|
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2015 21:17:25 GMT -5
As far as religion in general and your comment about coming into challenges with Islam, for me it's just a repeat of the trouble that was caused by Christianity when it was in power and there was no separation of church and state. I think that is an important aspect of religions being more moderate, a secular group in government and religion kept to the personal beliefs that they cannot force on anyone else. It seems that religions have the tendency to want to force their beliefs on others if they have the power to do so. What do you think? I agree with you that civilization has seen this movie before! I also agree that the Enlightenment's concept of the importance of separation of "church and state" is supported by boundless evidence. It does baffle the mind that some societies continue to nurture the idea that religious principles must inform governance. It is difficult if not impossible to find examples where that has or is working out well for anyone. (I keep an eye on Bhutan, where the homogeneity of religious belief enables progressive approaches to governance, but time will have to inform judgment.) Where you and I might diverge in our opinions is that I do not single out religion as the sole bad actor. Power is an incredible force. The source of the power seems less important that the possession of power. As I view humanity, it has not mattered whether the power was derived from a club, Hittite iron, a chariot, a bible, the Koran, a nuclear bomb or a bio weapon, power is power. Individuals and societies have wanted to force their beliefs and sovereign control over other people throughout the history of the species. As Hobbes said "life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Not just as a consequence of religion, although that can certainly be a contributor, but as a consequence of man's inhumanity toward man. The question remains how can this brutish nature of our being be channeled more constructively? I remain unwilling, a priori, to dismiss aspiration and faith as potential contributors to the search for enduring peace. As we discussed earlier in the thread, science may also be a potential contributor but I remain steadfast in my belief that the very nature of scientific inquiry limits it capacity to be the primary contributor to the solution.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 28, 2015 21:35:50 GMT -5
For me, I left quite early so I never kept up with the religion other than what I got from my parents and their elderly friends. I don't believe they knew about WI, but I can't say that for sure. If they did know, they either didn't care about it, or they denied that it was true. I do remember hearing that 'our religion' started on the shores of Galilee, so I don't think they knew about WI. However, it went underground pretty quick in Western Canada where my grandparents professed in 1917 if they didn't know about WI. I know when I found out about WI many years later and had left many years hence, it bothered me a lot. That surprised me really how much I felt lied to, betrayed and because my childhood wasn't good because of it, sad because of how it came between my parents and me. I had not been to a meeting in 35 years when I found out about WI and so that's why it surprised me how much that revelation upset me. I am okay with it now, but it took awhile actually. I think I still held the misguided belief that if any group was right it was likely my parents religion. I didn't believe in any religion or any God, but as an agnostic I thought the 2x2's lived better than most religions. Interesting when I really examine that thought. Certainly not one I hold now because I now know a lot more about the group than I knew as a child and my parents never discussed some of the more controversial aspects of the religion such as excommunication practices and CSA. I am not even sure they were aware of them, or just simply turned a blind eye. Who knows. They are both gone and were before I found TMB and all this new information, so I can't ask them anything. I am reasonably certain that my parents were familiar with developments in the Fellowship around the turn of the century. My Mom was born in Ireland in 1902 and grew-up in Ireland until she was 21 or 23. We lived in New York State so we knew George Walker pretty well (my sister and I loved him at convention, a real bible slapper, woke you up on a lazy, hazy August afternoon!). I. Weir was a relative. So I imagine my parents had a reasonably good grasp of the "early days". But sitting and trying to think back through my childhood, I have no recollection that those "early days" held much significance for anyone that I knew in the fellowship while I was still at home. The relevance of fellowship meetings, the workers, preaching the gospel, reading the bible, prayer, were all critically important in my home life but not to the exclusion of all else. We laughed, we sang (yes even Perry Como along with the hymns), we gossiped, we cried, we cared, we loved, we studied. We lived life, I don't know how else to say it. But there was an underlying religious faith that provided guidance, hope, security, purpose, and many other bed-rock values that I can't think to mention at the moment. When I look back at the rural community where I grew up there were all sorts of people. Rich people, poor people, kind people, ornery people, teachers, ne'er do well's and on an on but we all shopped at the same stores, went to the same schools, avoided the same cops and went to different churches. I cannot claim that I ever felt the smothering effect of my parents or my religion. I have zero meaningful knowledge of the F&W Fellowship after 1963. When I was a part of the community, I was intimately aware of a couple of "situations" than might have had the potential to end in "excommunication", they did not end that way. Why? Were things different then than they are now? In complete honesty, I do not know. I was never aware of CSA. Was it hidden? I wasn't aware of it so I cannot say. CSA (or any sexual abuse) is one of those horrible behaviors that is completely inexcusable under all circumstances without question. The only knowledge I have of CSA and the F&W is what I have read on this board. I feel unspeakable rage that any situation that arose was not dealt with immediately and summarily. In my opinion, failure to nip this issue in the bud is an inexcusable failure of leadership whether you are a religious organization, boy scouts or Penn State Football! I spent a day at a convention not far from here a few years ago. I still admire and respect the faith of that community. Interestingly, I do not feel a pull to return but I told my wife when I got home that evening; "If I was forced to choose one community that I would have to associate with and I was forced to make that choice, it would be with the community of individuals that I had just spent the day with." Not sure I can say why. My values and temperament have changed so much since I was last associated with that community, it does not make logical sense. The only thing I can think of is that when everything else is boiled down, that community attempts to live a wholesome life and they have an awareness of something greater than themselves. I find both qualities attractive. I would have to agree with you that they probably knew the beginnings since your mom lived in Ireland where it all started. Your childhood sounds so normal. It just goes to show you that it can be done, balance in religion and living I mean. There was no balance in my childhood in that sense. It was all about the religion. How we presented, how much of a role model I had to be because I was an elders child. Meeting in the home I recently learned was awarded to those who could control their families. I don't know if there is any truth to that but it does make me understand my father's reasoning behind trying to get me to re profess and be a role model etc. It was always the dominant aspect of my upbringing. I never measured up, never was 'worthy', never was good enough in my father's eyes. I think my mom was a little less like that and I imagine she knew how it felt because she had a level to uphold too, being his wife. I have to agree with you that they do seem to try and live a wholesome life but I saw the underbelly of the group too. If you were the 'rebel' you were definitely treated differently. I learned not to question, avoid the workers and be true to myself.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Feb 28, 2015 21:43:07 GMT -5
Quote - "“The workers” is a very specific cultural reference to a specific era (modern times) and specific context (the F&W community as they currently practice their faith)." That's the Doug Parker mentality. I have laid out e.x.p.l.i.c.i.t.l.y the Ministry as found in the New Testament. Parker et al did not do this. I believe for deliberate reasons. There's no "modern times" to it at all.From your research Bert, what is the earliest reference to "workers" that you can find? Also, sorry for my ignorance but is Doug Parker the author of a book back a good number of years ago? I do not follow this literature closely. Yknot, do you really not know who Doug Parker is?
Parker is the author of the book about the 2x2's called the The Secret Sect published by he & his wife Helen in 1982.
The book is still available on Amazon books but the prices are ridiculous! All the way from $99 to over $200! I have two but I don't want sell them but I would be glad to lend you one.
We really knew some of the start of the 2x2's (and guessed at a lot, just by the knowledge of history). Barker's research filled in the details.
Let me know by Personal Message & I would be glad to lend you the book.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Feb 28, 2015 21:45:45 GMT -5
As far as religion in general and your comment about coming into challenges with Islam, for me it's just a repeat of the trouble that was caused by Christianity when it was in power and there was no separation of church and state. I think that is an important aspect of religions being more moderate, a secular group in government and religion kept to the personal beliefs that they cannot force on anyone else. It seems that religions have the tendency to want to force their beliefs on others if they have the power to do so. What do you think? I agree with you that civilization has seen this movie before! I also agree that the Enlightenment's concept of the importance of separation of "church and state" is supported by boundless evidence. It does baffle the mind that some societies continue to nurture the idea that religious principles must inform governance. It is difficult if not impossible to find examples where that has or is working out well for anyone. (I keep an eye on Bhutan, where the homogeneity of religious belief enables progressive approaches to governance, but time will have to inform judgment.) Where you and I might diverge in our opinions is that I do not single out religion as the sole bad actor. Power is an incredible force. The source of the power seems less important that the possession of power. As I view humanity, it has not mattered whether the power was derived from a club, Hittite iron, a chariot, a bible, the Koran, a nuclear bomb or a bio weapon, power is power. Individuals and societies have wanted to force their beliefs and sovereign control over other people throughout the history of the species. As Hobbes said "life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Not just as a consequence of religion, although that can certainly be a contributor, but as a consequence of man's inhumanity toward man. The question remains how can this brutish nature of our being be channeled more constructively? I remain unwilling, a priori, to dismiss aspiration and faith as potential contributors to the search for enduring peace. As we discussed earlier in the thread, science may also be a potential contributor but I remain steadfast in my belief that the very nature of scientific inquiry limits it capacity to be the primary contributor to the solution. Yes, I agree that power from any source is an issue when things turn bad. I guess the difference I see between secular power and religious power is there are, at least in the west, more checks and balances in place in secular groups. Religious groups when they go for power usually use God and their interpretation of what they say God wants when they try to justify their right to rule and wield power. Also, some of the beliefs about only their group being right and other groups as infidels or evil, make religious powers harder to reason with. It's hard to argue with a group that say what they are doing is justified and driven by God. It doesn't leave much room for negotiation or argument. I see science's contribution to peace in the scientific method of reason and the nature of science where if we find something to be factually wrong we have the ability to throw it out and adopt the new facts as they are presented. I think that flexibility is key and why religions have a much harder time making changes when things are proven to no longer work. When you are trying to change something in religion it's harder because of the belief that God and his word can't be wrong and therefore should never change. Obviously we know that given time things do change even with these restrictions, but I believe it takes longer for the above reasons. Science has the ability built into it's method to test and back things up with facts and if those facts are proven wrong, then they also have the flexibility and the obligation to embrace the new findings.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Feb 28, 2015 23:18:56 GMT -5
yknot, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable in your line of reasoning, nor do I see any spiritual flaw. Perhaps it's hasty to move on to another question, but here is it: Why, then, if the line of reasoning you lay out is not flawed, is there so much focus among some exes on pinning the "founding" of the F&W on W. Irvine? I think the answer is in this: The F&W have historically claimed that theirs is the only true church; that other Christian ministers are "false prophets" and if a person wanted to go to heaven one day, one would be well-advised to leave the other Christian denominations and join up with the F&W. ONE of their several points in support of their exclusivity was, historically, that unlike all those other Christian denominations that can trace their denomination to a founder (John Wesley, Alexander Campbell, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.), the F&W could not do so. The F&W was founded by Jesus, they said; other denominations were founded by men/women. I think it would be fair to say that the F&W was founded by a man no more nor less than other Christian denominations. I wonder if it might be possible to segregate the topic into two separate and distinct categories for discussion without getting into too much hot water. Suppose we separate religion and religious practices away from individual spiritual beliefs and faith. Is that a fair and reasonable basis for segregation? Let’s at least try the experiment. It seems to me that the purpose of the “religion” and religious practices is to serve as a support structure for an individual’s spiritual beliefs and faith. By saying this, I intend to say very explicitly that the religion and the religious practices are not a person’s beliefs or the basis for their faith. This is an important distinction if true. I would like to suggest that a person’s spiritual beliefs and their faith are derived from a source other than the infrastructure that supports the person’s faith. Let me assume you buy this particular segregation into two separate categories. The F&W Fellowship is the religion in question here. The fellowship meetings, the gospel meetings, the workers, the friends, the practices of reading the Bible, prayer, hair style, no TV, etc. etc. are all part of the religious infrastructure intended to inform and support an individual’s spiritual beliefs, practices and faith. But I submit (for argument sake) that these things are not a person’s spiritual beliefs or their faith (or are they a substitute for a person’s beliefs or faith). I submit to you that a person’s beliefs and faith must be grounded in some source other than the religious infrastructure in which they practice their beliefs. So then we come to “only true church”, “false prophets”, and “exclusivity”. These are tough, tough issues. I don’t think you can just brush them away, I think they have to be confronted forthrightly and honestly. Ultimately a person has to hold themselves accountable for what they believe. I do not believe that it is appropriate to hold another person or a religious organization responsible for beliefs that I have that make me uncomfortable. (Easier said than done.) I like the metaphor of a tuning fork. When I am thinking about something of fundamental importance to me and I am presented with a new idea, a new concept, a new way of looking at a long held belief, I like to ask myself, does this “resonate” with what I fundamentally believe? If it does, I consider it further, if it doesn’t, I discard it and move on. Exclusivity does not resonate with anything I know or believe. I reject it. Period. Next topic. False prophets, is every elder of a persuasion different from my own a false prophet? Absolutely not. Are there charismatic charlatans out there? Absolutely. Do I have enough confidence in my “guidance system” to differentiate? Yup. Good enough, move on. (p.s. do I have to seek someone else’s permission? - nope!) “Only true church”, ah, this is a tough one. This is not a concept that I personally believe. But I must tell you, it is not unreasonable to me that a person of faith would believe this and I happen to think they have every right to do so without recriminations. As we all have said so many times on this board, they do not have the right to impose that belief on anyone else. In a similar vein, I do not think that it is unreasonable to hold the belief by faith that the religious practice a person follows is directly and unambiguously traceable to one’s own source of belief. Without this faith, practice has little true meaning. But every argument I make in this post is about a person’s own spiritual beliefs, practices and faith. The infrastructure is at best of secondary concern. And poor ol’ William, I am sorry but I just can’t work up a lot of concern for the gentleman. If he started the community of my early religious training, he did a good job and I thank him. If his inspiration sprang from earlier generations, well that would be great as well. People have established a history that says he was instrumental in starting a community that nurtured my youth. I am grateful. But it is important to me that his role not be confused with my faith, in the past, now or in the future. This has been an unwieldy response. Simply put, I think it is important to carefully segregate the basis and origins of one's faith from the sundry infrastructures that may be available to support ones practice of that faith.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2015 11:21:36 GMT -5
Now to tie this to the subject of morality. Is it moral to push your religious beliefs on your kids to the point of making them stand out as different from their peers? The stigma of looking different because of the way you are made to dress and wear your hair is something most of us females here do not remember fondly. That is just one thing that being female differed from being male in the group. Ah, snow, you do ask the BIG questions don't you? First the question you pose, as you pose it: "Is it moral to push your religious beliefs on your kids to the point of making them stand out as different from their peers?" As asked, I must respond "No!" But I would like to return to the essence of this question in a moment. Regarding dress styles and gender, I must defer. As a young male, I did not experience difficulties as a consequence of dress style. The challenges I faced as a young male had more to do with activities that I did or did not do (dances, TV, dating (as I got older), those types of activities). This is probably an interesting topic independent of religion. I have not studied the question but my sense is that there are gender specific differences in how individuals relate in peer groups. A basic aspect of how boys and men relate in a peer group is based on "what I do". I imagine that girls and women relate to one another in a peer group using different criteria. Returning to your first question, childrearing is a moral responsibility. Children are sentient beings, they are people. Our moral responsibilities to children are the same as any other person in our environment. It is not "OK" for parents to beat, deprive, neglect or humiliate their children. (IMO) I believe that our moral responsibility to our children stands independent of "religious training". That being said, I prefer to tread lightly on this topic for many reasons. I believe that a person's individual religious/spiritual convictions are personal and stand outside the sphere of legitimate public criticism (always with the proviso that those convictions do no impose on the rights or welfare of another sentient being). I believe that a critically important aspect of childrearing is the transmission of values from the parent to the child. I believe this should be done by example, instruction and discipline. I believe that living what one preaches (setting an example) is a lifetime commitment (primarily to oneself). I believe that instruction and discipline are time dependent variables related to a child's age. 12 years old seems like a reasonable age to begin the process of relinquishing parental "control" and encouraging independent agency by the child. Reflecting on my own experiences as a child and parent, I have always believed that it is important to instill a sense that there are considerations greater than self. I attempted to do this without the aid of religious instruction. I am not fully satisfied with my success. This is a value that I now believe is significantly facilitated by a sincere faith.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Mar 1, 2015 12:17:29 GMT -5
I see science's contribution to peace in the scientific method of reason and the nature of science where if we find something to be factually wrong we have the ability to throw it out and adopt the new facts as they are presented. I think that flexibility is key and why religions have a much harder time making changes when things are proven to no longer work. When you are trying to change something in religion it's harder because of the belief that God and his word can't be wrong and therefore should never change. Obviously we know that given time things do change even with these restrictions, but I believe it takes longer for the above reasons. Science has the ability built into it's method to test and back things up with facts and if those facts are proven wrong, then they also have the flexibility and the obligation to embrace the new findings. Snow, this is an excellent segue back to the OP of this thread. Perhaps a portion of my difficulty with the way that I understand your comments is that I read too much into the way you describe the role of science. I view science solely as a process. By my reckoning, science (guided by the scientific method) is a highly structured and rational process suitable for guiding the inquisitive pursuits of mankind. I do not imbue science with agency. In my mind, science (a tool of inquiry) is incapable of making choices, it is incapable of making contributions and I do not think of science as having abilities to build, test or back things up. I think of science as a deterministic tool within a broader paradigm. Certainly, no one can argue that the rate of flux of human understanding of natural phenomena has accelerated at an unprecedented rate since the dawning of the scientific age. Many gods of clay feet have tumbled. A head-to-head comparison of religion vis-a-vis science is a bit more problematical in my opinion for several reasons. Religion is a different tool of inquiry than is science. It is not readily apparent that comparisons are valid without first carefully defining the range and criteria of comparison. The history of religion as a tool for guiding human inquiry is much older and deeper than the history of science. As I said, science wins the race over the last 500 years, hands down, but across the evolution and social development of man, maybe not so much. I have never come across a paired comparison of the two modes of inquiry in terms of observable transitions in human culture. It would be an interesting study. If anyone knows of such a study, I would be interested. On a personal level, I prefer not to back myself into a corner of "forced preference" when considering moral choices. On an individual basis, I believe that moral choices can, and should, be informed by all tools available. This would certainly include science but I believe on equal footing I will call on intuition, experience, sense of meaning and purpose, aspirational goals, and social principles long codified in my cultural identity, Christianity. Are there parts of this description that specifically run counter to your views on the role of science in moral choices?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 1, 2015 16:03:35 GMT -5
Now to tie this to the subject of morality. Is it moral to push your religious beliefs on your kids to the point of making them stand out as different from their peers? The stigma of looking different because of the way you are made to dress and wear your hair is something most of us females here do not remember fondly. That is just one thing that being female differed from being male in the group. Ah, snow, you do ask the BIG questions don't you? First the question you pose, as you pose it: "Is it moral to push your religious beliefs on your kids to the point of making them stand out as different from their peers?" As asked, I must respond "No!" But I would like to return to the essence of this question in a moment. Regarding dress styles and gender, I must defer. As a young male, I did not experience difficulties as a consequence of dress style. The challenges I faced as a young male had more to do with activities that I did or did not do (dances, TV, dating (as I got older), those types of activities). This is probably an interesting topic independent of religion. I have not studied the question but my sense is that there are gender specific differences in how individuals relate in peer groups. A basic aspect of how boys and men relate in a peer group is based on "what I do". I imagine that girls and women relate to one another in a peer group using different criteria. Returning to your first question, childrearing is a moral responsibility. Children are sentient beings, they are people. Our moral responsibilities to children are the same as any other person in our environment. It is not "OK" for parents to beat, deprive, neglect or humiliate their children. (IMO) I believe that our moral responsibility to our children stands independent of "religious training". That being said, I prefer to tread lightly on this topic for many reasons. I believe that a person's individual religious/spiritual convictions are personal and stand outside the sphere of legitimate public criticism (always with the proviso that those convictions do no impose on the rights or welfare of another sentient being). I believe that a critically important aspect of childrearing is the transmission of values from the parent to the child. I believe this should be done by example, instruction and discipline. I believe that living what one preaches (setting an example) is a lifetime commitment (primarily to oneself). I believe that instruction and discipline are time dependent variables related to a child's age. 12 years old seems like a reasonable age to begin the process of relinquishing parental "control" and encouraging independent agency by the child. Reflecting on my own experiences as a child and parent, I have always believed that it is important to instill a sense that there are considerations greater than self. I attempted to do this without the aid of religious instruction. I am not fully satisfied with my success. This is a value that I now believe is significantly facilitated by a sincere faith. Yes it is a very 'big' question. Based on what most of us went through being born and raised in the 2x2 faith, I would say that it ranged from parents passing on their values and allowing their children some leeway, (like you sound like you had), to being completely rigid in the discipline and raising your children on a rigid set of religious guidelines that you believe in. This can be taken to the point where beating the child is considered Godly because the bible says spare the rod spoil the child, or words to that effect. We know from a psychological point of view that if you keep preaching a belief over and over in a young child's life, you have a far better success rate of keeping them on the straight and narrow of that belief when they get older. We also see how if it is a bad set of beliefs that have been taught to the child, there can be a lot of cognitive dissonance later on in life when things don't match what you experience. It is also psychologically possible to damage a child if you make them abide by dress codes and other sets of guidelines that make them stand out among their peers and make them the laughing stock of the school for instance. It is damaging to know people think you are weird or strange because of how you have to behave or how you look. The 2x2 religion did this to their kids. It is also much harder to let go of old beliefs when they have been taught to the very young. One of the most damaging that I can think of is to teach your child there is a hell or a devil and that you can go there if you don't do all of the things you are told to do. Even when I quit professing because I could not worship a God like the Christian God, I totally still believed I would be going to hell for that decision. I carried that belief for many years and I was very scared. It wasn't until I got older that I recognized that the likelihood of their being such a God or a heaven or a hell etc. was highly unlikely. There was great freedom in that realization. So I am well aware of the damage that teaching can have on a young mind. Is that moral? You mention that as parents we have to pass on and teach our children values. I agree. I have no problem with the values I was taught and appreciate them. Those were the ones that told me not to lie, steal, kill, etc. I was also taught to think about what I was doing to someone else and watch my actions in this regard. These are all good things to learn to be able to function in society. We don't need all the religious beliefs that tell you God wants you to not do these things or you will go to hell. I think there is a big difference between teaching your children good values and telling them the reason for these values is to please a God and hopefully you can then stay out of hell. Raising my children I didn't push my non belief in god on them. I allowed them to ask questions, attend churches with their friends, go to meeting with their grandparents when we were in town and I was honest with them when they asked me what I believed. I told them I didn't believe in a God, but that many people did and that I had no problem with them believing if that was what they decided to do. One is an atheist and the other is not. Both have good values as far as I know and seem to be doing very well in life. I am not sure how many people can segregate their beliefs from their religious organizations like you suggest in your answer to Gene. I think most don't delve too deeply into what they really believe and why, beyond what they have been told to believe and why. That will impact all the decisions one makes because we act on how we believe. Just a thought about that.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 1, 2015 16:21:03 GMT -5
I see science's contribution to peace in the scientific method of reason and the nature of science where if we find something to be factually wrong we have the ability to throw it out and adopt the new facts as they are presented. I think that flexibility is key and why religions have a much harder time making changes when things are proven to no longer work. When you are trying to change something in religion it's harder because of the belief that God and his word can't be wrong and therefore should never change. Obviously we know that given time things do change even with these restrictions, but I believe it takes longer for the above reasons. Science has the ability built into it's method to test and back things up with facts and if those facts are proven wrong, then they also have the flexibility and the obligation to embrace the new findings. Snow, this is an excellent segue back to the OP of this thread. Perhaps a portion of my difficulty with the way that I understand your comments is that I read too much into the way you describe the role of science. I view science solely as a process. By my reckoning, science (guided by the scientific method) is a highly structured and rational process suitable for guiding the inquisitive pursuits of mankind. I do not imbue science with agency. In my mind, science (a tool of inquiry) is incapable of making choices, it is incapable of making contributions and I do not think of science as having abilities to build, test or back things up. I think of science as a deterministic tool within a broader paradigm. Certainly, no one can argue that the rate of flux of human understanding of natural phenomena has accelerated at an unprecedented rate since the dawning of the scientific age. Many gods of clay feet have tumbled. A head-to-head comparison of religion vis-a-vis science is a bit more problematical in my opinion for several reasons. Religion is a different tool of inquiry than is science. It is not readily apparent that comparisons are valid without first carefully defining the range and criteria of comparison. The history of religion as a tool for guiding human inquiry is much older and deeper than the history of science. As I said, science wins the race over the last 500 years, hands down, but across the evolution and social development of man, maybe not so much. I have never come across a paired comparison of the two modes of inquiry in terms of observable transitions in human culture. It would be an interesting study. If anyone knows of such a study, I would be interested. On a personal level, I prefer not to back myself into a corner of "forced preference" when considering moral choices. On an individual basis, I believe that moral choices can, and should, be informed by all tools available. This would certainly include science but I believe on equal footing I will call on intuition, experience, sense of meaning and purpose, aspirational goals, and social principles long codified in my cultural identity, Christianity. Are there parts of this description that specifically run counter to your views on the role of science in moral choices? Thanks for your further description of your view of this. I think I have found out what we differ in and why. I agree with you that science is a methodology or a process. And I think that process used in how we reason things out helps us come to better conclusions, but you're right, science itself isn't doing that, people using it are doing that. So it seems that what it comes down to is which process works better for reasoning things in a logical coherent way. Using the method of belief in sacred teachings to base our conclusions on, or using the method of the process that science gives us to determine our conclusions. I think we have always used science to a degree even before the method was established as we now know it. It is how we evolved and grew our understanding of the world, but not completely. I too would love to see a study of how we evolved, reached moral conclusions based on our life observations and how much that had to do with superstition and how much was based on logic (as we saw it of course). You state that intuition is a tool to use among many. I need to think about that. Got to run at the moment. So will continue on later.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 1, 2015 16:55:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 1, 2015 19:55:22 GMT -5
This is definitely how I see things progressing and what I trust. I have a great deal of trouble with 'going with the heart/gut' but I think I do it without really acknowledging I'm doing it some of the time. Some of the things I do are so automatic that I act before I think, and in those cases it's probably action based on what my mind has already decided works and I can do it without thinking, but I imagine that many automatic decisions I make are based on how I feel about something. How many decisions are based on something we've thought out that has been tested and how many are based on how we feel about something. I know I sometimes make bad decisions even when I do know there is a chance they won't work out because of how I feel about it. I find myself doing that less and less. Saying that, we do need that aspect of ourselves because it is the part of our make up that takes the risk and explores. Tried and true is wonderful, but it took someone taking a risk, acting on a hunch etc to get to the place where things are tried and true and we can trust them to work.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 2, 2015 11:51:38 GMT -5
I am reasonably certain that my parents were familiar with developments in the Fellowship around the turn of the century. My Mom was born in Ireland in 1902 and grew-up in Ireland until she was 21 or 23. We lived in New York State so we knew George Walker pretty well (my sister and I loved him at convention, a real bible slapper, woke you up on a lazy, hazy August afternoon!). I. Weir was a relative. So I imagine my parents had a reasonably good grasp of the "early days". But sitting and trying to think back through my childhood, I have no recollection that those "early days" held much significance for anyone that I knew in the fellowship while I was still at home. The relevance of fellowship meetings, the workers, preaching the gospel, reading the bible, prayer, were all critically important in my home life but not to the exclusion of all else. We laughed, we sang (yes even Perry Como along with the hymns), we gossiped, we cried, we cared, we loved, we studied. We lived life, I don't know how else to say it. But there was an underlying religious faith that provided guidance, hope, security, purpose, and many other bed-rock values that I can't think to mention at the moment. When I look back at the rural community where I grew up there were all sorts of people. Rich people, poor people, kind people, ornery people, teachers, ne'er do well's and on an on but we all shopped at the same stores, went to the same schools, avoided the same cops and went to different churches. I cannot claim that I ever felt the smothering effect of my parents or my religion. I have zero meaningful knowledge of the F&W Fellowship after 1963. When I was a part of the community, I was intimately aware of a couple of "situations" than might have had the potential to end in "excommunication", they did not end that way. Why? Were things different then than they are now? In complete honesty, I do not know. I was never aware of CSA. Was it hidden? I wasn't aware of it so I cannot say. CSA (or any sexual abuse) is one of those horrible behaviors that is completely inexcusable under all circumstances without question. The only knowledge I have of CSA and the F&W is what I have read on this board. I feel unspeakable rage that any situation that arose was not dealt with immediately and summarily. In my opinion, failure to nip this issue in the bud is an inexcusable failure of leadership whether you are a religious organization, boy scouts or Penn State Football! I spent a day at a convention not far from here a few years ago. I still admire and respect the faith of that community. Interestingly, I do not feel a pull to return but I told my wife when I got home that evening; "If I was forced to choose one community that I would have to associate with and I was forced to make that choice, it would be with the community of individuals that I had just spent the day with." Not sure I can say why. My values and temperament have changed so much since I was last associated with that community, it does not make logical sense. The only thing I can think of is that when everything else is boiled down, that community attempts to live a wholesome life and they have an awareness of something greater than themselves. I find both qualities attractive. I would have to agree with you that they probably knew the beginnings since your mom lived in Ireland where it all started. Your childhood sounds so normal. It just goes to show you that it can be done, balance in religion and living I mean. There was no balance in my childhood in that sense. It was all about the religion. How we presented, how much of a role model I had to be because I was an elders child. Meeting in the home I recently learned was awarded to those who could control their families. I don't know if there is any truth to that but it does make me understand my father's reasoning behind trying to get me to re profess and be a role model etc. It was always the dominant aspect of my upbringing. I never measured up, never was 'worthy', never was good enough in my father's eyes. I think my mom was a little less like that and I imagine she knew how it felt because she had a level to uphold too, being his wife. I have to agree with you that they do seem to try and live a wholesome life but I saw the underbelly of the group too. If you were the 'rebel' you were definitely treated differently. I learned not to question, avoid the workers and be true to myself. Snow ~ Coming from another "rebel" who didn't take well to all the ridiculous rules, I also "learned not to question, avoid the workers, and be true to myself." However, I was raised in a divided home, so it may have been easier for me than for you? But, I never felt really comfortable with all those restrictions as a young person and wasn't the most obedient child within the 2x2's. Perhaps being strong-willed and stubborn has its attributes!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 2, 2015 11:54:45 GMT -5
Yknot ~ Just wondering what part of New York State you were raised in as a child? Was it Upstate NY where I came from perhaps? Did you leave the "fold" in 1963 to attend college perhaps? I professed in 1965, but wondered if I knew your family? You can PM me if you wish with an answer. I grew up in Northeastern NY, close to the Canadian border.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 2, 2015 13:21:39 GMT -5
I would have to agree with you that they probably knew the beginnings since your mom lived in Ireland where it all started. Your childhood sounds so normal. It just goes to show you that it can be done, balance in religion and living I mean. There was no balance in my childhood in that sense. It was all about the religion. How we presented, how much of a role model I had to be because I was an elders child. Meeting in the home I recently learned was awarded to those who could control their families. I don't know if there is any truth to that but it does make me understand my father's reasoning behind trying to get me to re profess and be a role model etc. It was always the dominant aspect of my upbringing. I never measured up, never was 'worthy', never was good enough in my father's eyes. I think my mom was a little less like that and I imagine she knew how it felt because she had a level to uphold too, being his wife. I have to agree with you that they do seem to try and live a wholesome life but I saw the underbelly of the group too. If you were the 'rebel' you were definitely treated differently. I learned not to question, avoid the workers and be true to myself. Snow ~ Coming from another "rebel" who didn't take well to all the ridiculous rules, I also "learned not to question, avoid the workers, and be true to myself." However, I was raised in a divided home, so it may have been easier for me than for you? But, I never felt really comfortable with all those restrictions as a young person and wasn't the most obedient child within the 2x2's. Perhaps being strong-willed and stubborn has its attributes! My ability to be strong enough to resist some of the stuff was probably both a blessing and a curse. It definitely made my life harder not conforming to all the rules and not professing. But in the end it certainly made me a stronger person. If someone can survive the constant attempts at guilting and shaming me back into the 'fold', then I should be able to survive just about anything life throws at me. It was a scary, lonely time.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 2, 2015 14:23:12 GMT -5
Snow ~ Coming from another "rebel" who didn't take well to all the ridiculous rules, I also "learned not to question, avoid the workers, and be true to myself." However, I was raised in a divided home, so it may have been easier for me than for you? But, I never felt really comfortable with all those restrictions as a young person and wasn't the most obedient child within the 2x2's. Perhaps being strong-willed and stubborn has its attributes! My ability to be strong enough to resist some of the stuff was probably both a blessing and a curse. It definitely made my life harder not conforming to all the rules and not professing. But in the end it certainly made me a stronger person. If someone can survive the constant attempts at guilting and shaming me back into the 'fold', then I should be able to survive just about anything life throws at me. It was a scary, lonely time. Snow ~ I agree. We both grew up in a day and age where the workers really laid it on thick and could make life miserable for young folks. I'm glad they are changing today ~ perhaps a necessity to keep the few members they have left, since they don't do that much evangelizing among outsiders anyway?
After all, who likes to be told what to do, think, and how to behave all the time. Not me!! That type of grooming of new members made me nauseous and I resented it "big time" back in the 1960's. If my husband had never professed back in time, I surely doubt I would have lasted more than a few years. I gave it a second try after college and somehow endured for a total of 30 years, leaving out of complete burn-out. Looking back I still wonder how different my life would have been if I made a clean break and never went back? Perhaps a lot happier and contented? I admire the young folks today who are wising up earlier and bailing, because they will have less to deal with as far as emotional baggage later on.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 2, 2015 14:58:53 GMT -5
I noticed an article this morning that deals with the development of faith or spirituality and I was amazed to learn that many fundamentalists never make it beyond the 2nd step due to fanaticism in their beliefs. It's like they get stuck in an immature stage of emotional and spiritual development and it affects their whole perspective on life in general? www.psychologycharts.com/james-fowler-stages-of-faith.html
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 2, 2015 17:53:31 GMT -5
This is definitely how I see things progressing and what I trust. I have a great deal of trouble with 'going with the heart/gut' but I think I do it without really acknowledging I'm doing it some of the time. Some of the things I do are so automatic that I act before I think, and in those cases it's probably action based on what my mind has already decided works and I can do it without thinking, but I imagine that many automatic decisions I make are based on how I feel about something. How many decisions are based on something we've thought out that has been tested and how many are based on how we feel about something. I know I sometimes make bad decisions even when I do know there is a chance they won't work out because of how I feel about it. I find myself doing that less and less. Saying that, we do need that aspect of ourselves because it is the part of our make up that takes the risk and explores. Tried and true is wonderful, but it took someone taking a risk, acting on a hunch etc to get to the place where things are tried and true and we can trust them to work. A good explanation on how science comes to know www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science?language=en#t-526133
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Mar 3, 2015 18:49:45 GMT -5
yknot, I don't see anything illogical or unreasonable in your line of reasoning, nor do I see any spiritual flaw. Perhaps it's hasty to move on to another question, but here is it: Why, then, if the line of reasoning you lay out is not flawed, is there so much focus among some exes on pinning the "founding" of the F&W on W. Irvine? I think the answer is in this: The F&W have historically claimed that theirs is the only true church; that other Christian ministers are "false prophets" and if a person wanted to go to heaven one day, one would be well-advised to leave the other Christian denominations and join up with the F&W. ONE of their several points in support of their exclusivity was, historically, that unlike all those other Christian denominations that can trace their denomination to a founder (John Wesley, Alexander Campbell, Mary Baker Eddy, etc.), the F&W could not do so. The F&W was founded by Jesus, they said; other denominations were founded by men/women. I think it would be fair to say that the F&W was founded by a man no more nor less than other Christian denominations. I wonder if it might be possible to segregate the topic into two separate and distinct categories for discussion without getting into too much hot water. Suppose we separate religion and religious practices away from individual spiritual beliefs and faith. Is that a fair and reasonable basis for segregation? Let’s at least try the experiment. It seems to me that the purpose of the “religion” and religious practices is to serve as a support structure for an individual’s spiritual beliefs and faith. By saying this, I intend to say very explicitly that the religion and the religious practices are not a person’s beliefs or the basis for their faith. This is an important distinction if true. I would like to suggest that a person’s spiritual beliefs and their faith are derived from a source other than the infrastructure that supports the person’s faith. Let me assume you buy this particular segregation into two separate categories. The F&W Fellowship is the religion in question here. The fellowship meetings, the gospel meetings, the workers, the friends, the practices of reading the Bible, prayer, hair style, no TV, etc. etc. are all part of the religious infrastructure intended to inform and support an individual’s spiritual beliefs, practices and faith. But I submit (for argument sake) that these things are not a person’s spiritual beliefs or their faith (or are they a substitute for a person’s beliefs or faith). I submit to you that a person’s beliefs and faith must be grounded in some source other than the religious infrastructure in which they practice their beliefs. So then we come to “only true church”, “false prophets”, and “exclusivity”. These are tough, tough issues. I don’t think you can just brush them away, I think they have to be confronted forthrightly and honestly. Ultimately a person has to hold themselves accountable for what they believe. I do not believe that it is appropriate to hold another person or a religious organization responsible for beliefs that I have that make me uncomfortable. (Easier said than done.) I like the metaphor of a tuning fork. When I am thinking about something of fundamental importance to me and I am presented with a new idea, a new concept, a new way of looking at a long held belief, I like to ask myself, does this “resonate” with what I fundamentally believe? If it does, I consider it further, if it doesn’t, I discard it and move on. Exclusivity does not resonate with anything I know or believe. I reject it. Period. Next topic. False prophets, is every elder of a persuasion different from my own a false prophet? Absolutely not. Are there charismatic charlatans out there? Absolutely. Do I have enough confidence in my “guidance system” to differentiate? Yup. Good enough, move on. (p.s. do I have to seek someone else’s permission? - nope!) “Only true church”, ah, this is a tough one. This is not a concept that I personally believe. But I must tell you, it is not unreasonable to me that a person of faith would believe this and I happen to think they have every right to do so without recriminations. As we all have said so many times on this board, they do not have the right to impose that belief on anyone else. In a similar vein, I do not think that it is unreasonable to hold the belief by faith that the religious practice a person follows is directly and unambiguously traceable to one’s own source of belief. Without this faith, practice has little true meaning. But every argument I make in this post is about a person’s own spiritual beliefs, practices and faith. The infrastructure is at best of secondary concern. And poor ol’ William, I am sorry but I just can’t work up a lot of concern for the gentleman. If he started the community of my early religious training, he did a good job and I thank him. If his inspiration sprang from earlier generations, well that would be great as well. People have established a history that says he was instrumental in starting a community that nurtured my youth. I am grateful. But it is important to me that his role not be confused with my faith, in the past, now or in the future. This has been an unwieldy response. Simply put, I think it is important to carefully segregate the basis and origins of one's faith from the sundry infrastructures that may be available to support ones practice of that faith. I like the idea of segregating (slightly paraphrasing you here--I hope it's accurate) one's faith from the infrastructure that supports one's externally evident practice of faith. One point to add: That's true for people of faith; I submit there are people who have nothing but the externally evident practice of faith! Probably others who have faith, but no infrastructure that supports the external practice of it. But I digress. What I'm not understanding from your response is how it addresses the underlying issue: 1) Workers said this is the only true church and I'll go to hell if I don't participate in their infrastructure that supports the practice of faith 2) Workers said that they can prove this is the only true church infrastructure that supports the practice of faith, because it's the only infrastructure that goes back to Jesus and all the other churches can trace their infrastructure back to a man (or woman) 3) In fact, this infrastructure is well and truly documented as being revived by a group of men around the turn of the century Here's the point: The fact that Irvine & Co. started the F&W as a revival of the early church infrastructure is not the problem; the fact that workers (outside of Ireland) purposely hid it and vehemently denied it is the problem. I fear I'm repeating myself now -- begging pardon!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 3, 2015 23:22:57 GMT -5
I like the idea of segregating (slightly paraphrasing you here--I hope it's accurate) one's faith from the infrastructure that supports one's externally evident practice of faith. One point to add: That's true for people of faith; I submit there are people who have nothing but the externally evident practice of faith! Probably others who have faith, but no infrastructure that supports the external practice of it. But I digress. What I'm not understanding from your response is how it addresses the underlying issue: 1) Workers said this is the only true church and I'll go to hell if I don't participate in their infrastructure that supports the practice of faith 2) Workers said that they can prove this is the only true church infrastructure that supports the practice of faith, because it's the only infrastructure that goes back to Jesus and all the other churches can trace their infrastructure back to a man (or woman) 3) In fact, this infrastructure is well and truly documented as being revived by a group of men around the turn of the century Here's the point: The fact that Irvine & Co. started the F&W as a revival of the early church infrastructure is not the problem; the fact that workers (outside of Ireland) purposely hid it and vehemently denied it is the problem.
I fear I'm repeating myself now -- begging pardon! Very well put, Gene!
In a nutshell!
"The fact that Irvine & Co. started the F&W as a revival of the early church infrastructure is not the problem; the fact that workers (outside of Ireland) purposely hid it and vehemently denied it is the problem."
|
|
|
Post by xna on Mar 4, 2015 8:12:30 GMT -5
Bible Morality Attachments:
|
|