Ask a Lutheran anything ...

[Ana the Ist]

It's a philosophical term. Negative freedom is "freedom from...". Positive freedom is "freedom to..". Negative freedom alone doesn't provide us with much direction in life, or clues to how we should live to best make use of our limited time on this earth. It gives rise to anomie, alienation, depression, and all sorts of issues common in modernity.

Positive freedom, on the other hand, gives rise to competency and mastery, the sense that we can self-actualize. It requires self-knowledge, including respect for our inherent limitations.



Spiritually rich people find happiness no matter their material circumstances, they can face adversity in life and gain wisdom. They achieve self-mastery and live for something beyond their mundane desires.



God works through human hands.

You'll have to forgive my not knowing the concepts of positive and negative freedom, I don't read much philosophy. I think I understand what you mean...I don't agree, but I understand. To me, freedom is a somewhat nebulous concept. If I were to describe it as I understand it, I would say it primarily involves the ability to choose. A free man has choice...whereas a slave is compelled to obey.

"It gives rise to anomie, alienation, depression, and all sorts of issues common in modernity. "

That's an interesting opinion, but I certainly don't see what you're basing it on. I would think the exact opposite true.

"Spiritually rich people find happiness no matter their material circumstances, they can face adversity in life and gain wisdom. They achieve self-mastery and live for something beyond their mundane desires."

So, in your opinion, being spiritually rich doesn't require belief in god or any religion?

"God works through human hands."

This makes me wonder how you would know if something were an act of god or merely the act of a person.

 

[Resha Caner]

Here's a little tip, from me to you, on when to cite a statistical study. If that study is only appearing in an op-ed piece...chances are the information therein isn't exactly valuable.

This most recent post of yours has such a fractal nature to it, I don't even know where to begin. Some of the issues I've alluded to along the way include:

1. This thread was started to answer questions about Confessional Lutheranism. Is there a question about Confessional Lutheranism in all this?

2. You've obviously played some games here. So how am I to know when you're playing games and when you're not?

3. You were the first to note 2 Corinthians 6:14, not me. I've answered regarding the Lutheran view of what such "strings" mean. Is it the principle you disagree with or the specific instance?

4. I have not done an exhaustive study to determine if the balance of sociological study supports the cautions of the Bible in every case. Did you not detect maybe a hint of flippancy in my reply - a challenge to whether you're really approaching this discussion seriously? I'll tell you what my expectations were - that if you disagreed with the instance given in 2 Cor you would do more than take shots at my reference - that you would provide an alternative reference showing interfaith factors as irrelevant to the success of a marriage (along with a definition of what that "success" is).

Since I haven't dug into this before, all I did was Google it. The choices were legion. If you want another, here is one from the Washington Post:

Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they're failing fast too

That article mentions supporting studies we could dig into:
* American Religious Identification Survey of 2001
* 1993 study by Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago
* 2009 study by Margaret Vaaler, Christopher Ellison and Daniel Powers of the University of Texas at Austin

Are you suggesting we dig into those studies? Do you have others to offer? To me it all seems a diversion from the OP, which brings us to the last issue:

5. Are you trying to get at a different topic than the one I posted?

 

[Ana the Ist]

This most recent post of yours has such a fractal nature to it, I don't even know where to begin. Some of the issues I've alluded to along the way include:

1. This thread was started to answer questions about Confessional Lutheranism. Is there a question about Confessional Lutheranism in all this?

2. You've obviously played some games here. So how am I to know when you're playing games and when you're not?

3. You were the first to note 2 Corinthians 6:14, not me. I've answered regarding the Lutheran view of what such "strings" mean. Is it the principle you disagree with or the specific instance?

4. I have not done an exhaustive study to determine if the balance of sociological study supports the cautions of the Bible in every case. Did you not detect maybe a hint of flippancy in my reply - a challenge to whether you're really approaching this discussion seriously? I'll tell you what my expectations were - that if you disagreed with the instance given in 2 Cor you would do more than take shots at my reference - that you would provide an alternative reference showing interfaith factors as irrelevant to the success of a marriage (along with a definition of what that "success" is).

Since I haven't dug into this before, all I did was Google it. The choices were legion. If you want another, here is one from the Washington Post:

Interfaith marriages are rising fast, but they're failing fast too

That article mentions supporting studies we could dig into:
* American Religious Identification Survey of 2001
* 1993 study by Evelyn Lehrer, a professor of economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago
* 2009 study by Margaret Vaaler, Christopher Ellison and Daniel Powers of the University of Texas at Austin

Are you suggesting we dig into those studies? Do you have others to offer? To me it all seems a diversion from the OP, which brings us to the last issue:

5. Are you trying to get at a different topic than the one I posted?

Before I get into the interfaith marriage thing, I'll address your concerns about the direction our conversation has taken....

You made a point in your reply to someone's (Paradoxum) post that I didn't agree with. I explained why I didn't agree and our discussion led from there. I realize you created this thread to answer questions regarding Lutherans, but were you under some impression that regardless of what you wrote, no one should respond to it unless it led to another question about Lutherans?

Generally speaking, if someone makes a point and someone else disagrees with it...they say so. It's the natural flow of conversation you'll find on here. If, however, you were just looking for a simple Q&A session without any back and forth discussion...just say so, I have no problem leaving this thread. I certainly am not trying to derail it if that's your worry.

 

[PursueTheTruth]

It was stated somewhere that Luther was a conditionalist. Did he also support some annihilationism at some point?

 

[FireDragon76]

That's an interesting opinion, but I certainly don't see what you're basing it on. I would think the exact opposite true.

In Europe suicides and alcohol abuse are much higher in less-religious countries, primarily in northern Europe. This is something sociologists have noted for over a century.

So, in your opinion, being spiritually rich doesn't require belief in god or any religion?

I don't think it's possible to not be spiritually impoverished when one subscribes to a materialistic worldview. The danger of nihilism is too great when ones worldview ultimately leaves no room for immaterial values. Most atheists do subscribe to some kind of materialism (matter is all that is ultimately real).

 

[Resha Caner]

You made a point in your reply to someone's (Paradoxum) post that I didn't agree with. I explained why I didn't agree and our discussion led from there. I realize you created this thread to answer questions regarding Lutherans, but were you under some impression that regardless of what you wrote, no one should respond to it unless it led to another question about Lutherans?

Not exactly. I would prefer the discussion center around Lutherans, but if interfaith marriage is a particular interest of yours and the conversation goes that direction, I'm fine with that. However, if interfaith marriage was just the first example that popped into your head, I'd rather not go that direction.

Or, if the "strings" issue interests you, we can discuss that more rather than digging into the details of interfaith marriage. I would kind of like to know what topic it is that piques your curiosity. I'd rather not debate something neither of us is interested in, which is how it feels at the moment.

Because of that, it started to feel like a semantic game. You made a point and I tried to quickly say, "Yeah, OK, now let's move on," but that was not the result. Rather, some silly minor point is dominating the conversation. If I made a mistake, it was that addressing a point quickly sometimes requires great care in the chosen words, and I was probably a bit careless.

I was curious to see how Paradoxum would respond to my explanation, but she has not, and it may be due to this digression.

 

[Resha Caner]

It was stated somewhere that Luther was a conditionalist. Did he also support some annihilationism at some point?

Like everyone else, Luther's views matured over time. I'll emphasize again that Lutherans do not follow in lockstep with everything Luther said. He is not considered an infallible prophet. As people wrestle with understanding the Word, their views may change. That's not a problem.

Luther toyed with the idea of "soul sleep" early on, but he was largely unconcerned with eschatology and in later writings he rejected some of the silly debates that arise over it. So, I would not say he was a conditionalist. Rather, we believe verses such as Ecc 12:7, John 11:11, 1 Thes 4:15, Rev 14:13 are speaking truth, but whether metaphorically or literally is somewhat vague. I have my personal speculations about how it all fits together, but they are just that - speculations. The same goes for annihilationism.

The soft spot in my heart likes the ideas of annihilationism and reconcilliationism, but I don't see the Bible supporting it. All I know is that God is just (2 Thes 1:6) and gracious (Psalm 145:8). So, speculating on what specific sentence people will receive is similar to gossiping about what will happen to Pistorius. Our speculations won't change whatever sentence the judge hands down.

 

[PursueTheTruth]

The soft spot in my heart likes the ideas of annihilationism and reconcilliationism, but I don't see the Bible supporting it. All I know is that God is just (2 Thes 1:6) and gracious (Psalm 145:8). So, speculating on what specific sentence people will receive is similar to gossiping about what will happen to Pistorius. Our speculations won't change whatever sentence the judge hands down.

Does not matter for you and many but the few who cannot get past it?

nvm, not really looking for an answer on that.

Thank you for your reply. It was very informational.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not exactly. I would prefer the discussion center around Lutherans, but if interfaith marriage is a particular interest of yours and the conversation goes that direction, I'm fine with that. However, if interfaith marriage was just the first example that popped into your head, I'd rather not go that direction.

Or, if the "strings" issue interests you, we can discuss that more rather than digging into the details of interfaith marriage. I would kind of like to know what topic it is that piques your curiosity. I'd rather not debate something neither of us is interested in, which is how it feels at the moment.

Because of that, it started to feel like a semantic game. You made a point and I tried to quickly say, "Yeah, OK, now let's move on," but that was not the result. Rather, some silly minor point is dominating the conversation. If I made a mistake, it was that addressing a point quickly sometimes requires great care in the chosen words, and I was probably a bit careless.

I was curious to see how Paradoxum would respond to my explanation, but she has not, and it may be due to this digression.

We don't really have to dig into whether or not interfaith marriage is "right" or "wrong" at all. Whether it is or isn't doesn't change the point I was making. To answer your question, it was the first thing that popped into my head. It could've just as easily have been "abortion is evil" or "honor thy mother and father" etc etc etc.

The point was that these are the "strings" I referred to when I said that the bible comes with "strings attached". These strings are meant to tell you something about what you should believe or how you should act. Hypothetically speaking, they could all be true and it wouldn't change the fact that they're strings.

I wouldn't worry about Para lol. I can't recall her ever being so timid as to shy away from a conversation just because someone responded to a post that was directed at her.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In Europe suicides and alcohol abuse are much higher in less-religious countries, primarily in northern Europe. This is something sociologists have noted for over a century.



I don't think it's possible to not be spiritually impoverished when one subscribes to a materialistic worldview. The danger of nihilism is too great when ones worldview ultimately leaves no room for immaterial values. Most atheists do subscribe to some kind of materialism (matter is all that is ultimately real).

I'm not sure which nations you're thinking of, but if you wanted to do a two nation comparison, why not go with Norway and the USA? Norwegians have a significantly higher percentage of non-religious and atheists (30% last I checked). Norwegians also have significantly less suicides than the United States and (though I doubt you'll believe this) Norwegians also have a greater percentage of people who consider themselves "happy" with their lives than the US. I promise you that everything I've just stated is true and if you care to look, you'll find the same results I just told you. If it's really too much trouble to look up on your own, say the word and I'll provide links backing up all I just claimed.

Even without all the statistical information, what you're claiming just seems counter-intuitive.Take prison for example. Prisoners have few freedoms, but they are almost exclusively in your "positive freedoms" category. Prisoners have their freedoms spelled out for them every day...they aren't left wondering at all what they should and should not be doing. Yet, in spite of all this positive freedom, prison seems like a very miserable place to be that's full of angry, depressed, miserable people.

According to your view of freedom though, they should be glad they have their options spelled out for them and not have to worry about making their own choices. It should seem like a great blessing to them, shouldn't it?

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure which nations you're thinking of, but if you wanted to do a two nation comparison, why not go with Norway and the USA? Norwegians have a significantly higher percentage of non-religious and atheists (30% last I checked).

I was referencing the sociologist Emile Durkheim. He noted that there is a difference in suicide rates across Europe, he attributed the difference to religiosity. Durkheim would probably have said the US has a great deal of anomie, we are even more individualistic than Norway. While we are more privately religious, it is arguable that it has little influence on our public life, unlike say, Italy or Spain in the 19th century. America's operative narrative is capitalism and consumerism- all of which intensify both alienation and anomie.

Italy's suicide rate is almost half that of Norway. Though Italy is a lot more secular than it once ways, it's still a much more publicly religious country than Norway. Spain is in a similar place, again Durkheim's observation still seems true today.

.Take prison for example. Prisoners have few freedoms, but they are almost exclusively in your "positive freedoms" category. Prisoners have their freedoms spelled out for them every day...they aren't left wondering at all what they should and should not be doing. Yet, in spite of all this positive freedom, prison seems like a very miserable place to be that's full of angry, depressed, miserable people.

I don't see it as comparable. Simply put, they are miserable because they are prisoners, not because there are rules. Prisoners are putatively in prison because they lead disordered, deviant lives without self-control. A person like that might naturally chafe at rules, but that doesn't mean all people would, or even most people.

There are people that live highly regimented lives that are happy, on the other hand. Monasteries are good examples. Schoolchildren do not necessarily have miserable lives, either.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I was referencing the sociologist Emile Durkheim. He noted that there is a difference in suicide rates across Europe, he attributed the difference to religiosity. Durkheim would probably have said the US has a great deal of anomie, we are even more individualistic than Norway. While we are more privately religious, it is arguable that it has little influence on our public life, unlike say, Italy or Spain in the 19th century. America's operative narrative is capitalism and consumerism- all of which intensify both alienation and anomie.

Italy's suicide rate is almost half that of Norway. Though Italy is a lot more secular than it once ways, it's still a much more publicly religious country than Norway. Spain is in a similar place, again Durkheim's observation still seems true today.




I don't see it as comparable. Simply put, they are miserable because they are prisoners, not because there are rules. Prisoners are putatively in prison because they lead disordered, deviant lives without self-control. A person like that might naturally chafe at rules, but that doesn't mean all people would, or even most people.

There are people that live highly regimented lives that are happy, on the other hand. Monasteries are good examples. Schoolchildren do not necessarily have miserable lives, either.

I had to look up some information on Emile to be able to respond to this post. I had heard the name Durkheim before, but I couldn't place it...and for good reason. Emile hasn't been alive for about a century now. Couldn't you find a researcher who's I little bit more contemporary? I know you're probably thinking that the fact that his work is so old doesn't make it any more or less true...and you'd be right. Just because a piece of research is old doesn't mean the results are any less valid. However, the age of the research in this case does create a few problems that do make his results invalid. I'll gladly explain two of those problems for you right now....

1. Sociology wasn't actually a field of study back in his time. Emile spent much of his life trying to get sociology accepted as a field of study. This fact alone could taint his results with bias because he has a motive other than simply "truth" guiding his "research". For example, if he's appealing to the heads of his university to include sociology as a field of study and he knows these men to be devout christians...do you think that might "taint" his "research" with a little bias against atheists if he thought it might help his cause? You betcha. Furthermore, I'm not sure what his "research methods" actually were. Sociologists have spent the last century refining many many aspects of reaching valid conclusions about human behavior based upon statistical research. I'd be very surprised if Emile's conclusions weren't based entirely upon hypothetical theories which he was unable to produce any real statistical data for at all.

2. Even if Emile were able to acquire the correct sample sizes, come up with the mathematical formulae necessary for statistical research, and somehow factor out all spurious variables which would taint the results....you're still speaking about a world that existed over 100 years ago! Atheists simply weren't accepted in society in any way even remotely resembling the way they are now! I think it's fair to say that any group of people who share a similar belief that they are actively persecuted for by the culture and society they live in are far more likely to commit suicide than those who aren't persecuted...regardless of what that belief is.

I understand you're inclined to believe research results that confirm your own personal biases, but I'm afraid the 100+ year old "alleged" conclusions of a biased man in a brand new field of study don't exactly carry a lot of weight with modern sociologists.

I understand that you don't quite like the prison example I gave because of the "negative" aspects of the prison environment. That's fair. What about the US military then? Their suicide rate is actually higher than the civilian suicide rate in the US. That means that it far exceeds that of a group of atheists like Norway. Again, if "positive freedoms" led to a happier, more fulfilling life...they should have a lower suicide rate than a large group of atheists like Norway. At the very least, they should have a lower rate than the US civilian population...but they don't. Quite honestly, whenever I think of places that would have more positive freedoms than negative freedoms...it's basically a list of places I'd rather not be. Prison, the military, k-12th grade....etc etc. Yet places where my negative freedoms are abundant...like home, or on vacation...are basically the places I want to be the most. I think most people would agree.

 

[FireDragon76]

Emile Durkheim actually set out to just find out why there were more suicides in Northern Europe, but he eventually moved on to studying secularism's contribution to anomie. His insights still have far-reaching applications today, and sociologists still talk about his ideas. He basically discovered that in more secular countries, countries with a great deal of religious pluralism or where religion played less role in public life, there were more suicides than in countries where religion was normative and a part of every-day life (for instance in Spain or Italy at the time). He didn't set out to bash atheism (which was rare in his day as you point out), but secularism was already a trend, even among Christians in Europe.

By definition, atheists are secular, but not all secularists are atheists. Some liberal Christians, influenced by modernism at the time of Durkheim saw a diminishing role for religion in public life. And Protestantism itself has arguable claims to being a kind of modernism, since it tended to reject external authority over the individual.

You need to read more about positive freedom on your own, you are misunderstanding the meaning. A person who lives in a society where he is free from the government preventing him from doing whatever he wants doesn't necessarily have the positive freedom to actualize those goals, for instance. perhaps due to many things- lack of money, education, or perhaps he has character flaws that prevents the actualization of goals. That person has a great deal of negative freedom, but in reality his positive freedom is limited by internal and external factors. Religious codes do indeed limit our negative freedoms, our freedoms to be left alone, to do our own thing. However, they do not necessarily take away our positive freedoms, since many of those negative freedoms we have, we cannot realistically actualize.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Emile Durkheim actually set out to just find out why there were more suicides in Northern Europe, but he eventually moved on to studying secularism's contribution to anomie. His insights still have far-reaching applications today, and sociologists still talk about his ideas. He basically discovered that in more secular countries, countries with a great deal of religious pluralism or where religion played less role in public life, there were more suicides than in countries where religion was normative and a part of every-day life (for instance in Spain or Italy at the time). He didn't set out to bash atheism (which was rare in his day as you point out), but secularism was already a trend, even among Christians in Europe.

By definition, atheists are secular, but not all secularists are atheists. Some liberal Christians, influenced by modernism at the time of Durkheim saw a diminishing role for religion in public life. And Protestantism itself has arguable claims to being a kind of modernism, since it tended to reject external authority over the individual.

You need to read more about positive freedom on your own, you are misunderstanding the meaning. A person who lives in a society where he is free from the government preventing him from doing whatever he wants doesn't necessarily have the positive freedom to actualize those goals, for instance. perhaps due to many things- lack of money, education, or perhaps he has character flaws that prevents the actualization of goals. That person has a great deal of negative freedom, but in reality his positive freedom is limited by internal and external factors. Religious codes do indeed limit our negative freedoms, our freedoms to be left alone, to do our own thing. However, they do not necessarily take away our positive freedoms, since many of those negative freedoms we have, we cannot realistically actualize.

"He basically discovered that in more secular countries, countries with a great deal of religious pluralism or where religion played less role in public life, there were more suicides than in countries where religion was normative and a part of every-day life (for instance in Spain or Italy at the time). "

How did he do this? I think you either missed the point I was making or just didn't read my post at all....

The Instituto De Nacional Estadistica Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. (Spanish Statistical Office) which keeps track of all the national statistics for Spain only started keeping track of suicides in 1989. How do you propose Emile got the data for the research you're proposing he did?