Depends what arguments you have for him realizing religious principles as opposed to getting bogged down in religious details - and how the changes he applied are in line with it.
Religious Authority
- Thread starter Pineal
- Start date
But he did create a schism or collaborated with the Vatican to create a schism and a new lineage. I used him as an example precisely because he is not necessarily at all claiming to be of the caliber of Jesus, though one can make a solid case, I think, that he felt on a par with the Pope and in specifics correct. So a religion or a branch of a religion started and authority, for many Christians, was no longer the Pope.
Was this OK?
This seems to imply that the tradition cannot be improved. Does this hold for all religions?
And never to add or make something new that is better? in all traditions?
That's not quite the point. The point is can one decide that the Vatican is not a religious authority, given the nature of the Inquistion and the Vatican's role in it. Or can one only do this if one thinks of oneself as of the caliber of Jesus? Must one stay within the religion if one decides one is not of that caliber? Must one view people who leave as wrong or evil? Must one see any schism created - and there were always local schisms happening, some of them shut down with incredible violence by the Inquisition - as wrong and judge them from the perspective of the Vatican?
Regarding the universality of Christianity, the epistemological is the same. One is directly questioning the authority of the Vatican, if it was Catholicism. No, one does not have to go through Jesus, take mass, go to confession, recieve last rites - and in the interpretations of these things the church would have.
What if they just decide it is abusive to women or children? Or does not meet their spiritual needs - note: the convert is questioning universalism.
My original comment was
all depends who is breaking the lineage.
If every generation you get a personality of the caliber of jesus - then fine.
If not, then it probably pays to have an element of foundation of tradition
So with Luther you see a strong element of tradition, so in that sense, it is ok.
The only scope for improving religious principles is to work on a deteriorated model - that said, its common to deteriorate the model in the spirit of trying to improve it
re-establishing certainly does take the form of adding things for the better
Obviously they are not of the caliber of Jesus. If they step out of one authority then they are stepping under the authority of another (even if they become an atheist)
Every option has two extremes (and both usually translate into the same consequence) - Viewing them as evil and persecuting them is one - can you name the other?
I'm not sure what that has to do with leaving one lineage (and its authority) to partake of another.
Depends how sharp they are at discerning their "spiritual" needs as opposed to their "needs".
So how do we work with what might be seen as a contradiction.
Well, it is likely that the first people who formulated what you want to conserve were radicals. Twain was being nasty since it was not a religious context, but rather a political one. But in a religious context 'worshipping' if a fair verb in most cases. The point is not that you have some odd ritual, but rather that the notion of conservation tends to be based on not changing and/or returning to an early set of values relationships. However these older values were generally set up by someone making radical changes. Of course one can think that THOSE were the right changes.
But I encounter a different position, I think in both LG and Signal, that tradition per se, is best not to be broken with unless one is on the Jesus Buddha level.
I think that is unnecessarily limiting.
One does not necessarily have to smash the idol to create a schism - a la Martin Luther - and also,
how can one then decide it is right to go along with the tradition and further, it is wrong to break with it and those who do are wrong, if one cannot understand the things you feel you would need to to make the break.
How can one say 'I can judge Martin Luther. He was wrong to create a schism', but not decide one can judge the Pope?
Interesting. I don't think one has to have this kind of overwhelming conversion experience to decide to go deeper into a religion. You didn't say that, but it seems implicit above.
Could one not add to your schema above the idea of finding oneself, if one is, drawn to a particular tradition - the practices are appealing, the master seems very insightful, the scriptures seem right one, or potentially right on - joins not in any final sense, but begins attending sermons, mediation, chanting, reading more scripture, meeting others.........and so entering by degree.
And is not, at root, allowing oneself to do this, or deciding that none seem to work for you, in fact saying that you can judge religious authority AT LEAST so far as it pertains to you? Which immediately challenges religious authority in most traditions. Even in Buddhism you would be viewed as not yet at that stage to leave conditioned reality. They would not judge your choice - or would strive not to - but in the end they would see your choice as a necessary error given where you are at.
The way I see him makes it Ok for you?
So any movement by a polytheistic indigenous group towards a monotheistic religion would be fixing a deterioration?
OK, I took it to mean, not improving the original from which the tradition strayed.
Well, this does mean that you can tell, you, LG, that they are not enlightened or realized. In this case perhaps not even knowing who the specific Pope was.
or trying to stay, here, attached to the original authority, but definitely breaking from tradition/lineage as far as the Catholic Church.
Please tell me your schema. And remember at times I am responding to more than one person via your posts (and the posts of others). I did not think you asserted this, but your response may be an answer to the criticism I receive from others.Every option has two extremes (and both usually translate into the same consequence) - Viewing them as evil and persecuting them is one - can you name the other?
You decision means you do not consider these rites necessary for ______________ (getting to heaven, realization, enlightenment, whatever).
I will take that as agreement. IOW you are leaving open the possiblity that one could know ones spiritual needs and make a good decision. I agree.
i am not making the case that all schisms are good, or all conversions, or all questionings of authority. I am resisting the judgment that these are errors by definition. I am also resisting the idea that one must be of the caliber of Jesus to do these things. But I am quite sure people can be wrong or do these things for the wrong reasons.
So to be clear, I am not replacing a generalization with its opposite.
And I wish I had realized this earlier in responding to you here. I am not saying 'in all cases it is good to split off, be critical, convert, question authority' - so when you qualify, indicate ways it might not be good, you are essentially supporting my position that it can be good.
I don't think that he is a good example for what you expressed in the OP - IOW he has strong sense of tradition and most of his changes are simply at an ecclesiastical level
when talking about actual groups of people it becomes a bit more involved since there are aspects of culture, subsistence/means of living, etc so you are being a bit general - but generally speaking, monotheism involves a greater philosophical element than what indigenous polytheism (probably closer to animism in most cases) has to offer, which in turn is a helpful tool for establishing a more buoyant model
I think jesus worked towards higher goals than grumbles at an ecclesiastical level
Its your schema - you suggest :
Must one view people who leave as wrong or evil? Must one see any schism created - and there were always local schisms happening, some of them shut down with incredible violence by the Inquisition - as wrong and judge them from the perspective of the Vatican?
that is one extreme - what do you suppose is the other?
Or do you think that there is no middle of the road in this?
I mean if one leaves one lineage (along with its ideas of the requisites for spiritual existence) to join another (along with its ideas of the requisites for spiritual existence ... or even just plain old existence in the case of atheism) its not clear how one is ever confounding the model authority.
IOW I think the issue of moving beyond authority or becoming one's own authority is immensely more complex than what you present
OK. I am content with this answer, because the OP partially came out of a discussion of Martin Luther (who was an example). I tried to narrow my focus here and then also find myself opening it up. But I agree with you in regard to the OP. I think for you the fact that Jesus & the Bible, essentially remained the authority, meant that ML did not really change the religious authority. For others this was seen as a full on schism and a denial of rightful authority.
So...not simply a return to the roots, but a real addition to the group's entire tradition, or?
The details of your epistemology, while interesting, simply support the conclusion that you feel capable of deciding. I have no issue with that. I even agree with what your ability led you to decide.
No, its not my schema. As I said, I am responding to others, or presenting their positions as questions for you - to clarify, other posters and then other religious people not present. I bounce ideas off each of you to see how you respond and the responses enter the discussion and are present and, thankfully, I do not have to present them all. I find this makes it richer and then also makes the dialogue more complicated. Rather than me responding to every point and seeming to disagree with everyone, a fuller more nuanced picture comes out. It makes the range of opinions clearer, rather than everyone who disagrees (to whatever degree) with the OP, seeming to agree with each other.
I really can answer this from my view and I can think of a couple of middle of the roads in fact, one conservative epistemologically and another, hm, I am not sure how to describe it, more neutral - or better put, self-focused. But I really want to hear yours.
What does model authority mean? Do you mean the authority model?
I agree. It took me a week to come up with a wording for the OP after saying in a PM I wanted to have this thread. Part of the issue was narrowing focus enough to have a short enough OP that people would actually respond. I was reminded of my saying I would start a thread and did my best. Feel free to open the scope or bring in nuances you think are missing from the thread. If you can do this with specifics about how you would view schisms, conversations, challenges to specific authority, challenges to authority period, please do. I am not suggesting you leap in with an huge essay, but if anything you think is missing has priority for you, feel free to bring it in.
Last edited:
Pineal -
Karen Horney developed a theory of the neurotic solutions to challenge:
Intrapsychic Strategies of Defense
Horney's Three Neurotic 'Solutions' to Alleviate Anxiety
Many people have a considerable measure of anxiety when they think about and discuss religious and philosophical issues. The discussions then often develop into very complex lines of reasoning that are loaded with double-binds and carry great emotional weight - and with no end in sight.
In general in psychology, the advice is that when faced with double binds, one look at the context and see what one can do there.
I think (part of) the context is sometimes one's "neurotic solutions to alleviate anxiety," so it can be helpful to look at that.
I am in no way against discussion; but when the discussion is (unconsciously) motivated by neurotic solutions, the discussion itself, no matter how sophisticated, cannot alleviate the anxiety - ie. cannot produce a mental state that the person would feel satisfied in -, unless the motivational context of the discussion be brought into awareness and addressed as well.
I think Horney's theory can be useful for that.
I notice I have my own constellation of neurotic solutions to deal with challenge (and the resulting anxiety).
Sometimes, they are more at work, other times, less.
Discussing religious/spiritual topics, given their nature, necessarily takes place on a level where the personal integrity and competence of the discussion participants is an important factor.
Religious/spiritual topics generally cannot be discussed in the same manner as, say, physics or mathematics.
So they are bound to be heavy ...
Karen Horney developed a theory of the neurotic solutions to challenge:
Intrapsychic Strategies of Defense
Horney's Three Neurotic 'Solutions' to Alleviate Anxiety
Many people have a considerable measure of anxiety when they think about and discuss religious and philosophical issues. The discussions then often develop into very complex lines of reasoning that are loaded with double-binds and carry great emotional weight - and with no end in sight.
In general in psychology, the advice is that when faced with double binds, one look at the context and see what one can do there.
I think (part of) the context is sometimes one's "neurotic solutions to alleviate anxiety," so it can be helpful to look at that.
I am in no way against discussion; but when the discussion is (unconsciously) motivated by neurotic solutions, the discussion itself, no matter how sophisticated, cannot alleviate the anxiety - ie. cannot produce a mental state that the person would feel satisfied in -, unless the motivational context of the discussion be brought into awareness and addressed as well.
I think Horney's theory can be useful for that.
I notice I have my own constellation of neurotic solutions to deal with challenge (and the resulting anxiety).
Sometimes, they are more at work, other times, less.
Discussing religious/spiritual topics, given their nature, necessarily takes place on a level where the personal integrity and competence of the discussion participants is an important factor.
Religious/spiritual topics generally cannot be discussed in the same manner as, say, physics or mathematics.
So they are bound to be heavy ...
To break with a tradition means to either create one's own, or to join another one.
To create one's own that will last (and one that really is one's own, and not simply the earlier one geographically or socio-economically removed with some organizational changes) does require someone the caliber of Jesus or Buddha.
However, Jesus and the Buddha are unfitting examples to demonstrate human ability for religious reformation, as in some religions, not only in those nominally build around Jesus and the Buddha, they are considered incarnations of God Himself, or have divine status or something similarly exalted.
The practical issue here may be:
When is the time to end an abusive relationship, to break up with the other person and to have no communication with them anymore?
How does one ensure one's wellbeing after that?
Or should one give it all another try, but do things differently this time around?
Similar dynamics as are played out in interpersonal relationships can take place in one's relation to a religion.
The great advantage that traditions have is that they have likely developed considerable resources for dealing with all kinds of life problems. Solitary practices or those centred around a small group of people without a long history are not likely to have that kind of resources.
The question is whether one is willing and able to tap into those resources.
I don't think one inevitably has to reason on such fierce terms involving a lot of judgment.
I think there are ways to think and talk about and around this that barely ever lead to conflict.
Of course, with some people, or some mind-states, conflict is inevitable.
Last edited:
We must keep in mind that we may not be the only players in this, and that conversion and related issues is not a "one-man's business."
There may be other people involved, and they usually are.
More importantly, God Himself may be involved.
One cannot say "Not a blade of grass moves without God's approval" and still rightfully think one has uttered that very sentence on one's own power and authority.
Discussions on the topic of "God" are not exempt from God's jurisdiction.
So especially when we talk abut pro-theistic topics, God's immediate involvement must be presumed, even if we are not sure what exactly it is.
I think it is an error to think one has accomplished the schism or break-up etc. all on one's own.
Even Jesus claimed to be empowered by his Father.
Last edited:
I think part of the difficulties that come with discussing these topics is that we may be trying to find a solution to a problem that is not within our jurisdiction, or a problem that does not pertain to us, as we are, here and now.
This is one way of analyzing it, yes, and it is a line of analysis I myself have brought up at the forums before.
I am not sure it is accurate, though.
For one, it leaves out God. And it doesn't seem right to eliminate God from something that is, essentially, supposed to be about Him.
For two, a stance can implicitly be taken on A while explicitly taking a stance on B.
I was deciding on a number of things, and via that, in effect, a decision on a particular religion has come about, but not in volition.
For three, it's not always clear what religious authorities may want for a specific person in a specific situation.
For example, I have no papal decree on what I am supposed to do, here and now. For all I know, the RCC may consider me the anti-Christ and wants me to stay away from them as far as possible.
Indeed, most religions say something to the effect of "You should convert to us," but most also have a theoretical and factual blacklist.
I, frankly, do not know whose blacklist I am on, I am sure that people like me are not welcome in some religions. So lacking such knowledge, how could I decide to either accept them or reject them? Without that knowledge, such a decision is beyond me.
Another point to consider here is assertiveness: A major part of assertiveness is a matter of being able to say No without feeling guilty.
Someone comes along, claims to be a theist and makes statements that he claims are about God and tells me I should convert etc. - and I find myself in distress.
What do I do? How do I reply? Do I want to say No but feel guilty?
I've read in an assertiveness book that people have the right to ask us anything they want. The example given was "Give me your house." And in order to be assertive, we have to learn to deal with any and all requests that people may make to us.
Someone comes along, claims to be a theist and makes statements that he claims are about God and tells me I should convert etc. - and I find myself in distress.
What do I do? How do I reply? Do I want to say No but feel guilty?
I've read in an assertiveness book that people have the right to ask us anything they want. The example given was "Give me your house." And in order to be assertive, we have to learn to deal with any and all requests that people may make to us.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I don't think that it (valuing tradition while recognizing that traditions weren't always traditional) necessarily is a contradiction.
Yes, to an extent. I don't think that valuing tradition needs to be mindless and slavish. It's best conceived as the idea that those who went before us weren't all fools and knaves. It's the recognition that we are the beneficiaries of a priceless inheritance.
Maybe in the case of religious founders, yes. But generally, no. Most change is incremental and more evolutionary than revolutionary.
Perhaps they take a stronger view of that than I do. But there is the valid point that traditions need to be taken seriously, even if they seem counterintuitive at first and aren't immediately blissful. It's not always an obvious or an easy decision.
And if we do break with tradition, then we have to recognize that we thereby place ourselves outside the tradition, or at least outside some aspect of it (depending on how elastic and accomodating the tradition is).
If a Christian breaks with too much of traditional Christianity, or a Buddhist with too much of traditional Buddhism, the point is ultimately reached where they simply aren't Christians or Buddhists any more. When that point is reached might be kind of a judgement call or a matter of taste. Not everyone will always agree.
Why can't I judge the pope?
I was suggesting that an emptying of one's self in favor of an unquestioning faith isn't necessary, advisable or, in my case even possible. The 'all-or-nothing' vision of tradition seems exaggerated and probably not very realistic.
That's why I wrote about my finding myself in a back-and-forth dialogue with tradition. I continually question and interrogate it, forming my own always changing opinions about it as I go.
Yes, that's what I was thinking.
Right. I don't see any way that can be avoided. (Or why it should be.)
Maybe it's true that I'm not yet at the stage to leave conditioned reality. I'm not really trying to leave conditioned reality anyway, so that's cool. If this is a reference to Nibbana, I have no expectations of that in this lifetime.
Buddhism, at least as I understand it, doesn't demand slavish faith and adherence to tradition. Achieving Buddhism's goal does require personal realization. Having said that, the Buddha is said to have revealed the path to that goal and 2,500 years of subsequent Buddhist experience probably does have something valuable to tell us about achieving it.
If we aren't going to honor that and pay careful attention to it, then why pretend to be Buddhists at all? That's what Buddhism is and what it offers us.
Maybe they would be right and maybe not. Only I can determine that, in my subsequent experience.
No, but valuing tradition simply because it is a tradition, in addition to whatever else one values about it, does, I think lead to a contradiction.
Sure. But then neither are we, at least some of us. If we think of some secular traditions: foot binding, cliterodectomies, the stoning of women who are raped....breaking from tradition doesn't seem, to many outside it, like a sudden epistemological/moral issue that those staying in the tradition also face. If portions of traditions are abusive or ineffective, staying in the tradition should not be seen as epistemologically or morally conservative. In fact those within, those without and those (potentially) transitioning, all have the same reponsibilities and are just as responsible for errors and hubris.
But to be clear: I am not suggesting that casting off all tradition is the right thing, not remotely. I also think individual cases are different. I am, however, rejecting the judgment that the one who does this has more burden of proof than the one who stays in the tradition. And rejecting the judgment that staying in a tradition avoids the kind of responsibility taking that someone leaving or changing a tradition has. And rejecting the judgments made against people, as a rule, if they decide to leave or change a tradition, based solely on their leaving. Of course in most cases other criticisms will be aimed at them. But I think the mere leaving is seen as wrong,
even though the tradition itself was likely founded on a leaving, the tradition was fed by the leavings of other traditions, and the tradition itself has left its origins in many ways. And that I find ironic.
Even if the tradition was started by a genius, this does not mean the tradition has maintained this genius, nor does it guarantee that his or her genius fit some individuals needs or didn't have gaps in understanding.
I really don't believe some people solved the problem completely in the past.
Oh, I'm more of a punctuated equilibria kind of guy.
No, no. Please, I have no illusion that these decisions are usually easy.
Sure.
Agreed.
LOL, well, yes you can. My point was that if 'we' can judge Martin Luther, ML can judge the Pope and so can we, the ground for judging is also in place for judging the Pope. It's like driving a car off the end of a road destroyed by flooding is epistemologically more conservative than deciding to first go under the minimum speed limit and stop. I realize that was fairly lateral, but perhaps you can get what I mean. Why would the tradition be 'beyond the scope of our or ML's judgment'?
Yes, I understood the contrast, but it seemed like...if you joined a tradition, it would have to be this all or nothing event.
Oh, OK. Got it.
Agreed.
And note: I was not saying this is wrong. I was simply teasing out your position because it is different from the other posters. I think it helps to make these distinctions clear.
Last edited:
No one knows if anything's true. Define truth in the nonphysical realm? What each individual thinks is correct, right?
We may have different definitions of "tradition" operating here.
A traditional Turkish father may think like this:
"I am a father whose daughter has not produced a child to her husband even one year after they were married. Therefore, I must kill my daughter. Tradition dictates so, and I must follow the tradition."
This is what you mean by "valuing a tradition simply because it is a tradition"?
My appreciation for tradition comes in the sense of "Many people have done this, and they seem to be happy with it, so it may be worthwhile to follow in their steps."
I do not believe in the "I must do this because tradition dictates so."
I am watching a Turkish soap opera that addresses this precise problem.
In short: There are two competing tribes, originally from the province of Van. The head families of these tribes live in Istanbul, generally modern lives. There are the generations of older parents, their adult children, and their children.
There is a history of blood vengeance between the tribes; ie. a member of one tribe killed a member of another tribe, who was then vindicated by another murder and so on.
In order to make an end to the blood venegance, the head families arranged a marriage between a man and a woman from their families. They are not happy together, but the blood venegance stops.
Then soon after the wedding, the man is killed in a car accident. The father of the bride wants to kill his daughter, since, according to the tradition, she is not fit for another marriage, nor for widowhood, as she has not conceived a child. Leaving her alive would be a disgrace for his family.
To prevent her from being killed, the brother (the protagonist of the series) of her late husband marries her. They agree that they will fight against the tradition together and undo it. He also becomes head of the tribe, after his brother and his father died in the car accident.
But things are complicated because about a year ago, the portagonist was involved in a one-night-stand with a woman he can't forget.
After he is already married to his sister-in-law, he finds this woman. As he is madly in love with her, he pursues a relationship with her, eventually discovering that the one-night-stand produced a son.
He wants to divorce his sister-in-law and marry the mother of his child, but his wife refuses to sacrifice herself like this.
Then there is the powerful mother of the protagonist, other powerful members of the family, financial problems, drug trafficking, guns (the two tribes actually used to cooperate in producing and trafficking drugs and the economy of the whole tribe depended on that, of which the protagonist knew nothing at first), further murders etc. etc.
In reality, this is what dealing with the tradition can entail. A host of practical problems.