1. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    13 May '08 12:401 edit
    From Wikipedia:

    Institution: Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of a set of individuals. Institutions are identified with a social purpose and permanence, transcending individual human lives and intentions, and with the making and enforcing of rules governing cooperative human behavior. The term, institution, is commonly applied to customs and behavior patterns important to a society, as well as to particular formal organizations of government and public service.

    "Institutions" is then an umbrella term. Something so vaguely defined that has little meaning in and of itself. The "structures" and "mechanisms" are extremely vague terms and so is the concept of "social order" and "social purpose and permanence". Commonly applied to "customs" and "behavior patterns" that are "important to a society", is also extremely vague. The degree of freedom in the vagueness of this definition are gigantic.

    Attacks on "institutionalized religion" that attempt to safeguard "non-institutionalized religion" are therefore particularly meaningless considering the vast range of what an institution actually is. They strike me as being mostly expressions of politically correct attacks on religion.

    Although this roughly reflects my position, I feel that it's still somewhat embryonic and I need to be confronted with alternate views to either solidify or correct this view. Feel free to comment or pick apart.
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    14 May '08 08:51
    I believe attacks on "institutionalized religion" are essentially talking about cases where someone values the teachings/rules of the institution that they are a member of over the supposedly 'original' teachings of their religion. In the Anglican Church I think many of the members will readily admit that many of their practices are matters of tradition rather than articles of faith. When those traditions become a very large part of the religious practices of the members it is not unusual for someone (usually youth) to rebel and claim that everyone is getting too caught up with tradition and ignoring the original teachings.
    I remember a fight that broke out in an Anglican Church where a new pastor and the youth groups had a bit of a fight with the older members over having statues etc in the Church. The Pastor and youth thought it was a form of idol worship (and therefore wrong) whereas the older members saw it as a much valued tradition.
  3. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    15 May '08 09:59
    do see the dilema that statues cause, even the roman catholic have a abundance of statues that are the focus of worship, and it is a problem are they being worshiped or are they a sign of faith. it does seem human kind needs a focus history shows this. but our faith is built on belief. but my view is as long as the statue is not a god but a person who has passed this life and lived in the worship of god i have no problem, but if they worship it as a god them they do have a problem, remember that in the early church of christ they aligned the worship of the apostile who taught them. the apostile had to refute there way, but never the less it seems to happen.
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 May '08 10:30
    Originally posted by stoker
    do see the dilema that statues cause, even the roman catholic have a abundance of statues that are the focus of worship, and it is a problem are they being worshiped or are they a sign of faith.
    I doubt that anyone worships statues. I certainly have never met anyone who admits to doing so. I wonder of course whether the people in the Bible that were accused of idolatry actually worshiped the statues in question. I doubt it.

    it does seem human kind needs a focus history shows this.
    Wants rather than needs possibly.

    but our faith is built on belief.
    I think its probably built on avoidance and desire and other psychological factors.

    but my view is as long as the statue is not a god but a person who has passed this life and lived in the worship of god i have no problem,
    Except that amounts to worship of people (even thought they are dead people) which I suspect the Biblical God in all his jealousy would have a problem with.

    remember that in the early church of christ they aligned the worship of the apostile who taught them. the apostile had to refute there way, but never the less it seems to happen.
    I cant understand what you are saying there.
  5. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    15 May '08 12:54
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I doubt that anyone worships statues. I certainly have never met anyone who admits to doing so. I wonder of course whether the people in the Bible that were accused of idolatry actually worshiped the statues in question. I doubt it.

    [b]it does seem human kind needs a focus history shows this.

    Wants rather than needs possibly.

    but our faith i ...[text shortened]... re way, but never the less it seems to happen.
    I cant understand what you are saying there.[/b]
    (
    a) THE WANTS AND NEEDS OF MANKIND in this sistuation seems much the same to me.

    (B) No its built on faith and belief in the one living god and jesus his beloved.

    (C) MY VIEW people in times gone worshiped gods of stone and wood made by human hands and minds, similar to the golden calf as im shure your knowledge of mosses is. so we have one of the commandments. but images of people who have lived (in this life) a statue can be done and help focus the mind to worship god, as long as the image is not worshiped as a god.

    (d) well this one a apositle was the focus by which the people learned the gospel but as they moved around from place to place after they were gone poeple remembered the preacher more seeing he performed miricals and teachings they started to worship them as they sais we are of ie paul/ peter they refuted this to remind them they are for christ and god.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    15 May '08 13:371 edit
    Originally posted by stoker
    (a) THE WANTS AND NEEDS OF MANKIND in this sistuation seems much the same to me.
    Do you mean mankind as a species or individual members? I don't think it is correct to use 'want' in reference to a species. And are we talking about needing statues or the more general 'needing a focus'.

    (B) No its built on faith and belief in the one living god and jesus his beloved.
    Your faith is built on faith and belief? The very height of self delusion.

    (C) MY VIEW people in times gone worshiped gods of stone and wood made by human hands and minds, similar to the golden calf as im hure your knowledge of mosses is.
    I have heard of the golden calf but I doubt if the people actually worshiped the object. They almost certainly believed that it represented a supernatural god.

    so we have one of the commandments. but images of people who have lived (in this life) a statue can be done and help focus the mind to worship god, as long as the image is not worshiped as a god.
    Again, I doubt anyone worships the statues, but you did imply that worshiping dead saints was OK.

    (d) well this one a apositle was the focus by which the people learned the gospel but as they moved around from place to place after they were gone poeple remembered the preacher more seeing he performed miricals and teachings they started to worship them as they sais we are of ie paul/ peter they refuted this to remind them they are for christ and god.
    I still don't understand what you are saying. Maybe you should read through what you write before you post?
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    15 May '08 19:13
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I believe attacks on "institutionalized religion" are essentially talking about cases where someone values the teachings/rules of the institution that they are a member of over the supposedly 'original' teachings of their religion. In the Anglican Church I think many of the members will readily admit that many of their practices are matters of tradition r ...[text shortened]... l worship (and therefore wrong) whereas the older members saw it as a much valued tradition.
    My post is mostly addressed to those that claim something like: 'I have nothing against religion, only against institutionalized religion'. I'm sure you've heard the argument several times.

    It's hard for me to argue in terms of tradition vs faith, when my opinion is that all religion is built on tradition.
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 May '08 09:18
    Originally posted by Palynka
    My post is mostly addressed to those that claim something like: 'I have nothing against religion, only against institutionalized religion'. I'm sure you've heard the argument several times.

    It's hard for me to argue in terms of tradition vs faith, when my opinion is that all religion is built on tradition.
    There are two possible meanings in such an argument that I can think of:
    1. They mean by 'institutionalized religion' the various organizations that have over time acquired tradition which have been in effect added to the 'original' faith. They probably (incorrectly in my opinion) think that there was at one time an 'original' faith that was pure or straight from God.
    2. They could be arguing not against religion at all but against the specific institutions of religion and some of the bad things that have come out of them. They are then generalizing that religious institutions result in undesirable things. They could be in effect saying that it is fine for anyone to believe what they want but when people with common beliefs get together and start to make it all more formal then the results can be undesirable (such as forcing the religion on others or influencing society etc). If the person making the argument is theist then it is likely that the purpose of the argument is to distance themselves from the crimes of past members of religions (usually through a religious institution)
  9. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    16 May '08 10:17
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Do you mean mankind as a species or individual members? I don't think it is correct to use 'want' in reference to a species. And are we talking about needing statues or the more general 'needing a focus'.

    [b](B) No its built on faith and belief in the one living god and jesus his beloved.

    Your faith is built on faith and belief? The very height o ...[text shortened]... erstand what you are saying. Maybe you should read through what you write before you post?[/b]
    (a) want and need seems we as a people need a focus for our pray. this is found in many faiths but the difference is the statue should not be the object of worship, similar to the cross the cross is not our god but is a focus.
    (B) if im delusional then im not alone, but its from knowledge og the gospel and testerments that i learn the truth.
    (c) yes they did and brought about there own distuction, so they wandered the desert till all who were had died and there children inheritated the land promised.
    (d) we would if they were in a image that promotes they are the image of god. but our teachings are plain to read, the statues of dead saints are a focus which i mentioned earlier.
    (e) paul/peter did thier works of god teaching and performing deeds so the gentiles gave them the there worship so they called themselves by there name but they mainly paul wrote to them to inform them they were only workers of christ hope this is simple for you.
Back to Top