BS: religious question

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 06:09 PM

Vannesa, I'm not putting this in to come back at you; I was looking it up after Brucie tossed in his verse (which I get too much kick out of to sit and argue about the viewpoint). This has been in an old notebook since I was in college in Arkansas circa 1968:

Institution

Here lies God;
He is, and evermore shall be, alive;
Let none say otherwise;
We keep Him here,
In a clean and orderly padded cell,
Where he can do nothing we cannot predict.
If you will come to us,
According to the form which we prescribe,
We will show you the window
Through which you may talk to Him.
Before you go -
We recommend you take along this brief
Of questions that are very good to ask of Him,
And some of those, which we fear might offend,
That you should not.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 06:44 PM

If God showed up today, He'd be locked up for sure. However, I have the sneaking suspicion that He's coming back, and He is going to be really POed at what we have done to the house in His absence. IMO, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 06:50 PM

Ake - Thank you! Your response on my behalf gave me a damn good guffaw! :-))) Perfectly true, too!

Fprince - If we're going to assume some common ground, we'd better make some effort to define what it is. I believe that Jesus was a historical entity. Myself, I believe that he was an obscure prophet of an obscure sect (the Essenes), whose teachings (nothing much original) progressively gained followers, mostly through a process of political expediency & 'borrowing' (i.e. straight theft) of various pagan (Roman/Celtic/Germanic) practices.

I must, however, confess, to a degree of ignorance concerning the early growth of christianity (i.e. over the first few centuries within the Roman Empire). Therefore, I admit that I'm more than a little unclear as to how christianity gained enough of a foundation to be sending out missionaries from the the 4thC CE onwards, though I'm pretty bloody sure what went on thereafter (power politics & intolerance, mostly).

I believe Jesus was a historically verifiable man. I do not believe he was "The Son of God", nor do I believe that the monotheist concept of an all powerful god is logically sustainable. If He is what He claims to be, He's made a monumental cock-up in trying to explain it to me, at the least, & to the rest of mankind, as far as I can tell, from all that I see of current & past history.

What Jesus the Man (read Barbara Thiering some time, she has an interesting take on him, & she is a believer!) would make of me... {shrug} He seems to me, from what little I can see of him, to be not a bad sort, but rather intolerant & monomaniacal (in that there is only "his" way). I suspect we would not get on, as such, but respect each other's honesty & integrity (I'd probably call him a few bad words & he'd get upset, cos he seems a bit uptight, but no real damage done, unless he's as fanatical as some of his followers have been... ;-) ).

In direct reply to your perfectly reasonable "nit", I will repay any attack with interest, as I see fit. Mindless abuse just isn't worth bothering with, & unless I'm feeling particularly evil, I won't bother responding at all. But any sort of attempt at a rational point, I'm willing to meet up to a point. The point being "I believe because I think...". People who "think because they believe..." usually give themselves away very, very quickly, & aren't worth arguing with because they never read/listen to your argument. Religion, politics, sex, guns, you name it, a fanatic is a loony *ahem* fanatic, whatever their preferred creed. Debate is pointless, wasted effort.

I respect anyone who can demonstrate that what they believe is based on what they think, what they have learnt, what they can see from the world around them (this includes, frex, Bobert, which some Catters might find surprising), regardless of whether I agree with them or not (frex, Bobert, often! ;-) ). After all, if I believe what I believe because that is where the data available has led me, who am I to condemen those who draw different conclusions? (Unless they're idiots, of course! ;-) ) I have very little time for anyone who fits their facts around their beliefs. The truly scary thing about humanity is the number of people who don't/can't/won't see that they are guilty of the latter fault.

I respond to attacks in kind. If someone attacks me in words I will respond (if I care to do so) in kind. If someone throws a punch, I'll flatten them. I don't believe in turning the other cheek so that it can be hit too! You're right, in that it often doesn't achieve a great deal. On the other hand, if I'm in the mood to respond... it at least relieves my feelings & I do enjoy the satisfaction of posting a well-ordered argument, even if the muppet on the other side isn't equipped to appreciate it! ;-)

Hope this answers your question.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:35 AM

Raedwulf...can I please ask what you have done at times in your life when you have been at rock bottom!!! when all around you seems to be against you?. What I'm asking is "Did you ever pray to God" when things weren't right in your life?
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 08:27 AM

There are lots of smart ways to respond to a punch, and Qi Gong can teach you several of them. They don't necessarily result in the other person being flattened (although they can), but they do result in his punch doing you absolutely no damage whatsoever and throwing him right off balance at the same time. After a short while he gets the idea that he'd better not try punching you again. This is a smart way of turning the other cheek when it comes to punches. :-) And it doesn't involve getting angry or hating the other person. Yet it's extremely effective.

The "turning the other cheek" passage in Jesus' teachings was a metaphor for an inner action, not an outer one. A psychological movement rather than a physical one.

When you get angry or hateful you have put yourself in a toxic emotional condition, and it's not good for you or anyone else. When you remain calm but take an effective defensive action, you are not in a toxic emotional condition.

Angry people go beyond mere defence. They go on the attack and attempt to hurt, to damage, to humiliate, to destroy. This is not helpful to anyone, and it's downright ugly.

Turning the other cheek means continuing to love and respect other beings, regardless of their behaviour...but it does NOT mean surrendering to their bad behaviour and letting them get away with it.

As for Jesus being "the Son of God", everyone is the Son or Daughter of God. Everyone. And he was demonstrating that in no uncertain terms and stating it, but his followers didn't get it. They turned him into an idol. He also called himself the Son of Man. Everyone is that too. If you were born into this World, you are the Son or Daughter of Man, and of God.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 12:11 PM

Hi *Laura*,

"In Hitch-Hiker's guide to the galaxy it argues that the very act of god proving himself would prove he doens't exist - becasue he can't exist without faith and if people need proof he exists then they don't have faith. So by proving he existed he would, in fact, be proving he doesn't exist."

If some have faith, then God has to exist for them. Proof is not important. And they believe God doesn't have to prove that he/she exists.

Proof is ambiguous here because there is no scientific proof available at the moment for the existence of God, Creation or any religious hypothesis.
But when faith exists, it is metaphysical non-empirical scientific proof.

Therefore, God exists for some and not for others.

The famous argument that says (Aquinas?) that if you can conceive of a God, this is proof of his/her existence. It can be turned inside out. If you can conceive of a world without god, this is proof of a denial of his/her existence.

It comes down to faith.

A bigger question that is interesting to me is how does religion impact on society as a useful or destructive force?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 01:01 PM

My take is the same as L.H.as to the "Son of God" factor, and as to the claims to being the exclusive "way" which I suspect were filtered back into the stories of Jesus by later followers. He may have been Essene; if not a "full member", quite likely he had some association there, as it seems at least very plausible that John the Baptist was Essene. About the only head-on point where I see "J.C. and me" having to respectfully disagree with you (Raedwulf) is monotheism itself. I can't swear that that doesn't involve some degree of "thinking what I believe"; there is some pretty deep conditioning here. But grant me that I have no intention of taking sword in hand and setting out to save everyone from believing other than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah2
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 06:50 PM

I'm another Germanic Pagan (Waes Hael Readwulf!) For me Paganism is primarily about worshipping the Earth as itself, and not greedily demanding MORE - more life, more than nature supplies. However to get back to the thread topic, one thing I admire about the Greek, Roman and Northern gods is there was no pretense that they were all sweetness and light - Christians always talk about the immoral or violent episodes in Pagan mythologies as negatives, but to me they are positives, in that they provide a much more realistic explanation for 'shit happening' than the all-good omniscient god who still lets shit happen.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: frogprince
Date: 15 Nov 04 - 07:15 PM

Christians have no business denouncing the character of pagan myths, particularly fundamentalist Christians. The Israelites bought the idea that God had specifically ordered genocide against the inhabitants of the land promised to them. Fundamentalist Christians to this day say that they were right; I have heard a fundamentalist preacher denounce a more liberal minister precisely because the liberal would not take that literally. But I have never encountered a modern fundamentalist who would condone genocide in our time. They are just too programmed, with thought processes too truncated, to hear what they are saying themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 03:21 PM

Why did God promise the Jews Israel if there were people there already and he knew what was going to happen?

I'm just curious by the way - not accusing or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 04:45 PM

Laura, as I would read it, God was willing to kick out or kill the indigenes to make room for the his chosen people. God (at least in those days) was hard, hard, hard!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:39 PM

one of the main competitors to Christianity in Rome was Mithras, whose offshoots were all over the area in the few hundred years before & after Christ...Mithras was very popular in the army.

Lots of factors led to Christianity getting a foothold, but if the Emperor Constantine had not had a 'vision', and decreed that worship be switched from the 'old' gods, it is likely that the Christians would be just a historical blip. After a few decades of 'visibility', they were pretty well established, and had a good story and system which was more adaptable and had more interesting 'promises' than Mithras or Jupiter.....folks do like the idea of eternal life, and Mithras didn't allow women to join, if I remember right.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 16 Nov 04 - 10:43 PM

. . . but Constantine himself hedged his bets. He didn't convert to Christianity until very near his death. Coins of the time show two symbols: one a cross and the other the sun.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 06:33 AM

Gsilver - Yes, I've been rock-bottom, no I didn't pray to God (not even any of mine). I could make a very lengthy explanation of the thinking, but I sometimes get criticised for going on & on & on, so I'll try to be brief & hope you can read between the lines!

If I have to dump all my problems at the feet of some higher agency & expect them to fix everything for me, I'm worse than useless. This doesn't mean that I can't, or won't seek advice or comfort from my equals (i.e. other people), but the idea of running to God & begging... It's up to me to deal with things that bother me. No-one else has a magic wand to wave, & no-one else can solve things for me. In the meanwhile, you plough on the best you can, until you work the thing out. Been there, done it, wasn't pleasant, but I'm probably the better for it! Hope this is an adequate answer!

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:02 AM

Hawk - I don't disagree with your Qi Gong analogy at all, but may I extend it a little further? In the matter of deflecting the incoming blow... If you do it right, you deflect the incoming blow before it's ever thrown, before you get to DefCon 1 & physical violence ensues.

I've only ever once been in a genuine fight in my entire adult life (a loooong time ago), & I got clobbered & razored without throwing a blow because I was trying to be conciliatory & someone else was looking for a fight! A couple of times, I've legged it (the best way of avoiding a fight is not being there at all, & I'm quick on my feet!).

But if someone places me in a position where I have no choice as to violence, I want to put them down ASAP. Particularly since, in the modern world, a fight usually includes bottles, glasses, knives, his mates, yours... The faster & easier (and, sometimes & if necessary, more viciously) you put someone down the less likely there is to be any further violence.

Lastly, many people make the mistake of trying not to get hurt in a fight. As, I think, the vast majority who have had anything to do with fighting will tell you, this is the worst mistake you can make. If you get involved in a physical confrontation, assume that you will get hurt. Then, it's no surprise when you do (& if you don't, it's a nice bonus), & much easier to deal with. The natural corollary of this is make sure you 'hurt' your opponent worse i.e. not necessarily in a physical sense, but render them hors de combat in the shortest possible time.

I think, Hawk, I'm not telling you anything you don't know. We pretty much agree on the theory, just vary a little on the practical application! Anger & hate have nothing to do with it, & I said nothing about either. As you yourself said, ...it does NOT mean surrendering to their bad behaviour and letting them get away with it. If someone tries physical violence & get hurt they're likely to think twice before offering the same again...

R

P.S. As to "Son of Man", not for much longer if feminists & geneticists have anything to do with it!! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: wysiwyg
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:09 AM

... by proving he existed he would, in fact, be proving he doesn't exist...

That's just sloppy logic. If he proved he existed (some say he has, and many times), he'd either be helping people cultivate faith, or he'd be proving not that he doesn't exist, but that people tend to have insufficient faith.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 07:24 AM

fprince - I should probably point out that I make a distinction between christianity & christers. I've several good friends who are very committed christers. One, who I spent yesterday evening with, devoutly believes in the "4,500 years old, no dinosaurs" business, & he's an engineer building missiles for the British defence establishment! Naturally I take the piss out of him, you have to! ;-) He goes "Yah! Boo! Sucks! What do you know?!" in return. As you have to! :-)

But when you look at it from the dogmatic, theological perspective, it has to be "save them from themselves". The Jehovah's Witness p-o-v, from a logical (internally logical!) standpoint, is actually quite correct. I dunno about "at sword-point" (to paraphrase a little), that's been obsolete for most of the major denominations for some time. But there are those fanatics (not denominations, necessarily, but certainly the sort of individual who will e.g. shoot abortion doctors) for whom it is still true. An awful lot of people have died in the name of religion, the vast majority in the name of monotheist religions who, inevitably, must all worship the same god...

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:06 AM

A certain respected Christian theologian / author I've been corresponding with put this claim to me yesterday. I'm wondering if and how any of you folk might respond to it!

daylia, I do understand that you've had a bad experience of organized religion, but don't you think it a stretch to use your experience to characterize the historical influence of organized religion? Surely you know what the pagan, Mediterranean/European world was like before Christianity spread? Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

Is it just me, or is this line of thought really as misguided as it seems? I'd appreciate any input, especially from any of you historically-minded 'Catters.

daylia

PS I thought this fit right in with your topic here, *Laura*, and that you might find it any ensuing discussion informative too ... but if you'd rather, please just say the word and I'll start a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:09 AM

Wæs Hæl Ooh-Aah2! My take is more or less elitist. What was left to us is largely drawn from the beliefs of the Vikings, who were both rather martial & had rather a fatalistic/gloomy outlook (there is, frex, evidence that the early Englisc had no concept equivalent to the Viking Ragnarok).

Our gods expect us to be the best we can (which is what I mean by being elitist - only the best is good enough). The sword-dead, go to Valhalla, Odin's hall. Most of the rest go to Bilskirnir, Thor's hall, or to one of the other 'lesser' gods/goddesses. The straw-dead & suicides go to Hel.

In the modern world, where violence is not (thankfully!) an accepted part of life, one must inevitably re-interpret somewhat (or go on a killing spree... ;-) ). So, to me, the sword-dead are the most glorious dead, those who have made the best of their lives, fulfilled their potential. In a society that venerates warriors, this is what the great warriors/chiefs are, no?

Most of the rest go to a less prestigious part of heaven, welcomed & respected, but not the creme de la creme. The straw-dead (literally, those who died in bed) I take to be those who died helpless (not ill - see next!), who failed themselves & those around them. Suicide I have always regarded as cowardice - running away from your problems - & selfishness - not caring about the effect your actions will have on others around you.

So the message is about striving to do as well as you can, in whatever way you choose, throughout your life, bearing in mind due respect for those & the world around you, (being the best murderer you can is NOT a route to Valhalla!). *Not* being a git for most of your life & apologising in the last 10 minutes, which sometimes seems to have been the case with... other faiths... ;-)

It's not something I think about day-to-day. I don't "go to church" every sunday, I rarely perform any sort of blot, ritual, or ceremony. It's something that's rooted in the way I try to to live all of the time. Not occasional lip-service, but every minute of every day. No asking for forgiveness, or trying to blame my mistakes on a Satan, but accepting my own responsibility for my actions & continuing to strive for the best that I can be.

Gsilver - inadvertantly this is probably a very good window on the 'between the lines' I asked you to see earlier!

And, if anyone is wondering, I doubt I will achieve Valhalla, but I'm damn sure that Hel will not be my lot either!

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:51 AM

Christians have no business denouncing the character of pagan myths, particularly fundamentalist Christians. The Israelites bought the idea that God had specifically ordered genocide against the inhabitants of the land promised to them. Fundamentalist Christians to this day say that they were right; I have heard a fundamentalist preacher denounce a more liberal minister precisely because the liberal would not take that literally. But I have never encountered a modern fundamentalist who would condone genocide in our time. They are just too programmed, with thought processes too truncated, to hear what they are saying themselves.

And yet, funnily enough, until Hitler made anti-semitism entirely unacceptable (Note: I am not explicitly or implicitly defending anti-semitism by that remark! I condemn it utterly.), it was often a perfectly acceptable, & sometimes positively encouraged, part of christer dogma, both protestant & catholic!

There is a major divide between the eye-for-an-eye god/jehovah of the old testament, & the christer new testament. This sudden metamorphosis is yet another reason why I am somewhat suspicious of the fair-weather changes to christianity.

As Bill & brucie both point out, Mithras was a major competitor to early christianity. So much so, that a lot of the early ritual was adapted (i.e. stolen) from other faiths (especially Mithraism). In fact, most of the important christer festivals aren't theirs at all (vice Yule/Xmas), but pagan festivals in christer clothes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Amos
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 08:52 AM

Virtually every positive development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.


That is a most inaccurate and misestimated assertion. If your correspondent is capable of articulating specifics instead of over inflated generalities, he might have something of interest to say. It is true that the Churches of the Middle Ages were largely responsible for preserving knowledge through the centuries. That doesn't have much to do with Judeo Christian teachings as related tot he religion, though.

ANd let us not leave the books unbalanced by ignoring such upstanding contributions as the burning of Jeanne d'Arc, the barbarities of the Crusades, the ruination of Polynesia, the raising up of Torquemade, the prosecutions and witch burnings of Massachusetts... a long, gruesome, bloody list.

A

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 09:02 AM

daylia - I'd disagree, but then I suspect I've already displayed my biases sufficiently for my arguments to be predicted! Not least, it could be said that

Virtually every negative development in modern society has its roots in Judeo-Christian teaching.

if only because, after 1500 years of stifling, throttling, intolerant, christer dogma, the judeo-christer teachings are so all-pervasive! Balance the negative against the positive, just don't ask someone biased (such as a christer or me! ;-) ) to judge the case!! *BG*

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 12:41 PM

Amos, Raedwulf - your points are very well taken, thank you! :-) I really don't think there's much point in trying to correct this person's ideas, though. Even though he's over fifty, his approach reminds me of my kids when they were teens - hey, even myself as a teen.

He knows it all already *sigh*

Perhaps this is the "adolescent stage" of spiritual development?

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 21 Nov 04 - 02:12 PM

*shrug* I know a few people that have never passed fourteen years old & never will. There is something to be said for unshakeable certainty (just don't ask me, cos it's not repeatable in polite company OR Mudcat! ;-) ).