 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religion, which is the best one?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 12 Oct 13 - 02:46 PM When I want to give a fuck Michael and Keith, you'll be the first to know. I only have contempt for one person I know on the basis of their Christianity. They know my feelings too. That's real people by the way. Not we pretend ones. If churches feel the way you say, they'd insist on people not sniggering or having their fingers crossed when they promise to love Jesus or whatever. But the double bluff is they generally don't care one way or the other. Why? Because people get a tradition upheld and churches pretend they are still relevant to rational society. We all win! Even the ones who use their so called Christianity as a tool. Eh Keith? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 12 Oct 13 - 03:38 PM If you think I am going to pimp for you, you nasty little organism Musket... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket being blasé Date: 13 Oct 13 - 04:13 AM Nothing nasty about orgasms Michael. Even wankers need an eventual aim eh? Why do you not see churches as public utility? Boutique Christians do! Why not rational people also? You'll have to explain pimping for me. Decent upbringing you see. I know nothing of your world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Oct 13 - 05:13 AM But you said you'd let me know when you wanted to give a fuck. I am just asking - why? Can't you make your own arrangements? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 13 Oct 13 - 06:26 AM BTW, do you really not know the difference between an organism and an orgasm? Or can't you read? Or if, as I suspect, it was meant as some sort of joke, then I can honestly aver that I have never come across a more feeble one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 13 Oct 13 - 07:11 AM Whilst you are in one of your weird moods it isn't the right time to tell a little story but I shall anyway. In my recent past as a health regulator I wrote and had published many Dept of Health reports on the ability of NHS trusts to monitor and act upon alert organisms. My mental block, Freudian as it may sound, has always been that I type orgasm instead and never pick it up when proof reading it. It once got past me, the QA peer review, publications edit etc and was published on the Healthcare Commission website how the board of a particular trust monitored orgasms. In a similar way, as mortality rates at a hospital trust fell after a new chief executive came in and made a few changes, the local paper either accidentally or otherwise reported that morality rates had reduced. Hence I couldn't resist confusing orgasm with organism. Same as you confuse people who claim to be Christians without obeying Christian rules with normal people who want the public service the Church has happily provided over the years. You think the former worthy of respect but the latter otherwise. Shame on you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:03 AM Musket, if you answered my question of 12 Oct 13 - 04:46 AM, you would finally write something that I find really interesting. MtheGM, never feed 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:07 AM Christian rules? Enlighten us Musket. And, which ones are we breaking? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST Date: 13 Oct 13 - 09:38 AM Joe O Like many in Mudcat, I have little recent and direct experience with the RC church, beyond research and perspectives I read and hear from Others, in the media, on the web and from my RC neighbours and family members. I try and fine tune my experience and logic with what I learn from others to form a picture of current affairs. You frequently remind us that you have much direct experience with a RC perspective on religion and have ample knowledge from your local involvement.This certainly ppsitions you well to provide finer details that few of us would have (thanks for thisn as it does contribute much to many. Christian -related discussions (most that I don't participate in much). However, sometimes being "too close" distorts the broader view and perspective - much like getting an accurate picture of the Sun and beyond, if you are positioned too close to it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket using simple language Date: 13 Oct 13 - 10:11 AM Ok Grishka. Max can't afford to run a website where I can use pictorial rather than scriptive posts, otherwise I would do. I have a programme that suggests pictorial and easy read, as I used to write reports on residential facilities for health related challenged people... So whilst I answered your question before you asked it, I shall humour you and repeat my stance. I don't know what a humanist wedding would be like? Not being a member of their club, it wouldn't feel right anyway. I married once in a church and once in a hotel. Both were good, both had Bach. I would have liked a church wedding for the second time, but apparently, picking and choosing Christianity is only allowed if you actually call yourself a Christian, even if you don't believe it. Me? I prefer to be honest. I know it is fairy stories that serve a purpose, especially for those in need of a comfort blanket, but I also accept that there is a whiff of pious hypocrisy in using the words with your fingers firmly crossed. The Church of England has spent the last few hundred years ingratiating itself to the point of being an aspect of society, including in the secular sense, through the Lords Spiritual and inviting the vicar to indulge in village pump affairs. To say that having built up the tradition, you then restrict on the basis of belief is a bit rich. It may seem refreshing to hear Joe Offer and Keith of La La Land state that the bible isn't literal, but to then piously accuse people of insulting their belief beggars belief. It may insult their choices on the menu, but the minute you pick and choose what to believe, your stance "as a Christian" is meaningless. There is only one Christian on these threads a far as I can see, and he isn gong to convince me of any argument any time soon.... So why you want me to comment on humanist issues is beyond me? I don't need their services. I have churches that will take my money if I want to be traditional, if I look hard enough. I have local government registrars who can make weddings real and legal in a hotel, (and a well stocked bar in our case.) I said which is the best religion at the very beginning of this thread if you bother to look.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Oct 13 - 01:20 PM Keith of La La Land state that the bible isn't literal, but to then piously accuse people of insulting their belief beggars belief. I do not accuse and do not care. Insult away. It is just amusing when you show you ignorance about that which you mock. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Oct 13 - 02:10 PM Musket, thanks for taking the trouble to repeat your earlier statement, which I had understood alright. Unfortunately you dodged my question, essentially: if you had had the choice at your second wedding, would you have insisted on a genuine priest/minster, thus a Christian believer, or would you have preferred a good actor in a gown, who may share your own convictions? And why? Don't bother with moral justifications; the question is interesting in itself. (That BHA organization only serves as an example that such services exist, not requiring any membership. Customers will be asked what they want to hear; KJV Canticles would be no problem.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 13 Oct 13 - 04:00 PM The ceremony bits that include the legal recorder are either vicar or registrar. A vicar if you want to be in a church, or a registrar elsewhere. As I am not a member of any cult with other arrangements, including the rather silly "alternatives without God" people, I fail to see how they apply. Churches with organs, drafty hard pews, up to a thousand years of history etc are an ideal place for a traditional wedding. If you can't have the experience of King James language, Bach and a quarter peal, then for me personally, the only alternative is a registrar asking the questions and filling in the legal forms. A local hotel supplied the food, drink, bed and somewhere for the band to plug in their p.a. If you ask people to think about what the vicar is actually saying, then watch out. Far better people let it wash over them than realise they are saying you cannot raise children unless you are grateful to their imaginary friend, or you need a fictional 2000 year old bloke to guide you because you cannot be trusted to do the right things in life without the concept. I did listen to the irrelevant waffle at a funeral a while ago and thought it rather insulting, as my friend wasn't superstitious yet he was one of the nicest people I had ever met. To listen to a bloke who never met him say he was guided by Jesus blah blah was disgraceful. No. Far Better normal people enjoy the tradition when it suits them or they want it as a public service. Churches might do well to be grateful for that if they want to remain churches. Already, my wife says there are a large number of rings of bells in buildings that used to be churches but are no more, but their new use included keeping the bells, for which she and her fellow bell ringers are grateful. One close to us actually, now a council run arts centre, but a Victorian town centre church. Which brings us back to Keith from La La Land. Just think. Real Christians reckon the demise of the church is due to boutique Christians who think they are too clever and sophisticated to actually believe but think they are clever by saying they have belief. Buggered if I can get my head around that. I must be ignorant after all! Thanks for telling me. Takes one to know one I suppose. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Oct 13 - 06:20 PM Musket, how stupid of me to think that you could be fobbed off with neo-gothic stuff; of course you deserve a genuine gothic church building, with all bells and whistles. There are unused ones for rent as well. Now for the crucial point - the clergy person. Have I understood you correctly that you want them to be genuine as well, in particular Christian believers, but their words not to be listened to? Why that? If you wish religion to disappear, why would you finance its functionaries? (... if not for the trollish pleasure to see them corrupted, which would turn the solemn celebration to its opposite?) What is silly about what you call the rather silly "alternatives without God" people - assuming they could offer the style you prefer, Bach and all? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 14 Oct 13 - 12:54 AM Indeed: esp as what you call "a genuine gothic church building" will actually almost certainly be mid-Victorian, and not "genuine gothic" at all. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket playing your game Date: 14 Oct 13 - 05:38 AM I could keep this up for hours... Who, other than a vicar can sound convincing when speaking in the language of James I? It's the nostalgia for most of us. School head teachers thinking they are in a pulpit each morning in assembly. I said above that I enjoyed tradition and you get a church, get a real one. Otherwise it would be like I assume visiting a prostitute would be. You get the sex but lose the experience. Michael seems to have had a rest and has come back with an interesting point. A church near us ripped the pews out recently and the anguish, threats even and debate around it... The pews were unsafe, (two had collapsed in as many weeks due to pie smugglers sitting on them) and they just had to go. Now, the church is Elizabethan, been left foot, right foot, high, low and everywhere you go. But the pews were put in in 1889. I too prefer to say neo gothic to gothic as applicable. In short, no. I doubt someone dressed up as a vicar would be as good as the real thing. But that's my view. Others have theirs. Although Keith from La La Land raises an interesting point, inadvertently, when he mentioned that he picks and chooses what to believe. Most vicars have to keep the faithful happy, but I am sure that once you get a job, your outlook changes over the years and perhaps some people get a vicar who is as doubtful of their faith as a humanist bloke in a silly gown? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Oct 13 - 08:40 AM Musket, a lot of material to comment on. Language of KJ: few vicars can do it properly; chances are that an actor would perform much better. My guess is that what you find "convincing" is the fact that the vicar represents the continuity of religion as a person - regardless of what s/he says. Most of us have similar feelings. What we really want is a meaningful connection to our ancestors, our community members, and their ancestors. In other words, our collective identity. Old forms such as the KJV can serve as symbols for that, but they are not the real thing themselves. Nostalgia always implies a surrogate. In fact there is no rational reason to assign any more "genuineness" to the Stuart era or the Middle Ages than to the present. For the real thing to work, first of all we have to develop a respectful understanding of our own human nature and our fellow humans', including its roots in history. Those who do not want to take the trouble are not likely to get anything better than "a humanist bloke in a silly gown". The real thing is about being, not about subscribing to any dogma connected to physical reality - or to any other dogma. In Joe's words, it is about honesty, not (dogmatic) truth. I was surprised to read that you were surprised to read that Keith and most Christians, notably including theologians and vicars, have similar views - though, honestly, conflicts exist. I personally avoid both words "truth" and "believe/belief" in a religious context; I prefer "faith". With your idea of cherry picking you are quite mistaken; if you ask me whether I believe the literal text of the Bible, the clear answer is no. Do not ask me to defend any religious organization either; like most organizations, they are infested with incompetence, arrogance, and striving for power, in one word: sin. However, no clergy has the power to seize my notion of religious identity. (Please do not confuse that with "spiritual" - another topic.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket between courses Date: 14 Oct 13 - 08:57 AM I can't do any more than agree with most of what you put. Of course there is a position of supporting the ethos without giving credence to the conjuring tricks. My noting is based on those who, like Keith, point out their Christian beliefs but leave the bemused onlooker no wiser. A position of " I choose which bits to believe but don't insult my belief" is disingenuous hypocrisy and makes the increasing irrelevance of the church all the more pertinent. I do not agree however over your stance that a Stuart / Tudor approach would be as relevant. It wouldn't because the object of the exercise is comfort through nostalgia. Hence I loved a wedding I was at which was very traditional but failed to see the point of a bloke called Steve in a loud shirt introducing the rock section as they chanted their repetitive few words to 6/8 rock, and called it a hymn. If churches are to survive long term they need to be of interest to the vast majority of people, and not expect obedience to their cause in return. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Claire M Date: 14 Oct 13 - 09:36 AM Hiya, Love all that KJ thee & thou; I wish people still talked like that 1] I love mediaeval fiction, [any rec's??] & I want a stained-glass window film in my flat 2] I'll never forget a day out I had @ a shrine 3] I want to go to a church w/ a shouting preacher man, bellowing his head off like this Hallelujah Brother! 4] & this song reminds a lot of people of me. So maybe I'm not as atheist as I thought I was. Can you like all that w/o the belief behind it?? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Oct 13 - 10:06 AM As usually, you misunderstood half of what I wrote - not too bad a proportion. I am not talking about ethos at all. Secondly, I prefer to avoid the word "believe" mainly because you and Pete have a different notion of it from Joe and Keith. The latter are perfectly entitled to use that word in their own sense; we should just try to avoid misunderstandings. You obviously fail to understand even the most commonplace of Keith's statements. If you do not wish to improve your understanding, it is alright with me, but you cannot hope to become a respected discussion partner here. Thirdly, it is a fundamental error to think that a religion (- if countable at all -) is defined by a club of professional clergy. Religion exists and is about the existence of its community (not primarily of God or other elements of dogma). We have the right and the duty to criticize the clergy and their theology, but we must decide whether they are ours or not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Oct 13 - 10:48 AM Hi Claire; my previous message was the reply to Musket, of course. You have a different approach to the matter. The classical CoE style is mumbled and softly chanting, never "bellowing his head off". The latter can be heard, together with "thou/thy/thee", in some American-style evangelical churches. If there were an option, I would support those pronouns being reintroduced, so that it will be clear whether one or more person is being addressed, and in what grammatical case. Alas, no chance. You can enjoy ceremonies without subscribing to the ideas behind them, but that will not help you in religious matters. Many of those who fall into trance on such occasions (- believers, half-believers, and non-believers -) feel more miserable when waking up. There are other dangers, including being ruined mentally and/or financially. The other day you mentioned a fundamentalist who told you that your misfortune is your own fault - you get the idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: frogprince Date: 14 Oct 13 - 11:10 AM With all the things that people do in this world that are harmful to themselves and others, I have no inclination to feel judgmental because someone who isn't religious wants their wedding to feel like they would like it to feel. And I feel a bit put off by hearing someone pass judgment on anything that benign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 14 Oct 13 - 11:56 AM I suppose whether or not a church will allow non-believers to marry on their premises will depend whether they see themselves as there only to serve committed believers or as an integral part of the wider community they are located in. I wouldn't want to get married in a church personally, but for a lot of people it's a fundamental part of the entire experience. The local CofE church near my house also serves as a venue for (non-religious) live music, a film club, a green festival and a rather good beer festival. Your credentials are not checked on the door. It also organises a fun run (no doubt to "raise money for the church roof", which always sounds like a euphemism) that lots of local people who don't attend the church participate in. Surely being part of your local community and appreciated by local people for that is better than remaining aloof? Certainly it appears to be more in line with the best of JC's teachings... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Claire M Date: 14 Oct 13 - 01:08 PM Hiya, I agree w/ thine sentiments Grishka! No point going to a ceremony just to hear that. Oh, sorry, the bellowing was a ref to the blues song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 14 Oct 13 - 01:59 PM Nigel ~~ Well of course they wouldn't check the religious affiliations, if any, of visitors to a beer festival or a film club, which are the sort of things a church will do, as it were extra-curricularly, to relate to its local community. But surely you can see that the same considerations might not apply to an earnestly and sincerely held faith-based ritual, constituting solemn vows made in the name of the deity that the church's primary function is to provide means for its genuine congregation to worship? Its provisions should not be exploited frivolously by those not involved in the rite as a specifically religious occasion. I still think it rude to treat such a rite as just another such provision as a film club or a beer festival. The fact that you and I don't believe in that deity is IMO entirely beside the point, both as regards morality and seemliness. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:26 AM "Religion, which is the best one?" Same as political parties.....NONE OF THEM!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket between courses Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:38 AM Get real Michael. Our pious Christian brethren on this thread make such solemn vows and then get to pick and choose the bits they wish to believe. You seem to be saying that if you chant the words you need to believe them? In that case there are less Christians than we thought. Especially in CofE... Oh Hi Goofus! Thanks for that scintillating observation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:42 AM Besides, my Karma just ran over your Dogma! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:34 AM Musket sez: Our pious Christian brethren on this thread make such solemn vows and then get to pick and choose the bits they wish to believe. Well, Musket, it seems to me you have lost your objectivity, and you've been overwhelmed by your own cynicism. I think you have a very limited view of religious faith as merely subscribing to a laundry list of doctrines and rules. And of course, you then reject this faith as ludicrous. And yet you expect the ministers of this ludicrous faith to be available to you for pageantry when needed. Well, religion isn't so shallow as what you describe. The doctrines and rules are attempts to define what is beyond definition. Those doctrines and rules are useful tools for religious groups, but they are not the faith itself. Religious faith has appeal to many people who are far more intelligent than you make them out to be - some may even be more intelligent than you are. But you know, if you do need to hire somebody to do the rituals for your special occasions, there are many inactive clergy who will do the job for a fee, with no commitment required. Those affiliated with active congregations, will usually be unwilling to do your rituals unless you, too, are affiliated. If that's the case, go to the clergy who are willing to do the job for hire. If you can't find them in the UK, there are plenty in the casinos of Las Vegas and Reno and Atlantic City - and they do a pretty good job. -Joe- |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: IMAGINE (John Lennon) From: GUEST,If only Date: 15 Oct 13 - 11:13 AM Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
You may say I'm a dreamer
Imagine no possessions
You may say I'm a dreamer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,musket to Joe Date: 15 Oct 13 - 12:06 PM And there we must leave reality behind. What you say would be of interest if it was the base of your church. But it isn't. Your church command obedience to a Creed, more than the Anglican ones do for that matter. You slate me for wanting the tradition yet seem happy to recite words on a Sunday that you would rather people not take literally. Well most people in The UK want to use their local CofE church less frequently, chant the words but not literally believe them. I think the difference between you and them is one of frequency and occasion. Plus most people increasingly can't see themselves as Christians as they cannot accept the embarrassing bits as true. Differentiating between belief and believing is beyond many of us, so congratulations for being able to do so. Casinos of Reno, Vegas etc are something to see when UK people go abroad. How you think they fit in with wanting a traditional wedding etc is beyond me. If you can't get a church here, a hotel and the local government registrar will turn up if the hotel is registered for weddings. For the other traditional uses of church, christenings and funerals, you are left with either travelling to an enlightened parish or joining the thousands who tell them any old bollocks if it helps get the public service they advertise as performing. I don't expect you to know the passive but ever present traditional role of the parish vicar to most UK people over the years, not just to Christians. Same as I don't have knowledge of Catholic churches other than visiting a few big ones on holiday such as The Vatican and myriad huge ones with fresh gold leaf in the impoverished areas of Malta. Joe. Don't question my knowledge. Knowledge of the ins and outs of organisations are not a prerequisite to understanding their effect on others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Oct 13 - 12:16 PM But I am real, Musket. At least, I think I am. If you prick me do I not bleed? If you tickle me do I not laugh?* But maybe I'm just an old solipsist, at that...? ~M~ *Well no, actually; I happen not to be ticklish. But let's let that pass... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket to Michael Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:57 PM Well if you are real, your stance is coming over as unrealistic. You say people should only use a church if they take the words seriously. But with the exception of pete, I have yet to read a post from someone whose calling card has "Look at me, I'm a Christian" that doesn't qualify which parts of the Christian faith they buy into and which they dismiss as unrealistic. What's the difference between them and those for whom a church is the traditional part of key family and friend events? I suppose there is hypocrisy versus honesty but other than that, nothing. When someone says they want to uphold a tradition, but don't believe that it means anything beyond that, it seems like honesty to me. After all, how many Morris dancers feel they are real Morris dancers because their dancing will help produce a good yield in the fields and bed chambers? By your reckoning, you have to buy into pagan superstition in order to do the Winster gallop.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:30 PM Michael to Musket ~~ I feel a fallacy in your comparisons above, especially the last one. But it's late at night and I am a bit whoozy from the excitement of England having left it pretty late to consummate their win over Poland & ensure place in Brazil World Cup. Might have to fallback on Hegel. Or Locke. Or Nietszche. Or Spinoza. Or Andy Capp... Shall give some overnight thought and return to the fray refreshed in the morning. Or not... G'night ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:58 PM Real morris dancers will not allow Pete to beat them in terms of fundamentalism and stubbornness. However, those who hope for a good yield in the bed chambers tend to prefer other dances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 15 Oct 13 - 06:10 PM "I am a bit whoozy from the excitement" - and so am I. What an exciting 90 minutes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Oct 13 - 09:26 PM Musket sez: What you say would be of interest if it was the base of your church. But it isn't. Your church command obedience to a Creed, more than the Anglican ones do for that matter. I dunno what you're trying to say, Musket. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglicans, and many other Christian denominations hold to the same Nicene Creed, which is a statement of their common beliefs. It was developed over two hundred years and has been in force since 325 AD. People don't really obey a creed - they hold it, or believe it. And yes, I also believe that creed and hold the Bible as my sacred book. They give a fairly simple, straightforward message that is best expressed in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. What I don't believe, is all the literalism and extra garbage the Christian fundamentalists add to the Bible, particularly when they hold allegorical writings to be historical truth. And in areas were there is debate, I generally tend to take a moderate or liberal position. But just because the fundamentalists lay claim to sole possession of the title "Christian," doesn't mean they are the only valid expression of the Christian faith. And there are fundamentalist Catholics who claim to be the only true Catholics - some are having real trouble accepting our current Pope. And the same goes for political conservatives in the U.S. who lay claim to the American flag and all things American - I'm every bit as American as they are; and I'm every bit as Christian as the fundamentalists claim to be. But Musket, it strikes me as ludicrous that you, who make no claim to be Christian at all, should consider yourself to be an arbiter of such things. On the topic of rituals and such, let me say that I know many clergymen (especially in small towns) who will perform rites-of-passage rituals for anyone who has a need for such a ritual. You're right that even non-religious people have need of such rituals. But generally, good clergy tailor the ritual to the belief or lack of belief of the person on the receiving end of the ritual. It would be a sacrilege for a Catholic priest to have a funeral Mass for a professed atheist, but many priests will perform some sort of ritual for the deceased and the grieving family. My brother hasn't been a practicing Catholic since he became an adult, and he speaks of religion with a good dose of cynicism, much as you do. When he got married at Harrah's Casino in South Lake Tahoe, I was surprised that he wanted a religious ceremony. But that's what he got, and it was done tastefully. I was best man, and I did the reading about love from the 13th chapter of I Corinthians. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Oct 13 - 12:30 AM In your third para, Joe, I can't help feeling you are somewhat begging the question re the word 'allegorical', both as to its meaning & in relation to those parts of Holy Writ which should be so regarded. Some passages are clearly 'allegorical' (Song of Solomon, e.g.), others presumably to be taken as telling true historical facts {Babylonian exile}. But with many it is hard to tell which to regard them as ~~ Lot's daughters? [& if true, what morality are we to draw from that?]; Job?; the "fingers of a hand that writ" at Belshazzar's feast? [not NB on the wall specifically, despite the dead metaphor of "the writing being on the wall"]... I don't think it quite OK for you to use the word as if it were in all cases self-evident as to what is allegory & what is not. Musket: I'll make it Hegel. Your examples [the Morris &c] are qualitatively different from religious faith, and don't pretend you don't know it. No Morrisman has ever truly believed he was doing it on the pavements of Hammersmith to make the crops grow, and you don't think he has; while a true Christian worshipper in church at a recognised devotional occasion like a wedding does believe that, however much he is going somewhat mechanically & not with entire attention & concentration, thru a formulaic ritual, there is a real entity there listening whom he respects and worships. And don't disingenuously pretend you can't make out this distinction for yourself; becoz you just ain't that stchoopid! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:09 AM Hi, Mike- I wouldn't say that Genesis is allegorical. It's written in the language of legend that is common in the stories people tell of their origins. What moral is to be drawn from the story of Lot's daughters? - that even the patriarchs had dysfunctional families, and yet they survived and prospered. Certainly that's a good lesson - that you can be totally screwed up and still do something good. Job is interesting, because it's so obviously written in two different styles. Chapters 1, 2, and 42 are written in the colorful language of a folktale, and they're a great story. The language in chapters 3-41 is theological and VERY boring, but it has value as an inquiry into the reasons why "bad things happen to good people." But again, it's boring. I'd recommend 1, 2, and 42. Leviticus is an interesting phenomenon, because it has lists of moral codes that sometimes contradict each other. Scripture scholars will tell you that such-and-such a passage was the moral code effective at such-and-such a time and place, and then next one was effective at another time and place. If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:16 AM Yeah but I move in mysterious ways Michael. My Morris comparison still holds. I would have replied earlier but was watching the England match in the pub and the celebrations carried on. A bit of a bugger as it is now 6.00am and I am waiting for my toast to burn before being picked up to go and deliver my sermon from the pulpit. (Speaking of future NHS structures at a conference is similar to speaking of the distant past in a church. Hope the congregation have a salt pot in their collective pocket. To both Joe and yourself I say this. You are both unduly complicating the issue. On the few occasions I have been in a service I have listened to the words. I don't think that is asking too much. If the words are being used, it isn't a mental leap too far to expect them to be bound up in the belief people profess. So... When I am sat across from a doctor saying amen to fantasy such as rising from the dead, performing of miracles or a being sentient enough to hear such prayer. .. I wonder how that doctor can explain how the rising from the dead works. They can't. They don't have to. They traditionally rather than fundamentally believe. Anyone can traditionally believe. Even for the hour or so it takes to knock out a weddingor funeral. I did a reading at a funeral. Does that make it any less real to those listening who had belief? No. It didn't. What is the bloody difference? I recall the "we are all God's children" bit. So it makes the prerequisite to believe a little superfluous doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:35 AM Musket sez: What is the bloody difference? I recall the "we are all God's children" bit. So it makes the prerequisite to believe a little superfluous doesn't it? You're right, Musket. Therefore, if there is a God who is active in the world, what matters is not whether we believe, but how we respond to that God's actions - whether we acknowledge them as the action of God, or not. Is there a "prerequisite to believe"? I don't think so, but the evangelical Christians seem to think that's the only thing necessary. I do believe, and that has its good points and its bad points - but I think the "prerequisite" is whether you treat your world well, and your neighbor as yourself. And I think that's true, whether or not there is a God. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 13 - 03:17 AM Musket, Jesus was criticised for not adhering to the strict, literal interpretation of keeping the Sabath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Oct 13 - 03:50 AM Joe Offer: "If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself If you keep these two principles in mind and remember that they may not be violated under any circumstances, the rest of Scripture starts to make sense - and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation. -Joe- .......... If only that understanding is grasped, would you begin to realize how profound Joe's words are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...and this part, extends into all sorts of places in seeing life!!...."- and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation." ..and reality opens up, with properties, beyond judgement, but only imagined....and you begin to approach both the wonderment of the power of it all, with humble fascination...and more becomes accessible,.............. ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ""If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself If you keep these two principles in mind and remember that they may not be violated under any circumstances, the rest of Scripture starts to make sense - and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation."" Thank you Joe!!! Highest Regards!! Guest from Sanity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 04:40 AM Who could disagree? (Having Goofus on side makes it tempting but I digress. ) But. . The criticism aimed at my point was whether churches should pick and choose from those for whom the tradition of certain functions such as marriage funeral and baptism. If belief itself is variable with regard to doctrine, then there is a place for the heathen majority who may not use it for personal religious reasons but support the continuity of the presence by the commercial cost of the services they sell. I am not sure that should insult the faith of the faithful? I keep harking back to the Maori guide telling us about a mountain chain and how giants made them in their religious history. "We traditionally believe. ." An excellent way of describing a strong sense of religion without inviting "holder than thou" from the ranks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Just a passing thought Date: 16 Oct 13 - 05:48 AM Why do you need a place of worship such as a church, temple, mosque, synagogue to follow your chosen religion and be bound by the restrains & customs that go with them, after all aren't they man made? And does it say in any of the Holy books that you must congregate in these places in order to be a fully paid up member of your chosen faith. I.e. you're not a proper Christian unless you go to church! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:14 AM "GUEST,Just a passing thought", you are raising an important point, often referred to as "private spirituality". The idea is that you choose (or even "cherry pick") a religion you are happy with, and do not care what others believe. You are perfectly entitled to do that, but in my experience and knowledge of human nature, it is not what people really want. Neither is Musket's diametrical extreme of just picking the buildings, gowns, and rituals. The primary idea of religion implies sharing it with your community and your ancestors (sorry for repeating myself). Sharing means compromise; individualists (like most Mudcatters including myself) will have their problems. Also, the way people think and speak changes dramatically in the course of the centuries, causing old language to change or lose its meaning. To cope with that, we must make an effort to identify the important essence and transfer it into our own ways of thinking. It cannot always be successful, but the alternative "they all are superstitious morons; I can do on my own" is much less desirable. Of course all holy books emphasize the value of collective worship. Temples on "sacred sites" are actually frowned upon by most theologians, but all religious organizations have them, together with other old practices that can be called superstitious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:49 AM Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM In Judaism, for certain prayers to be devotionally valid, a minimum of ten adult men [known in Hebrew as a 'minyan'] is required to be present. There is a good wikipedia article giving details of the occasions where this is requisite. A foonote states -- "Maimonides (a preeminent medieval Spanish, Sephardic Jewish philosopher, astronomer and one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages) writes that "The prayer of the community is always heard; and even if there were sinners among them, the Holy One, blessed be He, never rejects the prayer of the multitude. Hence a person must join himself with the community, and should not pray by himself so long as he is able to pray with the community." Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Tefillah 8.1 Note that the final clause provides a let-out for times that a minyan cannot be gathered for any valid reason, or even if the worshipper is for some reason in a solitary situation. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:26 AM Notwithstanding the need shared by many to go to church in order to carry out part of the traditional method, in The UK at any rate, of weddings funerals and baptism. The religious part being something that doesn't apply, just the tradition. I am told by my responsible adult that with wide screen TV etc it is daft going to a football match. I agree on every level other than the bit about going to the match. I am sure many church goers feel the same. In fact even last night it made more sense to me to be in the pub with a slightly restricted view of the screen to watch the England match than to sit at home Billy No Mates watching it in luxury. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Just a passing thought Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:56 AM But the buildings that pertain to be places of worship are built by mankind and so their designs are open to human vanities and the want to impress and pander to human egos ( mine cathedral/ Mosque / Synagogueis bigger than yours)and so the mere act of worship, for which they are supposed be built for becomes secondary. |
