Why do a lot of people now have a 'Burger King' religion?

[The_Bucket]

This is not a modern phenomenon. It’s called the human condition.

 

[Kouyate42]

Because it is easier to assume God has to conform to us rather than us to Him. It is much more difficult to conform to God.

And yet Islam teaches that striving to do what Allah commands as opposed to what we wish is a virtue to be praised.

 

[ebonykawai]

Maybe some people don’t believe in the infalibity of those in charge of the religion. Humans make mistakes A LOT. Is it so much to wonder at that 2,000 years or writings and rule-making by human beings might not have a few glitches in it? Perhaps people feel that they are throwing out the corrupt teachings.

 

[jmcrae]

Maybe some people don’t believe in the infalibity of those in charge of the religion. Humans make mistakes A LOT. Is it so much to wonder at that 2,000 years or writings and rule-making by human beings might not have a few glitches in it? Perhaps people feel that they are throwing out the corrupt teachings.

Even if that were the case, what makes Joe Blow, with his 60% high school diploma, or Jane Doe with her BFA in Basket Weaving, more qualified to know what’s true than theologians who’ve been studying the sacred texts their entire lives?

Even if they aren’t infallible, surely they’re smarter than us?

But no - and here’s the baffling part. We put our trust in all kinds of experts, and believe whatever they tell us without a shred of evidence on our part, simply because we know that they’ve done the studying, and we haven’t - nutrition, plumbing, biology, physics - you name it, we trust them, and we believe what they tell us, even though we know they’re not infallible.

Scientist and historians are always reversing themselves and coming up with new theories, yet we continue to trust them.

But as soon as it comes to religion, you could be the Pope, and you could have studied the sacred texts and the elements of the Holy Tradition full time since you were five years old, but some schmuck who couldn’t find Genesis Chapter 1 without a tab marker can just decide that you’re full of it, and invent his or her own religion that’s “more true” than what’s been handed down from the Apostles in a carefully monitored unbroken sequence?

 

[hn160]

My argument to that second bit is that we may not have proof of some absolute proof but that is not to say we cannot draw somw conclusion about it using logic. Take the Catholic stance on abortion: this has always been amajor belief of Catholics that abortion is wrong, even where medical research into it has been missing. This is based on natural law arguments and logic as well as scripture. Now the evidence in medical literature is stacking up for the harmful effects of abortion Catholics are being proven right.

The Catholic official stance on abortion is correct, but tell that to Nancy Pelosi and some other Catholics. Sadly there are liberal Lutherans that are pro abortion too.

 

[Kouyate42]

Even if that were the case, what makes Joe Blow, with his 60% high school diploma, or Jane Doe with her BFA in Basket Weaving, more qualified to know what’s true than theologians who’ve been studying the sacred texts their entire lives?

Even if they aren’t infallible, surely they’re smarter than us?

And how are the theologians better than asking someone at random? Who isn’t to say the theologians aren’t just as fallible and even ‘wrong’ as anyone else?
You seem to think that by being a theologian, that somehow places them on this higher pedestal where they cannot be criticized. And the fact is that they’re humans like us, and like any expert in their field, their expertise is based on study, and nothing else. Anyone else who chose to study as they did could likely find themselves in a similarly knowledgeable level.

But no - and here’s the baffling part. We put our trust in all kinds of experts, and believe whatever they tell us without a shred of evidence on our part, simply because we know that they’ve done the studying, and we haven’t - nutrition, plumbing, biology, physics - you name it, we trust them, and we believe what they tell us, even though we know they’re not infallible.

Scientist and historians are always reversing themselves and coming up with new theories, yet we continue to trust them.

Scientists are never dogmatic in their approach, and the ideas they promote are based on the current interpretation of the evidence. When new evidence comes along, whether it supports or contradicts their current position, they consider it and amend their position to take into account this new evidence.

I also think you miss a critical point too: any one individual scientist isn’t really that important. But any scientist in any field is likely taking into account 100s of years of research in their field, if not 1000s, along with the many scientists who studied before them, including the greats of their field.

But as soon as it comes to religion, you could be the Pope, and you could have studied the sacred texts and the elements of the Holy Tradition full time since you were five years old, but some schmuck who couldn’t find Genesis Chapter 1 without a tab marker can just decide that you’re full of it, and invent his or her own religion that’s “more true” than what’s been handed down from the Apostles in a carefully monitored unbroken sequence?

Read my point above about theologians.

 

[JoanneSmith]

This is something I used to encounter all the time back in my days of campus evangelism, and even now when I’m talking to people about Islam.

I use the term ‘fast food theology’ or ‘Burger King religion’ to describe the situation where people have chosen to pick and choose their set of religious principles from the whole religion, whether this be from one religion or many.

But what I’m wondering is why it seems more and more common for people to pick and choose the bits of religion that suit, and why it seems that those who stick to the whole of the deen (faith) are often ridiculed for doing so.

To my mind it is pure arrogance. It seems to assume that God has somehow ‘made a mistake’ or that God does not know what is best for us, and so we replace His will with our own. This is purely my view though…

I’m putting it here because I think it would be interesting to have some inter-faith/denominational perspective upon this.

For me they taught us to believe this growing up and going to the public schools. Especially in English Literature. The over-riding themes to my education were: think for yourself, define your own values, morality is subjective, question authority because all authority is corrupt, and don’t let anyone influence what you think, especially not your parents (who might be abusing you by trying to control your behavior).

In Social Studies this was the case also, that freedom in America meant everyone can believe what they want to believe and do what they want to do, and if anyone interfered with that then they were oppressing you.

 

[jmcrae]

And how are the theologians better than asking someone at random? Who isn’t to say the theologians aren’t just as fallible and even ‘wrong’ as anyone else?

They’ve at least done the studying, though. Most people who are making up their own religion haven’t even cracked open a Bible, and have no idea what it actually says.

You seem to think that by being a theologian, that somehow places them on this higher pedestal where they cannot be criticized.

What I’m saying is, we wouldn’t criticize people in other professions with similar education. What makes theologians “less than” other people with similar education in other fields?

And the fact is that they’re humans like us, and like any expert in their field, their expertise is based on study, and nothing else. Anyone else who chose to study as they did could likely find themselves in a similarly knowledgeable level.

Anybody who did what Einstein did could have become the greatest physicist in the world - the point is, they didn’t. We believe Einstein, even though he overthrows almost everything we ever knew about physics, because we know he’s done the studying, and we haven’t.

But we treat theologians as if they’re doing it in their spare time, and don’t know any more than we do about it.

Scientists are never dogmatic in their approach, and the ideas they promote are based on the current interpretation of the evidence. When new evidence comes along, whether it supports or contradicts their current position, they consider it and amend their position to take into account this new evidence.

I also think you miss a critical point too: any one individual scientist isn’t really that important. But any scientist in any field is likely taking into account 100s of years of research in their field, if not 1000s, along with the many scientists who studied before them, including the greats of their field.

And how is this any different than what theologians do? Theologians are working with 6,000 years’ worth of material, and building on the work of Moses, David, and the Apostles. They aren’t just winging it, either.

 

[Kouyate42]

They’ve at least done the studying, though. Most people who are making up their own religion haven’t even cracked open a Bible, and have no idea what it actually says.

They’re likely in the minority, not the majority. Most literate people have likely at some point

What I’m saying is, we wouldn’t criticize people in other professions with similar education. What makes theologians “less than” other people with similar education in other fields?

I never said that, but it seems that whilst you can easily criticise an economist, scientist, journalist, or even a philosopher, and I can easily advance ‘A’ idea over ‘B’ in any other field other, if you try and do this with religion, people get all ‘offended’. ESPECIALLY with Christianity.

Anybody who did what Einstein did could have become the greatest physicist in the world - the point is, they didn’t. We believe Einstein, even though he overthrows almost everything we ever knew about physics, because we know he’s done the studying, and we haven’t.

Einstein was a rare example of a true genius, an exception that proves the rule.

If you don’t do the study, you don’t learn anything, simple as that. I obsessively studied music theory for some 3 years and by the end of it, I could hold quite advanced discussions with music Professors about the subject.

But we treat theologians as if they’re doing it in their spare time, and don’t know any more than we do about it.

I’ve never come across this attitude.

And how is this any different than what theologians do? Theologians are working with 6,000 years’ worth of material, and building on the work of Moses, David, and the Apostles. They aren’t just winging it, either.

Problem is that theologians have often failed to address critical issues of Scriptural study, including many apparent problems, and often fail to present anything in the way of evidence for their positions. They have also held often dogmatic views, often flying in the face of other evidence.

Also, there is an apparent unwillingness between theologians of different denominations of Christianity, and even different religions, to co-operate and concentrate on critical similarities between denominations/religions.

 

[jmcrae]

I’ve never come across this attitude.

I have - right here →

And how are the theologians better than asking someone at random?

Problem is that theologians have often failed to address critical issues of Scriptural study, including many apparent problems, and often fail to present anything in the way of evidence for their positions. They have also held often dogmatic views, often flying in the face of other evidence.

I am starting to wonder whether you have ever met any actual theologians. Certainly they deal with these problems, head on, all the time. Attend a few lectures at your local Catholic University or at your Diocese - you might learn something!

Also, there is an apparent unwillingness between theologians of different denominations of Christianity, and even different religions, to co-operate and concentrate on critical similarities between denominations/religions.

Are you actually paying attention, then? Because this has been going on for at least 100 years, if not longer. Theologians are always attending various ecumenical conferences.

 

[ebonykawai]

Even if that were the case, what makes Joe Blow, with his 60% high school diploma, or Jane Doe with her BFA in Basket Weaving, more qualified to know what’s true than theologians who’ve been studying the sacred texts their entire lives?

Even if they aren’t infallible, surely they’re smarter than us?

But no - and here’s the baffling part. We put our trust in all kinds of experts, and believe whatever they tell us without a shred of evidence on our part, simply because we know that they’ve done the studying, and we haven’t - nutrition, plumbing, biology, physics - you name it, we trust them, and we believe what they tell us, even though we know they’re not infallible.

Scientist and historians are always reversing themselves and coming up with new theories, yet we continue to trust them.

But as soon as it comes to religion, you could be the Pope, and you could have studied the sacred texts and the elements of the Holy Tradition full time since you were five years old, but some schmuck who couldn’t find Genesis Chapter 1 without a tab marker can just decide that you’re full of it, and invent his or her own religion that’s “more true” than what’s been handed down from the Apostles in a carefully monitored unbroken sequence?

Still doesn’t mean that these learned people don’t have ego. Human beings inflate, change, and ignore information quite often if there is something in it for them. The ego is very powerful. Learned people can lie just like anyone.

 

[Kouyate42]

I have - right here →

I am starting to wonder whether you have ever met any actual theologians. Certainly they deal with these problems, head on, all the time. Attend a few lectures at your local Catholic University or at your Diocese - you might learn something!

Actually I’ve met many theologians, including Catholic, Anglican, Jewish and Muslims. Asking a simple question like ‘did Jesus ever claim to be the Son of God’ led to them wrangling over the most obscure of theological texts or riding off on their pet steed Tangent.

It’s gotten to that point where I prefer to go and read for myself, something like Boenhoeffer, Aquinas, Kant or St. Augustine.

Are you actually paying attention, then? Because this has been going on for at least 100 years, if not longer. Theologians are always attending various ecumenical conferences.

This may be so in the US or Europe where Catholicism still has a big presence, but in my part of the UK certainly there is little in the way of discourse or any attempt to reconcile denominations/religious standpoints.

 

[fred_conty]

The Catholic official stance on abortion is correct, but tell that to Nancy Pelosi and some other Catholics. Sadly there are liberal Lutherans that are pro abortion too.

I know a friend who is a conservative Lutheran who may not be for abortion, but they are not necessarily against it in the first months. We also have catholics in the same box as well.

 

[jmcrae]

Still doesn’t mean that these learned people don’t have ego. Human beings inflate, change, and ignore information quite often if there is something in it for them. The ego is very powerful. Learned people can lie just like anyone.

It is the same in every field of endeavor.

It makes no sense to trust non-religious experts (who are way more likely to have a profit motive), but not religious experts (who have made vows of poverty and aren’t expecting to get rich from their work - they have no material motivation - there is nothing for them to gain by lying).

 

[Sixpence]

Ran across this in an article about religion and the Supreme Court.

"Today many U.S. Catholics and Jews think like Protestants. They believe that religion is something we choose as individuals rather than inherit as communities, and they view it primarily in terms of faith rather than practice. None of this comes from either the Catholic brain of Aquinas or the Jewish mind of Maimonides. The progenitor of this faith-based understanding of religion (who also happens to be the patron saint of religion rulings at the U.S. Supreme Court) is the American Protestant thinker William James, who famously defined religion as “the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation to whatever they may consider the divine.”

religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/19/do-6-catholics-3-jews-9-protestants/

I think we can begin to cautiously add a select few Muslims to the list of non-Catholics that are affected by the mind of William James, but they are admittedly few and far-between. An increasing number of Mormons appear to be thinking more like Protestants as well, although they tend to be situated further away from certain core groups that are more well and truly set apart.

Equally interesting, alongside the implications of accepting some or all of these principles, is the prospect of what it means to reject a paradigm that is not William James-ian whilst belonging to a faith-group that is implicitly or explicitly geared toward a pattern of thinking that is more characteristic of, let’s say, the brain of Aquinas.

I’m not quoting this article as if it were scripture, and the author himself is open about the fact that he switched his answer from 0 Protestants to 9 Protestants over a fairly short period of time. (The question was “What you get when you add 6 Catholics to 3 Jews?”) It’s an interesting look at one part of the thought process, though.

 

[eo_chibears]

Lots of have it your way religion these days

 

[Rence]

This is something I used to encounter all the time back in my days of campus evangelism, and even now when I’m talking to people about Islam.

I use the term ‘fast food theology’ or ‘Burger King religion’ to describe the situation where people have chosen to pick and choose their set of religious principles from the whole religion, whether this be from one religion or many.

But what I’m wondering is why it seems more and more common for people to pick and choose the bits of religion that suit

I truly believe it’s only because there are no ramifications for not following the rules. It was more difficult to ‘pick and choose’ when civil laws were based on Church laws, and the result of breaking those Church laws lead to imprisonment, torture and/or death. We don’t have that today, and people are free to choose what to believe and that directs their actions.

, and why it seems that those who stick to the whole of the deen (faith) are often ridiculed for doing so.

Unless they are pushing their beliefs on others, I don’t know why those who stick to the whole of their faith are often ridiculed for doing so.

To my mind it is pure arrogance. It seems to assume that God has somehow ‘made a mistake’ or that God does not know what is best for us, and so we replace His will with our own. This is purely my view though…

I believe that it’s because people who ‘pick and choose’ do so because they don’t have faith in the hierarchy, or the human element, of the Church. If one doesn’t trust the Church, one will be less inclined to take the leaders seriously, let alone submit to it’s authority. Some would regard that as a reflection on how they feel about God. However, I don’t believe that’s necessarily true because if one isn’t convinced that the Church is trustworthy, they’re not going to elevate it’s authority to the authority of God.

 

[Kouyate42]

I truly believe it’s only because there are no ramifications for not following the rules. It was more difficult to ‘pick and choose’ when civil laws were based on Church laws, and the result of breaking those Church laws lead to imprisonment, torture and/or death. We don’t have that today, and people are free to choose what to believe and that directs their actions.

Thing is that historically many people lived their faith even where there was no legal reason to compel them to do so. Historically in Muslim Spain there was no legal compulsion on Christians to either continue in their faith or convert to another religion. Still there continued to be a strong Christian and Catholic population.

Unless they are pushing their beliefs on others, I don’t know why those who stick to the whole of their faith are often ridiculed for doing so.

As I said some time earlier, it’s come to the point where everything in life can be customised, from our phone apps to clothes. The idea of ‘accept the whole or nothing’ is pretty much alien to the grand majority of people today.

I believe that it’s because people who ‘pick and choose’ do so because they don’t have faith in the hierarchy, or the human element, of the Church. If one doesn’t trust the Church, one will be less inclined to take the leaders seriously, let alone submit to it’s authority. Some would regard that as a reflection on how they feel about God. However, I don’t believe that’s necessarily true because if one isn’t convinced that the Church is trustworthy, they’re not going to elevate it’s authority to the authority of God.

My problem with this is that it is perfectly possible to find a believer who believes without believing in the Church hierarchy. Islam has no priestly class, and yet still maintains faith.

 

[BrotherOfMoses]

God has rules He has set for us to follow, which our religion is supposed to follow as well. Since God is unchangable, why should our religion change? Surely you can’t wake up one morning and say to yourself, “I feel like driving 120 miles per hour down the expressway because I feel like it”, right? Why? Because speed limits are rules we follow every day. Not following them can result in a ticket or jail. No picking and choosing. With God’s rules however, picking and choosing can result in something so many times worse.

Yes, I know there are many arguments on interpretation, but some denominations blatantly go against God’s teachings, such as allowing gays to marry, or openly support abortion. How does going against God’s rules please God?

Anyways, I’ll have a number one, with extra cheese and extra pickles, a Coke, and some God on the side…

 

[LiseTravis]

ego, pride, selfishness?

\In my case, all three- it was sin, pure & simple. Since I didn't want to give up my sinful lifestyle, and I didn't want to give up the whole of my faith, I had to rationalize away those things I couldn't deal with- and Satan was right there to help me do it! Praise God that He *never* gives up on us, no matter how afr we stray- the door is always open.