the concept of morality from a scientific, specifically biological perspective isn't new. Nor is it surprising to see churches and xian communities ignore this information and therefore fail to pass it on. As far as I can see, it's no different than ignoring or being unaware of the evidence about the age of the earth and failing to pass the facts on to the next generation. Then when faced with this information for the first time, it sounds implausible simply because one has been taught, and understands, differently. 

[December]

I don't know, Albeto, doesn't everyone just basically come to their beliefs by using their brain to examine the evidence and see what makes the most sense to them (excluding people who inherited their beliefs from their parents and never stopped to think about it)?  So didn't you just basically come to your atheistic beliefs by thinking about things and deciding what makes the most sense to you?  And other people did the same thing and came to different conclusions, that different religions were the correct one.  So what makes you any more likely to be right than a religious person?  You sat down and thought about the arguments just like Michelle Duggar sat down and thought about the arguments and you each came to different conclusions.  So how is the thought process that led you to become an atheist more reliable than the thought process that led others to choose to subscribe to a religion?

[ktgrok]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

[Mimm]

And yet another thread turns into Albeto challenging people to justify faith. You'd think it would get old after a while. 

 

So very old.

 

Albeto prefers to think of the worst versions of Christianity as just as valid as any other form of Christianity. Because if they are all equally valid, then all of Christianity must be bad, right?