Some Challenges Presented by Modern Religion

Atheists are correct when they zero in on some of the gaping holes presented by modern religion.

For example, the “solas” or fundamental doctrines of Protestantism are a veritable garden of logical fallacies.

Let’s take one biggy, sola scriptura, as an example. From Wiki:

Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.”1

Unfortunately, the doctrine that “the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice,” is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Further, who made up the “solas” anyway?

Here from Wiki:

“By the middle of the 20th Century, it became common to see the original list of three increased to create five solas.”2

If any Tom, Dick or Harry, in any century, can grant himself his own authority to redefine the Bible (Luther cut out seven books from the original Vulgate Bible) and the whole of Christianity, why can’t I?

And so we see why Protestantism is the factionalized, incoherent, mess still in progress that we have today.

And we also see why atheists redefine the Bible to suit their tastes just like Martin Luther and the merry, herding multitude of subsequent reformers did; and then set about destroying Christianity with as much zeal and fervor as good priest and proto-reformer Martin Luther set about destroying the Catholic Church.

So what about the Catholic Church?

Here’s a good one from today’s current events:

San Francisco Saint Mary’s Cathedral Drenches Homeless With Water To Keep Them Away3

Yes folks, the Arch Bishop of San Francisco condones soaking homeless people with water if they try to spend the night in the cathedral doorway.

But I can relate.

A homeless person threw a bolder through one of the glass doors of a Catholic church located across the street from my apartment.

Maybe Jesus was trying to bust his way into his church, you think?

Well, I changed parishes but I wonder if that’s going to do any good.

At daily Mass, the priest gets to use a microphone so people can hear him as he celebrates the Eucharist.

But the lay person who reads Holy Scripture to the congregation doesn’t get to use a microphone.

The Word of God just sort of wonders out there from the mouth of the lector, on into the huge open space of the chapel, and then dies an ignominious death in the vast silence.

After Mass one morning I mentioned this phenomenon to one of the powers that be.

The solution arrived at by the Pastor was to relieve the celebrating priest of his microphone, too.

If only I had stfu!

Serves me right, though. Now nobody can hear nothing.

DonAdams

Yes. The sclerosis in the Church that drove good priest Martin Luther batty 500 years ago, is still alive and well.

What’s a Christian to do?

References

1. Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

2. Wikipedia – The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae

3. CBS San Francisco Bay Area, http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/03/18/homeless-saint-marys-cathedral-archdiocese-san-francisco-intentionally-drenched-water-sleeping/

24 responses to “Some Challenges Presented by Modern Religion”

  1. You make a great point that if you’re going to invent a religion you can’t leave it open to interpretation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. violet,

      Exactly! Great point!

      But the alternative is the Catholic Church, the oldest institution in the world, and at one time the most powerful institution in what was once the Roman Empire (Europe, Asia Minor, Palestine, North Africa).

      And such an eternal institution is sclerotic to the core.

      And when someone like Pope Francis comes along to shake things up, he just looks like a clown dressed in a pope suit.

      Like

      1. SOM, are you familiar with the work of Catholic Truth? I think your take on things would be greatly appreciated by the folks over there.
        http://catholictruthblog.com/

        Like

      2. We Christians use much the same Bible we have always used. The Catholic Church added some books during the Protestant Reformation, but these books had no effect on doctrine. The arrogance required to make those pointless additions just proved the need for a reformation.

        Would the reform have occurred without a schism? I doubt it. When the invention of the printing press and determined Bible translators allowed people to read the Bible for themselves, differences of opinion were inevitable.

        Consider insanitybytes22’s second comment, and never forget that the Bible makes it clear we are flawed. That includes the work of clergy and our work as members of the church. We need a savior, even a pope.

        I gather you are a Catholic. Is there another Catholic Church in your area? If you don’t hit it off with current pastor, and you believe you have given it your best, try another church. Otherwise, try to forgive as you would be forgiven (and no, I don’t think that’s easy).

        Like

        1. Citizen,

          The Catholic Church made no additions or subtractions from the Bible, the Vulgate Bible that they compiled at the end of the 4th century.

          Martin Luther, on his own authority redefined Christianity and matched his new Protestant Bible’s Old Testament with that of the Jews.

          That means Luther cut 6 books out of the Bible, on his own authority.

          Like

          1. I have a Catholic Bible and what Catholics would refer to as Protestant Bible. The difference between the two is the Deuterocanonical books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterocanonical_books). These were canonized by the Catholic Church during the Council of Trent held between 1545 and 1563.

            The Deuterocanonical books may belong in the Old Testament, but they are not part of the Hebrew Bible. In any event, the argument over whether they should be included in the Bible predated Martin Luther. However, I don’t doubt Luther’s opposition to their inclusion played a big part in what is now included in the Protestant Bible.

            Why was there an argument like this? Luther argued that scripture was the final authority. The Catholic Church pointed to the pope and church councils as the final authority. Essentially, the argument was over whether we should trust the Five solae or a group of ambitious men, not that Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformers did not have ambitions of their own. When the Council of Trent canonized the Deuterocanonical books, in Protestants minds they were claiming more authority than scripture.

            I guess my point is that we should not expect too much from men, but the Bible has a hard core of truth that has been tested by time. Does that hard core include the Deuterocanonical books? I think we can find some wisdom in them, but whether they add much to the story of our redemption by Jesus is something you will have decide for yourself.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. Citizen,

              That is my understanding too.

              But the Bible was a Catholic tome since it was compiled by the Catholics under the authority granted to the Church by Jesus and not subject to approval by the Jews, to whom Jesus had to explain the meaning of their scriptures.

              Matthew 16:19 – “and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

              That’s the Catholic understanding of the Bible, anyway, which the Church holds was passed down from the Apostles.

              At any rate, Martin Luther redefined the Bible by what authority he granted to himself.

              And you are citing the Jews as a greater authority than Jesus where scripture is concerned.

              Like

            2. Protestants interpret those scriptures one way; Catholics another. We cannot change that.

              I am not here to condemn Catholicism. I just don’t think the popes ever rightly had the authority they took upon themselves any more than you think Martin Luther had the authority to redefine the Bible. Therefore, what I will observe is this. Martin Luther merely pulled the trigger on the Protestant Reformation. He did not create the conditions that propelled it forward. Single men cannot act upon their own to effect large scale movements that span centuries. One man can only ignite a power that is already there.

              Have you considered that it only takes one man to point a gun and pull the trigger? Yet it takes thousands to make a gun.

              What the Bible is is ancient literature which inspired men wrote and believers, inspired by reading it, brought together in one volume. The Bible is God’s work. Men would not have written it. It is His tome which He gave us to read and study because we belong to Him.

              Like

            3. Citizen,

              Catholic doctrine holds that papal authority comes from Jesus, stated explicitly in Matthew 18:16, and illustrated throughout the New Testament.

              Notice that you said, “I just don’t think the popes ever rightly had the authority they took upon themselves…”

              That’s you, not the Bible.

              And since there are over 7 billion you’s out there, what makes your personal opinion about the Bible so authoritative?

              That papal authority is biblical and your authority (or that of Martin Luther or any other of the thousands and thousands of reformers) isn’t is illustrated in the inherent, and ever-growing disunity of Protestant Christianity.

              Saint Paul and Luke (Acts) begin telling the tragedy of disunity wrought by so-called “reformers.”

              It’s really amazing that Protestants see and condemn everyone but themselves for supposed deviation from biblical teachings.

              Like

            4. What about my personal opinion makes it so authoritive? Nothing in particular. I cannot even read the Bible in the original language. All I can say is the I have read the verses that the pope and his priests have used to justify their temporal authority, and I don’t think it is an accident that the Protestant Reformation began not too many years after people started reading the Bible for themselves in their own language. It seems to me that when people starting read the Bible for themselves they realized that like the Pharisees that went before them, too many of the Christian clergy had imposed their own traditions upon the Word of God.

              That said, during the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church also reformed itself. Moreover, every Christian church, not just the Catholic Church, has doctrinal issues. So I am not into Catholic bashing, and I don’t see what Catholics have to gain by bashing Protestants.

              I suppose their are many who still dream of one big happy Christian church; I don’t. John defined the test for a good Christian leaders in 1 John 1-5, especially 1 John 4:1-3. If you want to defer to a pope, that is your perogative. On the other hand, even though my authority may be weak, not deferring to a pope is my perogative.

              When I read 1 Cor 12:12-31, I notice we are suppose to be the body of Christ, and we are called to make use of the gifts we have. In 1 Cor. 7:17-24 I see that it says that we should live as we are called, that what matters is keeping the commandments of God. So I choose not to make too much of being a Catholic or a Protestant.

              Liked by 1 person

    2. “You make a great point that if you’re going to invent a religion you can’t leave it open to interpretation.”

      Sure you can, when you are God. He gave us the world and said go forth… In some ways He did the same with religion, here are your blue prints, go build something. We were given freewill, within parameters, not unlike loving parents do with children. There’s nothing written in stone…except that which was written in stone. Even when we completely fouled things up, He came down and bailed us out and I believe 100% He’s going to do it again.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Even when we completely fouled things up, He came down and bailed us out”
        Is that a reference to him murdering all his creation except for Noah? Free will to get your life cut short is a bit of a bummer.

        Like

        1. violet,

          Yes, it’s exactly like the death penalty being imposed on serial child rapists, murderers and wife beaters all of whom used their free will to go about their devilish business.

          Like

          1. Kill them all! And all kids who talk back to their parents while we’re at it. Big woop for the Christian god God!

            Like

            1. YES!

              The death penalty for loud mouthed, snot-nosed kids!!

              Their cruelty far exceeds that of the serial rapist, murderer and wife beater.

              Liked by 1 person

            2. At last! A true believer in the Bible. 🙂

              Liked by 1 person

        2. thetruthisstrangerthanfiction Avatar
          thetruthisstrangerthanfiction

          “Free will to get your life cut short is a bit of a bummer.” I suppose, if you are choosing to not consider it against the alternative of having all life be completely cut off altogether, with no “cutting short”, and beyond this, no way made available to regain true, everlasting life…

          It is indeed a “bummer” if one is determined to thumb their nose at the idea that we are not the Judge, nor our own Redeemer, and that our opinions on the entire matter of Cosmic Justice are ultimately feeble and flawed…

          Like

  2. As per Violets comment, I’m having this conversation on Colorstorms blog. The bible says the Middle Eastern god Christians believe in can write words… physically write words that can be understood. It does so twice, in Daniel and in Exodus. If the Christian believes this, as they must because its in the book, then how does the Christian wrestle with the fact that their god couldn’t be bothered to actually (personally) write its own message… its principle public relations work that, as it happens, is so contradictory that there exists no less than 42,000 official and contradictory interpretations within Christianity alone.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. John,

      You are using an approach used often by atheists which is to base your disbelief in God because he doesn’t the way you think he should.

      If God is Creator, and we are his canvas, he can use any painting style he wishes even if it’s mix and don’t match.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Errrrum, no… I’m merely pointing out that your god can write, words… but didn’t.

        Like

        1. Maybe he chose not to.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That’s a fair answer, but of course, it would indicate a malevolent god, not a benevolent one.

            Like

  3. “What’s a Christian to do?”

    You love them anyway. You love them in spite of their flaws, their lack of logic, even their non belief. And you do what Christ did, never put the words of pharisee before your own relationship with your Father.

    I look at the church today and darn near have a panic attack and yet in Christ’s day things weren’t going so well either. There were these money lenders, Christ himself was accused of having a demon, and eventually the religious leaders of the day had him executed. So, these things are not new or unfamiliar to God.

    One thing it does, is teaches you to draw closer to Christ. I struggle to love these people, but God knows us well and He’s been loving us anyway, for thousands of years. God is the authority here, so I simply have to trust that He sees something valuable in us that I sometimes can’t.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. One of the more serious gaping holes in Christianity is the problem of the authorship of the gospels. Who were Mark, Luke, and Matthew, and what makes us think they had authority to speak of the matter? The original texts were written in 3rd person, meaning that they weren’t there – of course, by the time of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, all the characters in the stories were almost certainly dead. Factor in the evolving story over the decades after John, and what it starts to look like is a fish tale, which is ironic, considering how many fishermen were in the stories.

    Amplifying the gaping hole is that these texts were never written in the characters’ native language (Aramaic).

    Like

Leave a comment