 sj |
||
|
||
BS: An Easter Question
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:53 PM Don't think I'd want David living in MY neighborhood, PFR. King or not, the guy had some real issues. And what would happen if he were to see my wife sunbathing? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Apr 16 - 12:19 PM Now as a modern liberal minded progressive thinking kind of bloke, I'd still be very reluctant to touch another man's penis for any reason.. [ok.. I had to once when working as an untrained hospital orderly, dumped in at the deep end.. A patient with both arms amputated needed to be taken for a piss.. .. of course we weren't issued disposable gloves - it was the early 80s..] So it's 'interesting' how obsessed they were in once upon a time long ago Bible Land with collecting bulk quantity foreskins from fallen enemy warriors...??? .. and that'd be manhandling the privates of dead soldiers who's knobs hadn't been anywhere near soap and water for who knows how long.. .. and in that desert heat...!!! .. and you only have to think just how bad one modern day teenage boys bedroom can stink.. That certainly takes collecting as a hobby to obsessive extremes....????? 😬 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Greg F. Date: 09 Apr 16 - 12:01 PM then took their place in the house of commons Not the Lords? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Apr 16 - 11:42 AM Moral Philosophy was one of my favourite modules of my degree. Probably the study which had most lasting impact on my personal outlook and understanding. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Tug the Cox Date: 09 Apr 16 - 11:28 AM Re keeping foreskins, I was told they were planted and nurtured till full grown and they then took their place in the house of commons |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Apr 16 - 06:13 AM I find it rather difficult to accept that those whose morality is predicated on their religious upbringing can safely be put the position of moral educators. Not the Pope, that's for sure, who endorses his own organisation's immoral teachings on birth control, contraception, sexual practices and abortion, and who rubber stamps lies about miracles and apparitions. I don't want any moral guidance from someone who peddles all that, thank you. Moral guidance emanating from religious belief has caused a huge amount of misery in this world. Religion and people of religion need to be severely kept out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:53 AM Let me go a little further. I think that true morality is based on logic, not on arbitrary rules. It is an attempt to explore the consequences of what we do - consequences to ourselves, to the people close to us, and to the wider community and the world and our environment. When I teach morality, I try to take people beyond rules and into doing something constructive and creative and positive. Most people catch on, and the discussion can be lively and fruitful. Morality can be fun. Oh, and it applies to everyone, no matter what they believe. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:23 AM Moral guidance is certainly necessary, Ake. That's one of the things I've done as a religious educator for children and adults for almost 50 years. But it's far better to teach and discuss moral principles and how to apply those moral principles, than it is to impose rules and expect people to obey them mindlessly. People need to understand what they're doing and the implications of what they do. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:22 AM Ah, but Joe, 'making moral decisions' is a minefield. Looking into one's heart and doing what one feels is right relies solely upon the mindset of one's 'moral compass'. Many have done what they considered 'the right thing to do' with utterly disastrous consequences. If it were all as simple as that, society would need no rules at all. The prisons would be empty and we'd be living in Utopia. My husband's poor female relatives were brutally mutilated because the head of the family (grandfather) thought 'it was the right thing to do'. As part of my three-year MA degree, I spent a fabulous year studying Moral Philosophy as a module. One of the many topics we were asked to discuss was the need for rules, and whether there is such a thing as self-evident truth and the Absolute Good. The fact is, these ideas are nebulous and open to myriad interpretations. Religion, society and even family life needs structure, boundaries and controls, or everyone would be practising a sort of personal anarchy. The problem lies with which rules are applied. Every religion has its own list ('Do not put the purificator into the washing machine...') I tend to agree with Pope Francis in that I try to use my own common sense and ideas of what is right in my actions and decisions, but I can see only too well the pitfalls in this approach. I bet Hitler thought he was the saviour of Germany... In our church (as in many) there's a huge pair of wooden boards up on the wall with the Ten Commandments writ large. As a basis for leading one's life they aren't all that bad, however it's the small things that need clarifying, but how? When I pray I ask for 1) wisdom and 2) kindness. It sounds great, but whose wisdom? And what constitutes being kind? Giving a tenner to a begging drug-addict (so he can buy his next fix?) Not sending a violent man to prison 'because he's had a difficult childhood'. (Giving him the idea that his actions aren't terribly wrong?) Whether one is an atheist or an ardent believer in some form of God, the ethics of daily life are almost impossible to navigate. And the older I get, the more I can see the problem! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 09 Apr 16 - 03:12 AM I think a huge and increasing number of people DO need guidance in their lives, if only to combat the "guidance" supplied by the media and the political system. I don't agree Joe, that it can all be left to "conscience" or people doing the "right" thing, the playing field is far off the level for that especially where legislation is concerned. The media for the most part now control how people think, few make up their own minds through "conscience" or any other reason. It seems to me that "moral guidance" is more relevant today than at any other time in history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: DMcG Date: 09 Apr 16 - 02:21 AM "It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in." Really? And exactly what proportion of the alleged billion Catholics on this planet know that? [Then Greg] Or DO that. And I don't mean to pick on Catholics - plenty of examples in other religions. Less than should, agreed. But you are right that it not just Catholics: all humans, of every belief and none, are liable to react to things based on preconceptions rather than the situation in front of them. And how many know Catholics know that it their responsibility to do this? Well, it is stressed in this document for a start. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 16 - 09:58 PM I think the Pope was true to form in his statement that was published today. He emphasizes the primacy of conscience, and stays away from shallow legalism. If one views life in legalistic terms, this does become very complicated, because there are no black-and-white answers in difficult situations. There once was a system of moral theology called casuistry that tried to come up with black-and-white answers for every possible moral question. It was ridiculously complicated, and sometimes came up with ludicrously impossible answers. I'm glad they stopped teaching casuistry before I got into the seminary. For most people, however, making moral decisions is fairly simple: stop and consider the situation, and then look into your heart and decide what you truly believe is the right thing to do - and then do that thing. That's what the Pope is saying. I suppose there are "subtle nuances" involved in this method of decision making, but most human beings are capable of subtle nuances - unless they are bogged down in legalism and absolutism. Warning: this line of thinking will not work for those who can only see black and white. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:55 PM Or DO that. And I don't mean to pick on Catholics - plenty of examples in other religions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:44 PM " It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in." Really? And exactly what proportion of the alleged billion Catholics on this planet know that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: DMcG Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:31 PM Well you must be feeling very disappointed, Joe. Next to nothing, as expected, just some soft words This Guardian article finds more in it than that. True, it hasn't reversed the stance on some of the things we would both wish it had, but for example there are 'comments welcomed by some LGBT organisations' (but not others, of course). It also pushes a lot of decision making down to a local level, a decentralisation I approve of. And I found these two paragraphs of the article interesting: ====== Peter Doyle, the chair of the bishops' committee for marriage and family life, said the document was "very exciting, embracing everyone whatever their situation. Some people will be disappointed that it is not full of black and white solutions, but as Pope Francis says every situation is different and needs to be approached with love, mercy and openness of heart." Matthew McCusker, of the conservative organisation Voice of the Family, said there were "grave problems" with the document, which failed "to give a clear and faithful exposition of Catholic doctrine". ===== Both sides speaking there about a topic we raise time and again and was implicitly in Greg F's recent post: the church rarely gives black and white rules, and it doesn't here. It is Catholic's responsibility to think through how the teachings apply to whatever situation they are in. Black and white absolutism is simply mistaken. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Apr 16 - 06:03 PM Good point, Paul. Not every Catholic lives In a cosy, middle-class American suburb. Not every Catholic has the advantage of a lengthy seminary education. I should think that the Pope's subtle nuances would be lost on quite a few Catholics in quite a few less prosperous nations. Joe...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Paul Burke Date: 08 Apr 16 - 05:50 PM Oy vey Joe, I was from an entirely Catholic milieu, but I didn't go to a seminary, so I only got to OTII. The Teachings of the Church may change in emphasis, but not in substance. There may be a completely different Catholic Church for the cognoscenti that I never learned anything about, but I wonder how many people know about that in the Favelas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 16 - 12:03 PM Catholics aren't as mindlessly obedient to church teaching as one might think. Checked the website, Joe - & the question arises, if folks don't agree with and/or follow the teachings & tenets of the church to which they claim to belong -- Are they indeed Roman Catholics? As opposed to, say, Unitarians or Pastafarians? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Apr 16 - 11:34 AM Well you must be feeling very disappointed, Joe. Next to nothing, as expected, just some soft words. Let's face it, like other Popes he's a puppet on a string. No changes to doctrine, same old on gay marriage, even a bit of a negative or two on safe sex. As if he'd know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:20 PM Paul Burke says: whereas the Catholic Church (which I was taught does not change, unlike the secular world) Well, let's talk about that tomorrow. Pope Francis is supposed to release a document tomorrow, and I'm expecting significant changes. And, interestingly, I was taught in a Catholic seminary that the Catholic Church is constantly changing. Here's a link to a Univision poll of Catholics in five continents. I think you'll find that Catholics aren't as mindlessly obedient to church teaching as one might think. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:10 PM right.. I just found this by pure chance.. don't shoot the messenger... Back on topic of the Easter Story... sort of.. in an alterative cartoon universe.. WARNING: NOT CHILD OR PRUDE OR SENSITIVE CHRISTIAN FRIENDLY !!! JUDAS & JESUS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:41 PM And don't bother telling me that I used a plural where there should have been a singular. I know. I tried to tell Mrs Steve that not drinking on Thursdays was a bad idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:32 PM I meant to say religious instruction in schools. I'm heartily in favour of teaching children about world religions, as I've said before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:27 PM Ah yes, those MRI machines. I've been through that endurance test three times. The first time, they played a CD I'd taken in through headphones. The sound quality was so terrible that it made the whole experience ten times worse. I managed without that facility on the other two occasions. I closed my eyes and semi-dozed both times. I was NOT going to open my eyes and stare at a ceiling three inches from my nose! I knew that I wasn't going to actually die and that was good enough for me. My barium enema and two lots of bowel endoscopy make for far more entertaining reading but that can wait! Faith is a context within which people live their lives, explore the wonders and mysteries of life, and mark the joys and tragedies of life. If I live a life of faith that is meaningful and not just a shallow ideology, how can I shelter my children from it? And why? Faith is a very poor context for exploring the mysteries and wonders of life. Looming in the background of those explorations is a whole host of falsehoods which are there to prevent you from looking for what is really true, the most outrageous of which is the claim that a God exists who created everything and who can explain everything. This is such a terrible lie to be telling children. Your life of faith is no more meaningful than any life lived without faith, and is most likely far less meaningful because you are constantly perverting your search for truth. Your beliefs are indeed an ideology, otherwise you would fight the existence of religion in schools tooth and nail and insist that children were never told that what is actually mythology is the truth. But you don't, which strongly implies that your strong regard for your Catholic community and ethos are allowed to trump the truth. That's exactly what ideology is all about. Your efforts to put cosy and fluffy wrapping paper around it cut no ice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:27 PM Found it on youtube... BBC HARDtalk Female Genital Mutilation Discussion The young advocate for FGM is all to attractively reasonable and persuasive - quite problematic to say the least... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Paul Burke Date: 07 Apr 16 - 06:02 PM "But there's a difference between outright condemnation and discussion of specific issues" Indeed there is. The Catholic church can always escape outright condemnation because it can always cite specific issues. And of course because it's very rich in money and lawyers. A hypothetical Really Nasty Islamic Bearded Darkskinned Foreign Religion, which has no possible comparison to Us, kills people for disagreeing with them unjustly, whereas the Catholic Church (which I was taught does not change, unlike the secular world) kiiled* people it did not like totally justly- indeed even for their own good. * Actually the Catholic Church never executed anybody. Good Lord no. It was just that certain of the Churchmen, being totally filled with compassion for the errors of some dissident, recommended to the secular powers that they should be tied to a post and set on fire for their own good. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:42 PM There is nothing at all wrong with bringing children up in any tradition, Joe, as long as they are not taught that the tradition is the one true way and all others are wrong. My children were taught in Catholic schools but I made damn sure that they knew what the alternatives were and that what they were taught about god in school was not the absolute truth that some seem to think. I suspect both you and I, along with numerous others, have given our children the tools with which to think for themselves. A lot are not so lucky and that is what we must fight against at every opportunity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:14 PM There are doubtless many appallingly cruel and inhumane practices performed in the name of religion, and I don't think anyone here could possibly defend them. My husband's sisters and cousins were all cut in a large group one day by a horrible old woman with a rusty razor blade. He says he'll never ever forget their terrible screams of pain. I've clarified the reason for their mutilation and it seems it was for Islam (ie not a 'cultural' thing, but a 'religious' one) It's illegal now in Ivory Coast, but in the remote villages it still happens. And there have been mass suicides by members of a cult under the spell of their religious leader. Not to mention the self-torture by 'holy men' in India. There are endless examples. I can't speak for others, but I have a very firm idea of what I will and won't do in the name of my particular faith. (See the 'purificator' fiasco I mentioned earlier) However, many adherents are vulnerable and gullible. What mother of a young girl would agree to having the child agonisingly mutilated unless she had been completely brainwashed by the members of her religious group? Or what parents would administer deadly poison to their infants en masse unless hypnotised to the point where all normality has gone? It is this kind of abuse which shows that religion can be a very dangerous phenomenon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 05:02 PM Raggy says: Joe, if your faith is as good as you suggest it is surely people would be flocking to it. I'm not so sure about that. I think it's a very healthy thing that society no longer requires people to practice a religion. It's far better if it's practiced only by those who value it. And I'm not so sure popularity is a good indicator of the quality of something. In the U.S., people are joining evangelical megachurches in droves, deserting the so-called "mainline" religious traditions. Does that mean the evangelicals are better? Catholics and most of the other "mainline" religious traditions no longer proselytize. They let people join on their own. Nonetheless, our congregation had 30 people become Catholic this Easter. -Joe- P.S. I'd tend to agree about abortion and contraception, Paul. And yes, of course explosives and burning are extreme. But there's a difference between outright condemnation and discussion of specific issues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Paul Burke Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:58 PM "But genital mutilation is kind of on the extreme end of religious tradition" Not at all Joe. Blowing other people up- maybe yourself included- to prove a religious point is far more extreme. And setting fire (or getting other people to set fire) to people who disagree with your religious interpretation is also more extreme. I'd add that denying contraception to women, and also denying them abortion of unwanted pregnancies, is pretty extreme- at least as extreme as FGM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:32 PM Hi, PFR - You make a good point there. Genital mutilation is a very hard question. I'd readily prohibit female genital mutilation, but what about male circumcision? I'm not ready to Ban the Bris, although I can see good reasoning to prohibiting all genital mutilation. But genital mutilation is kind of on the extreme end of religious traditions. What about church bells that annoy some neighbors and are pleasing to others? Outdoor processions? Muezzin calling people to prayer? Grace before meals? Religious architecture? And to take it out of the context of religion, what about other family and ethnic traditions that annoy others for one reason or another? Traditional dress, whether religious or not? The smells of foreign cooking? It seems to me that most traditions add diversity and richness to society, even though some may consider them unenlightened. And when we attack traditions, we attack the people who treasure them. But I don't have an answer on the question of genital mutilation. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 07 Apr 16 - 04:12 PM Akenaton ............ Utter tosh, not only have you got the wrong end of the stick, you seem to have found it in a different forest. Perhaps when you have something constructive to say you will share it with us. Please note I am being polite. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:53 PM Sadly Joe, only yesterday I watched a serious discussion on Female Genital Mutilation, where a highly articulate and educated young American woman used almost exactly the same line of argument to rationalise her own experience of being ceremonially 'cut' on family holiday in Africa; and her enthusiasm for actively promoting the same cultural 'tradition' for future generations of young girls.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: akenaton Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:51 PM "You're looking at faith as ideology."......that is exactly the point Joe, these people are driven by ideology, and your crime in their eyes is that YOUR ideology contradicts theirs in a few instances. No matter how much you try to placate them, or reassure them that you share their social and political views, it will mean nothing. Your faith runs contrary to their social views and you are therefore guilty by association. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:39 PM Because, Raggy, many people view faith as a tradition, a way of living - not as a list of doctrines to be imposed. Families can't raise their children in a vacuum, concealing their traditions lest those traditions offend outsiders. You're looking at faith as ideology. I'm saying that may not be an accurate perception of what faith is. Faith is a context within which people live their lives, explore the wonders and mysteries of life, and mark the joys and tragedies of life. If I live a life of faith that is meaningful and not just a shallow ideology, how can I shelter my children from it? And why? -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:25 PM Joe, if your faith is as good as you suggest it is surely people would be flocking to it. If it was the case, and it was that good, you might even find me and Steve knocking on the door. Sadly that is not the case, is it. Even someone as committed as yourself struggle to justify many of it's teachings. If that is the case, as I perceive it to be, why does your faith (and most others) seek to indoctrinate young people before they have the opportunity to choose for themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:09 PM No, Raggy, you do not deride the beliefs of others, and I appreciate that. However, I have to disagree with your suggestion that children should not be raised in their parents' religious tradition. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:57 PM Steve, hahahaha! I 'transcend dental medication' because I have intravenous sedation and come round remembering nothing. I'm terrified of dentists. I recently had a series of MRI scans, where I was posted in to a very claustrophobic tunnel and had to lie perfectly still for 45 mins at a time, while weird noises of the SciFi variety assaulted my ears. I'd prepared beforehand how I would cope with this, and, partly to pass the time and partly to use it profitably, I prayed a series of prayers for all my friends and family members in turn. I also prayed for a bit of courage, as I was to be honest very scared, not least about what they might find in my brain. ('Not a lot, sunshine!' grinned my best friend.) I felt very comforted and much stronger for this. The radiographer posted me out again, and asked if I was all right. I replied that I'd had a jolly good pray. He gave me that look that younger people always give to dotty old ladies. My point is that while anyone might use meditation or 'mindfulness', I found a lot of peace in my prayers. As I said at the end of my last post - each to his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Raggytash Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:33 PM I really don't know how many times people have to repeat this Joe. People do not care what individuals believe themselves, that is your choice. What we do care about is that you inflict your beliefs on others, mainly young people, and do not allow them the choice to decide for themselves. The indoctrination of the various religions, not just Christianity, cannot be avoided. That is all we object to. You, my friend, can believe whatever you wish but please do not try and coerce other people to believe the same. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:07 PM Steve Shaw says: There are plenty of sensible alternatives. Do something different. Go for a walk on the beach or in the woods or just up a leafy street. Find a quiet spot, grab a cup of tea and read some poetry or listen to some Mozart, or just to the birds singing or the wind rustling the leaves. There is no need to invest any of these things with meanings other than what they simply are, because they're already wonderful enough in just being ordinary and familiar. Let your mind wander. It's perfectly possible to do that happily without thinking that your brain has to be filled with something, religious claptrap for example. All good suggestions. I do most of these things myself. Or, if one comes from a religious tradition, one can enjoy the religious practices of one's choice. Nothing wrong with that, either. What I don't understand, is why it is so important for some people to find fault with what other people find worthwhile. I suppose it's some sort of "practice of cynicism" that makes one feel superior to lesser sorts. My children did that constantly when they were teenagers. Expounding on how stupid / inferior / ugly /whatnot other people were, somehow gave them self-esteem, I guess. I fail to see how such a practice is conducive to harmony among peoples. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 10:15 AM Heheh. Last time I went to the dentist for a filling I told her I didn't want the anaesthetic. I wanted to transcend dental medication. 😂 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: punkfolkrocker Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:38 AM "Arsefulness" At least 15 minutes of quiet contemplative solitude in a small chamber of harmonious isolation. Repeat as many times a day as required.... More so if if on a high fibre vegetarian diet..... 💩 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 09:18 AM Well I can do that too, but I suppose one man's meditation is another man's navel contemplation. I often suspect that people who claim that they "meditate" a lot or who claim to be "spiritual" are often really saying that they think they have qualities or powers that mundane saddos like me lack, that they can somehow elevate themselves to some kind of higher plane (they're probably bloody vegans to boot). As I said, the world around us is wonderful enough as it is without my needing to levitate myself away from it into some inner depths of my cerebral cortex. There is a place for real mindfulness, I freely admit, but you won't find it on the personal pages of magazines and newspapers. It's rapidly becoming a word usurped. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:45 AM Aye, sorry Steve, mindfulness probably belongs in the 'Office jargon' thread. I must admit that I have no problem letting my mind wander. Quite the opposite - the bugger won't stay put! The bit of meditation I do tends to be to try and focus, usually on something as mundane as breathing. Always feel more relaxed after it anyway so I guess the rule is, do whatever is good for you :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Apr 16 - 07:35 AM Ah yes, mindfulness. A whole new industry is popping up around this latest buzzword which has very little to do with Buddhism. Its moneymaking potential is summed up nicely in the word "McMindfulness." Beware. Colourful and beloved traditions to take your mind off your troubles that involve chanting nonsense to non-existent deities or their mothers, especially when enforced in a formal or ceremonial setting, can't be justified. There are plenty of sensible alternatives. Do something different. Go for a walk on the beach or in the woods or just up a leafy street. Find a quiet spot, grab a cup of tea and read some poetry or listen to some Mozart, or just to the birds singing or the wind rustling the leaves. There is no need to invest any of these things with meanings other than what they simply are, because they're already wonderful enough in just being ordinary and familiar. Let your mind wander. It's perfectly possible to do that happily without thinking that your brain has to be filled with something, religious claptrap for example. In fact, it's a damn sight better. I don't care whether you call it meditation or not. It's a word I tend to avoid myself. I'm of this world, it's a wonderful world and I don't feel any compulsion to shut myself off from it. I can do that plenty enough in bed. The Lark Ascending is playing on Radio 3 as I type this. Ineffably beautiful music, listened to with the April sunshine streaming into the room. Composed by an atheist too! I've had to interrupt the typing two or three times in order to listen a bit closer. Beat that with your beloved religious chanting or silent prayer. I think not! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Apr 16 - 03:02 AM As you say, Eliza, there need not be a god to become mindful. One piece of advice I did get from a Buddhist monk though was to be mindful of others as well as yourself. As you begin to meditate think why you are doing it, It is in most of our natures to perform better if we are doing it for someone else than if it is for purely selfish reasons. Nothing to do with divinity, just the simple wish to help others and the basic good in human nature. I hope :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Senoufou Date: 07 Apr 16 - 02:24 AM I've made many retreats with nuns in a C of E convent and the peace and reflection were very restorative. There were guests there who actually had no faith whatsoever, but came to experience the tranquillity, and think about any problems in their lives that the hurly-burly of everyday existence pushed aside. Often, we were given a small natural object such as a shell or a feather, and asked to examine it alone out in the gardens, while 'being still' inside. I suppose the Buddhists have a similar meditation practice. (My niece is a Buddhist) The nuns were content for us to attend all their prayers in chapel (Matins, None, Terce, Sext, Compline etc) but it was voluntary. Meals were eaten in total silence. The whole retreat was in silence (only a brief address each morning by the Mother) and this too was bliss. I yack for Britain normally, and it made me relax and rest. At no time did one ever feel constrained or forced to pray, or under the stern eye of a strict God. It was more like a spiritual jacuzzi. My husband does his prayers at regular intervals daily. They only take a few minutes, but he finds it calming and centring. Of course, an atheist could meditate in a similar way, without being in the presence of a God they have no belief in. Each to his own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 16 - 09:22 PM Steve Shaw says: Incidentally, one of the absurdities of religion is the routine enforced chanting of prayers. At school we did the morning offering, grace before meals and one or two others that escape me now. At my secondary school one Salesian brother even had us doing the Angelus if we happened to be in his lesson at noon. I can say with considerable confidence that absolutely none of it ever stuck with any of us. It was no more than inane jumping through hoops. I see the US pledge in the same way. These things shouldn't happen but they're hardly going to deprave or corrupt their victims. Religion, so adept at loading guilt on to people and making escape difficult, has far more insidious ways of exerting control. Of course, there are alternate views, based partly on whether one sees such things as forced indoctrination, or colorful and beloved tradition. Especially in farming communities, the Angelus (The angel of the Lord declared unto Mary / That she would conceive by the Holy Spirit) is recited or chanted daily at 6 AM, noon, and 6 PM, to commemorate the annunciation to Mary of the coming birth of Jesus. In the Easter season, it is replaced by the Regina Coeli (Queen of Heaven rejoice / For he whom you deserved to bear / Has risen as he said.). My wife and I visited a Trappist monastery in Northern California today, and heard the monks chant their noon prayers - a Psalm, a hymn, a scripture reading and opening and closing prayers. The abbey bell rang about ten minutes before prayers, and again as prayers were to begin. We counted 21 monks, interesting in their ordinariness. Some were in work clothes, in from working in the vineyards; and others were in habit. One was disabled, and rode in on a motorized scooter. They sang simply but beautifully. The service took ten to fifteen minutes, and then they all left to go back to what they were doing. Just as it is with the 5-times-daily prayers of the Muslims, the idea behind such practices is mindfulness - taking time out of the day for a moment of peace to think about more than one's work and oneself. I suppose if one sees this as some sort of unwanted control, it might be repulsive. But others see it as a spiritual discipline meant to broaden one's life. I think both views have validity, but I prefer the latter. The monks seemed to like what they were doing, and I understand they make very good wine and beer when they're not praying. I kinda liked the Angelus. When I was an altar boy, I sometimes got to pull the rope at noon and ring the big Angelus bell. When I was in the seminary, we prayed portions of the Liturgy of the Hours that monks pray at various times of the day. At the end of the day, we'd gather in the chapel for Compline, the ending prayers of the daily cycle. We'd gather outside the chapel and have a cigarette before prayers, and then we'd have another cigarette afterwards. I gave up smoking over 20 years ago (except for scrounging an occasional smoke from Dani, Jeri, Mick, or Janie at the Getaway). But when I heard the bell for prayers at the abbey today, I got a craving for a cigarette. Guess I could never be a monk. I'd start smoking again and die of lung cancer. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: DMcG Date: 06 Apr 16 - 09:42 AM The Wikipedia said the law requires that oath I quoted "or equivalent". Clearly.in time substitution of Charles for Elizabeth qill be equivalent and not need a revision to the law. I am sure other faiths and none are considered "equivalent" these days. But a committed republican dedicated to the support of parliament who couldn't bring himself to mention the Queen would, I think, be unable to join |
|
Subject: RE: BS: An Easter Question From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Apr 16 - 08:53 AM BBC, "The Royal Navy is the oldest of the three services, and it was established by the sovereign's prerogative. For that reason, recruits have never been required to swear allegiance, but they do sign an attestation or engagement form on entry. The same applies to the Royal Marines. For the rest of the armed forces, including the British Army and the Royal Air Force, the oath includes swearing to God "that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty". The Army and Air Force swear an oath, but Royal Navy recruits do not Those with no religious belief can "solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm." |
