BS: religious question

Subject: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 04:58 PM

I've got a question - mainly applies to Christians I think but I'm not sure. And it's where religion all falls apart for me.

If God is all knowing - he knows every bad thing happening in the world.
If he's all powerful - he can do anything in the world he wants to.
If he's all good and loving - he must want to stop everything bad.

So, and leave out free-will just for a moment, because even if he did give people free will - if these statements are correct then he knows about everything bad, and he has the power to stop everything bad, and there is no part of him that doesn't want to stop everything bad. so....... why??

i think if people didn't always have a prepared answer for questions like this (free will! free will!) I would find religion a lot easier to believe in/understand.

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM

I don't subscribe to any organized religions, but here's what I think about that... let's say you're a parent. What do you think woud happen to your children if you tried to protect them from ever making a mistake of any sort in order to protect them from having to experience the consequences of their mistakes? My guess is that they would never learn anything.

From my perspective, that's what I think we're all here for. To learn and to grow.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:26 PM

"I don't believe in an interventionist God"

A slap on the back and a packet of salt and vinegar crisps to the first person who can name the song and artist that first line comes from.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:29 PM

(without googling it!)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: skipy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:33 PM

THE BOATMAN`S CALL (Mute 1997)

THERE IS NO GOD, THERE NEVER HAS BEEN & THERE NEVER WILL BE!

Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Once Famous
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:35 PM

Do you think any of you will all of a sudden find God when you are on your deathbed?

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:36 PM

Cheat! I said without googling. Anyway, I asked for the song and artist, you gave neither.

Can't even cheat properly!

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:41 PM

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.

This is, according to hitch-hiker, why the earth itself is proof that god doesn't exist. Becasue something so complicated would be proof that God exists, so it is therefore proof that he doesn't.

Or something ike that. I understand where I'm going with this anyway! (I don't have the book here right now - you may have noticed!)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: PoppaGator
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 05:42 PM

The "Question of Evil" is one of the oldest subjects of theological debate, and with good reason. Everybody asks it (especially when they're young adults)!

Believers can't deny that bad things happen -- they have faith that things *ultimately* come to a good end. This usually involves some notion of an afterlife or, at least, the conviction that one can and should transcend (rise above) earthly cares.

I'm convinced that you're better off living as though there were reason for faith -- better than the alternative, which is to proceed with the conviction that nothing really matters. It's not as easy to have believe in Faith for its own sake than it is to believe in an anthropomorphic Santa-Claus-like God, but it's at least possible for a thinking person.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:04 PM

Laura, you have just put forth one of the real classic philosophical questions, usually referred to as "The problem of Evil." Philosophers and theologians have wrestled with it for centuries, and I doubt that Mudcatters are going to do any better.

The attempts I've seen at resolving it include:

1. Free will is purposely allowed, even at the cost of evil, in order to allow mankind to reflect their made-in-the-image-of-God power of choice.
2. God is not all powerful (or)
3. God is not all good (or)
4. God, while all good and all powerful, is not attentive--he just doesn't pay attention to us and our actions, so evil in effect goes on behind his back.
5. God is in essence not one but two, one dedicated to good and one to evil, of approximately equal powers. The evil side or evil being is close to the idea of Satan. The idea is that there is a titanic struggle going on, but that the good side will eventually triumph. This is the Manichean heresy, one of the historical heresies upon which the early church nearly split. This idea is embodied in the ancient (and still barely existing) religion called Zoroastrianism.
I've heard it suggested that God, being basically good but containing evil within himself, got rid of his evil by placing it in another being, which his good side could then defeat.

There may be other approaches, but these are the ones I'm familiar with.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:06 PM

Edward Teller was speaking to an auditorium filled with students at, I think, UCB. At question time, a student put up his hand, was recognized by the chair, and he asked Teller if he believed in God. Teller said he did. The student proceeded to ask the following: "Then, what was God doing before he created the universe?" Teller thought for about ten seconds and replied, "He was dreaming up Hell for people who ask that question."

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:13 PM

I am eating an apple at the moment....can any of you taste that apple I am eating.....????????. I am in conversation with Jesus at the moment...can any of you hear that conversation...?????? Can you taste my Jesus..???????
Do you want to hear the conversation...?????
I thought not...you are too busy doing your own thing.
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Fishpicker
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:19 PM

"i think if people didn't always have a prepared answer for questions like this (free will! free will!) I would find religion a lot easier to believe in/understand."

Why worry about it??? We are all here, none of us know why, none of us know what happens after we expire! Why not enjoy life and try to keep from worrying about things you don't have any control over or understand. The Buddhists say *be here now* which is good advise IMO. Organized religions are , IMO, in most cases businesses that want to control people and releive them of the burden of their money; they have nothing to do with your connection to God or whatever you choose to call the big picture that our finite minds can't ever seem to comprehend. Just my opinion all you religious fanatics out there so don't get your shorts in a wad.

                               FP

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:23 PM

I don't like salt and vingar crisps.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:26 PM

There are no gods. If people would just work together and forget all their "petty bickering" (Star Trek reference) we could be AS gods, and survive our planet, which would be way cool, not that I'd be around to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:36 PM

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm if life were so simple.
God does exist. Jesus lives....how do you refute that????? Prove that he is really not with us!!!!!!!!! Can you????
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:37 PM

It's an interesting question, Laura. Actually, I think the answer IS "free will," so how can I use that answer and still follow your rules? I think that's part of the problem - we set up rules for how we thing God should behave, and then we expect God to behave accordingly. I think we also make a mistake if we define faith and religion as systems answers that are imposed upon us, rather than systems of inquiry for exploring and pondering the mysteries that surround us. I think that in faith, the questions are far more important than the answers - and any one question can have a vast number of answers.

I believe in the beauty of the spontaneity of every aspect of God's creation. Creation has infinite possibilities, and that is a primary aspect of its beauty and wonder. In a sense, all creation and all beings are creating themselves - and God is somehow actively bound into that ongoing, infinite process. If creation just played itself out according to a preordained script, would it still have that beauty and possibility and spontaneity, the ability to take part in the act of creation itself?

So, anyhow, I don't want anybody - not even God - writing the script for my life. If I make a few mistakes here and there, maybe that will help me grow in unexpected ways.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:37 PM

Georgiansilver, you seem to have a very uncharitable (dare I say "unChristian") attitude toward people who believe differently than you (unless you were joking).

I've heard it suggested that God, being basically good but containing evil within himself, got rid of his evil by placing it in another being, which his good side could then defeat.

Which creates a very interesting conundrum. Because when people do this sort of thing (and they do it all the time), they project their own "evil" onto others and then do evil things to the ones onto whom they have projected their concept of evil, thus creating (or perpetuating) evil rather than eliminating or reducing it.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:40 PM

Carol C you have to believe what you want to believe...we all have our choices. What actually do you believe???????
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:40 PM

Georgiansilver, we crossposted. I was refering to your first post in my last post.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:41 PM

Crossposted again. What do I believe about what?

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:42 PM

Do you believe there is a God or not...easy really!

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: freightdawg
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:46 PM

As a couple have said already, good question. Uncle DaveO gives the most succinct review of the answers. But, I have a gentle rebuke to the question, and I do hope you accept it as a gentle prod.

Your third statement, "if God is good and loving he must want to stop everything bad" has a huge logical flaw in it. I will make an assumption that you are somewhere in the west geographically (i.e., Canada, US, Europe, etc. I was going to add South America, but more on that in a moment). If so, you have been raised in a culture that praises and seeks after a life free of pain, sickness, sorrow, disappointment, grief and all the other so called "negatives" that life is literally full of. Because "our" concept of "good" eliminates those things, and because we transfer our concept of "good" to our concept of God, we naturally assume that God wants to eliminate everything bad, evil, etc.

This is the mistake of idolatry - creating a god in our image and then worshipping it.

However, this says more of our culture that of our God. Many cultures recognize that these things which we call "evil" are not evil at all, but just manifestations of the whole of life. I am not convinced at all by arguments that state God wanted man to live an idyllic life free of pain and sorrow. If you look at the Judeo/Christian story of creation in Genesis 1-3 you will not find any promise or indication that God had an antiseptic lifestyle in place for Adam and Eve. The closest we come to that conclusion is in regard to the punishment for Adam and Eve rebelling against God, and that is the pain of childbirth would INCREASE (not begin) and that man would have to work with an uncooperative land to earn his living. I am not convinced that even death is the ultimate evil, as my understanding of the context of this passage and my (admittedly limited) understanding of Hebrew indicates to me that the real punishment is not death, but a death in separation from God. I do not think God intended us to be eternal in our physical existance. I think death was in God's plan from the beginning.

You see, much of what we argue with religion (or argue with God, for that matter. I see religion as distinct from faith in God) is not the truth of God, but with our own preconceptions about such. Your own reticence to deal with the question of free will is just an example of that self-limitation. You yourself said that the fall-back to free will limits your willingness to accept much of religion and of God. Well, if you had no free will, you could not even make that choice. See? Many cultures, free of our dependence on self-reliance and the worship of "good," do not have these problems. They have their problems, to be sure, but they are not our existential, selfish, "I must be made happy" kind of issues.

You asked a good question, and it is from the asking of good questions that good answers can proceed. I just ask you to free yourself (as much as possible) from our cultural preconceptions and allow for the truth that what we consider to be evil may truly be evil and it may not be evil. It may just be a sign post God has given us to point to an easier road to walk on.

Sorry for the length of the post. But I do care deeply about this subject.

A very meditative,

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:48 PM

Mabe there is a god, but he's a bit busy at the minute?
ie, mybe he made loads of worlds not just this one? and this one got in a mess, because he is busy loking after other ones? or maybe the budget run out?
the council have got loads of roads, wehn people moan that their bit of road has got holes in it, council say="we got loads of roads to look after, your road is not priority, but we'll have a look at it if we get time", or they say "road budget run out, we might fix it next year".

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Mrrzy
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:49 PM

Georgiansilver, it is the extraordinary claims which require proof, not the observable reality. Things do not happen for a reason, there was no creation but rather a physical, explainable accretion of matter coalescing into planets, some of which have liquid water, some of which have large moons and thus tides, on some of which some chemicals became able to retain their composition under changing environments (which is what life is, after all - chemicals that don't undergo chemical changes with changing environment through their organization), and so on. As I taught my children, there is no need to prove the absence of gods. We can prove through empirical methods that anything any religion claims was accomplished by gods or a god, wasn't. Reality just is, there is no need to posit explanations requiring its proof. Instead, it is the superstitious who ought to be brought to the realization that their extraordinary claims, despite (or maybe even because of) their antiquity, are the ones that require examination.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:49 PM

Or maybe he's forgot, just keep asking him.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:53 PM

God wants what he wants and no matter what anyone says he still wants it!!!!!! God tells people...yes he does!!!! by what some call conscience.......God tells people what he wants...do you heed what he asks of you????. We all have a choice..go for what you believe....If you don't believe in God..go for what you do believe in.....It is all down to you...you have a choice in everything you do....go for it!!!!!!Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:53 PM

I don't generally use the term "God" myself. I have a concept of Divinity, but it's probably very different from your concept of God. To me, Divinity is the conscious aspect of all of Creation as well as the creator. It's a bit like this part of Joe Offer's post:

Creation has infinite possibilities, and that is a primary aspect of its beauty and wonder. In a sense, all creation and all beings are creating themselves - and God is somehow actively bound into that ongoing, infinite process.

For me though, I don't see any separation at all between the creator and the created. From my perspective, we, and every other created thing, are all tiny sparks of divinity.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Bobert
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:53 PM

Well, as a few of you know, this ol' hillbilly is a Christian. I've made no bones about it an' on one occasion was accused of interjectin' my Faith in too many threads... I don't think I have done that but, hey, some folks is real touchy when it comes to Faith issues.

With that said, I don't see God as all knowing or able to change bad things that happen. The evangical community may have a different opionion but, as these folks care more about the Old Testamant than the teachin's of Jesus I'd just ask them one question. If God could control everything then why, if you believe everything in the Old Testament, did God flood the earth? Why didn't He just make people do and act better?

I don't think that God makes folks start wars, 'er hurt other folks, 'er kids run into the street after balls and get hit by cars and killed, yet these things do happen.

What God does, however, is Bless us all with His love. And He, thru the Holy Spirit, speaks to us daily. He leads us. He cajoles us. Sometimes He speaks very loudly to us as to what we are to do... He provides comfort when we need it... And when we fail, He tells us that we'll do better next time... And probably the most important thing that God does is offer us forgiveness, shopuld we ask, for our bad behaviors...

And I'm sure that there are days when God puts His head in his hand and says to Himself, "I'll do better tomorrow..."

That's my take...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:55 PM

Amen Bobert...Amen

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 06:55 PM

there are many questions like this about the mysteries of religious ideas. Some try to 'answer' them, some just say "who knows why God did it this way?" and some say "If God were reasonable, he wouldn't have done it this way, therefore I don't believe the is a god."

In the end, YOU have to decide what kind of answer YOU like...and that's how we all get our answers, because as far as I know, no God has cleared up the matter with a clap of thunder and glowing letters in the sky. No matter what you 'believe', it is ONLY a belief...that's why we use the word 'believe'.

I personally believe that some people emotionally just need to believe...doesn't prove they are right or wrong...it just shows that the question will be with us as long as people wonder.

....but the more I see of humans and what they DO in the name of religion, the more I tend to wish we had never heard of it....all the lovely songs, churches, writings and charities notwithstanding. There are perfectly good reasons to create art, love your neighbor, and make music without the pain attached to religious strictures and rules.

I also know many can be religious without being filled with hate and rancor....but I 'think' I can avoid hate and rancor without being religious. So far, so good...

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: harvey andrews
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:10 PM

"All the Gods asleep....so no one has to kill"

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Amos
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:13 PM

A huge amount of detritus in the history of these issues is caused by some major assumpitons about the qualities and nature of this zone of being we think we are talking about.

The notion that there is "man-like" attention coming from a Beingness that transcends all cosmos is somewhat absurd on the face of it, something like requiring a human to listen to electrons individually. You wouldn't even begin to try, and if someone told you that large numbers of electrons expected you to pay attention to their affairs you would graciously and humorously decline the commitment, wouldn't you?

Anthropomorphism is a hard habit to break, especially when it is so ingrained in the legacy of vocabulary.

But until it gets broken, I don't think meaningful insights into this arena are really possible.

A

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:31 PM

Many cultures recognize that these things which we call "evil" are not evil at all, but just manifestations of the whole of life.

Freightdawg, I think you and I said what I was trying to say. Well said.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 07:52 PM

I congratulate Freighdawg on his contribution. It was masterful, and helpful.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,auggie
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 10:06 PM

Very nice FD, and very well said.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Bert
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 10:54 PM

...systems of inquiry for exploring and pondering the mysteries that surround us...

Joe, If everyone thought like that then there wouldn't be so many problems in this world.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: mack/misophist
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 11:24 PM

All closed logic systems, such as theology or arithmetic, either:

    A. Can be driven to a logical absurdity, or
    B. Are incapable of validation without introducing
       outside elements.

All religions and philosophies fall into group A. Welcome to the world. Believe or not. Behave decently and it doesn't matter.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:49 AM

But mack/misophist, do you care to explain why you contend that all philsophies and religions must be "closed logic systems"? My philosophy and theology are eclectic, and don't necessarily lead to anywhere - not even to absurdity. Philosophy and theology are tools for exploration, not sources for answers. A true philosopher never ties himself or herself to one philosophical system.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:00 PM

Interesting that "God" is pretty much always referred to as "He". In fact not a "She" or even "It" in sight.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 01:12 PM

Sorry, got interrupted.

I'm not sure what the point was that I was trying to make in the first of my posts, except that for me, the difficulty always begins with the idea of anthropomorphizing something that is supposed to be as omnipotent as a "Creator".

But then, I wasn't raised in a Christian household, so I haven't got my brain around just how Jesus was the son of such a being/concept.

Anyway, I'm sure there's going to be lots of people coming on board this thread to offer their own insights and opinions. It's been a while since we've had a good religious thread, and after all the politics, it seems only appropriate to go back to the "other" subject one is always warned against bringing up in polite company!

;-D

..xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 03:15 PM

I do not see how a god can be all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good and still be a personal god, interested in each of us individually.

There are small children dying unpleasantly in the world today. I doubt if many other cultures would think that's not evil. And these children have no free will.

The Kootenais believe (as near as I can tell) in a creator who started it all, and then went off and left it running. There are lesser spirits who may be interested and helpful, or not, but they are not omni-anything. This makes more sense to me than a God who "has a wonderful plan for your life."

I can't say I think much of his wonderful plan for those kids' life.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 03:46 PM

And I'm sure that there are days when God puts His head in his hand and says to Himself, "I'll do better tomorrow..."

So that's an admission that God isn't infallible, Bobert? Which would mean that the whole omniscient/all-powerful/don't-piss-me-off-I-will-damn-you-to-Hell business is nowt but a big lie, *ooops*, I meant propaganda, *ahem*, spin... Look, just call God George W. & let's have done with it, eh? ;-)

(There is a serious point underlying my overlying flippancy. Think about it.)

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

IMO, there IS no religious question. Them what believes, believes. Them what doesn't, doesn't. Them what's not sure's not sure. However, I don't see a question there.

For people who believe in God, that's enough. I have never felt so filled with the 'spirit' that I needed to fill everyone else with my belief about the Creator. It's a personal thing that I have not needed to have organized for me by religious institutions or religious people. My own belief tells me that it is good to help people when I can, and even when I can't. My own belief tells me that life is beautiful, and that I will never know in this life if God really exists. My own belief tells me that one book does not have all the answers, even if that book is The Book (Bible) or Koran or, or, or.

I have no need for a perfect God. That God exists in my world is all that I require. If she, he or it does not exist in yours, that's fine with me. There is no question: that's fine with me.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Fishpicker
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:12 PM

Brucie, I couldn't agree more with what you said but the problem with religion is that most subcribers, unlike yourself feel a compelling need to coercise everyone they can into believing exactly as they do OR ELSE! Just another form of terrorism really. I'm a live and let live type but I expect the same treatment from my fellow beings which is apparently too much to ask these days.

                         FP

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: annamill
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:16 PM

I, of course, spent time pondering this question. I did a lot of research, read a lot, explored, talked to people. I came to my own conclusion. One of the books I read helped a lot. It is called

The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm.

A book with really good ideas and explanations. Give it a try. It might help.

You have to follow your own path.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:33 PM

4. God, while all good and all powerful, is not attentive--he just doesn't pay attention to us and our actions, so evil in effect goes on behind his back.

Doesn't work, Uncle DaveO. My understanding of christer dogma is that the big g (lowercase here is intentional irony...) is also all knowing. You cannot be unattentive to my every thought & everything I might do & still presume to judge me for all eternity. If your point is valid, then god is convicting us either because he feels like it, or because a minion is "fitting us up a treat!"

You cannot be all powerful without being all knowing. How can you stop something that you are ignorant of? This is the staple of Fantasy fiction & the bane of many a Dark Lord! *grin*

You cannot be all knowing without knowing everything that has been, everything that is, and everything that will be. This is where christer dogma falls entirely apart, IMO. God cannot be all-good & all-powerful.

If he is all-powerful, he knew what he was doing long before he ever did it (so he is a complete bastard, considering he's put people through Genghis Khan, the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Hitler/Stalin, & so forth, quite deliberately, & then reckons he has the right to judge us). Or he is the ultimate incarnation of Good, in which case the notion of him being all-powerful is logically indefensible & there must be someone else hanging around that has, at the least, the potential to beat the ultimate crap out of him (& we're back to the bile, I mean, the bible being no more than propaganda).

The only other alternative is that god is entirely beyond human comprehension. In which case sticking labels of "good", "powerful", or "knowing" on him is utterly meaningless. If god is truly "all-powerful" he is rather further in advance of us than we are in front of Homo Erectus (which Fundies deny all knowledge of, (un-)naturally!).

It can be claimed that we would be unequivocally benevolent towards HErec. But does anyone really believe that A) we would be; & B) that HE would have the slightest comprehension of what we were or how we were treating them, however we did? Anyway up, they'd bow down before us as gods... Funnily enough, how the monotheist theology has us behave towards the infinitely superior Ultimate Deity.

God is either all-powerful or all-good. The two are not compatible in any human frame of reference (except blind, obedient, gullible faith). Or you accept that he is beyond human comprehension, in which case anything you claim is pure speculation (i.e. complete self-serving bollocks) on your part. This is why I'm pagan. I prefer to talk to higher beings I can understand, ones who aren't so godalmightyfuckingarrogant that they claim to be the be-all & end-all of existence.

Rædwulf

P.S. Unlike georgiansilver, I don't claim that the higher beings talk back. I don't have any transcriptions from god, jesus f-off christ, or any of my lot. I just do the best I can & hope I'm doing about right.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:40 PM

Im an atheist..But I have studied the bible a little, and believe most of us take it too literally.

To my mind most of it , especially the new testament is metaphorical.

Like Jesus being referred to as the son of God, when what is really meant is that he had "goodness" in him.

Most theologians now see biblical writing as metaphor,most no longer believe in a physical heaven and hell or resurrection, or a supreme being...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:55 PM

Apart from not being an atheist, I'd agree with the bulk of that, Ake!

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 04:59 PM

P.S. Didn't you live & die 14thC B.C.E? Is this proof of reincarnation??!! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM

Aye very droll Raedwulf..
But the origional Ake was a believer in the natural phenomena, not the supernatural.... Good to hear from you.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Egyptian King
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:09 PM

That was Akhenaton

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:10 PM

Laura, there are any number of excellent books out there that can answer your questions, which were:

"If God is all knowing - he knows every bad thing happening in the world.
If he's all powerful - he can do anything in the world he wants to.
If he's all good and loving - he must want to stop everything bad."


Okay. If "God" is awareness or consciousness itself, in totality, then of course that consciousness "knows everything". It can't NOT know. It is you, Laura, who decides what is "good" or "bad", because you are working from your own reference point and drawing comparisons. A squirrel thinks it's bad to be grabbed by a marten. The marten thinks it's good. What do you think? It's relative, isn't it?

"If he's all-powerful"... What does that mean, Laura? If individual beings have free will, then "God" cannot intervene against it because it would then not BE free will any longer. What does "all-powerful" mean. The very idea of power is an idea that occurs to a limited being who observes that their is some power out there, but he doesn't have enough of it (so he thinks), and he wants more! Thus the search for power begins. This is an activity of limited beings, not of an unlimited God.

"He must want to stop everything bad." So what's bad? I think it's bad to bomb people. George Bush and Osama Bin Laden don't think it is, as long as the right people (in their view) get bombed! Everybody has different ideas about what is good or bad, although there are a few things we mostly sort of agree on...except when we don't! :-)

Look, if you're infinite then you lack nothing. Something that lacks nothing doesn't want anything, because it already IS all possible things and conditions...and its joy is to simply express that endlessly.

As long as you want a God out there somewhere that is just like an enlarged, more powerful human being of some kind, made in man's image, you will not get what I am talking about here...

As long as you think God is separate from you, you will not get it. You are a spark in the fire that is God. You are one drop in the ocean that is God. The drop is composed of the same stuff as the ocean. The ocean does not tell the drop what to do or not do. If the drop chooses to regard itself as separate, then that's what it will perceive. If it chooses to regard itself as tragic, that is also what it will perceive. If it decided to be happy, it would be.

"Good and bad, I defined these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow. Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."   - Bob Dylan

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:22 PM

Well thanks everyone - I was really interested in everything you all said!
As far as I'm concerned - 'bad; is where people get hurt. And not in the case of a squirrel grabbed by a marten. because that HAS to happen. but in the case of people getting hurt through something that is incomprehensible. e.g. disease, disaster etc.

Something else i have just remembered, I once read a book (a kids book - but with a good point) about a pair of twins. one was pure good and one was pure evil, in the end the good twin prevailed, but to do this she had to destroy the evil twin, and in doing this (the very act of destroying) she was no longer pure good. (and in the story she was then a normal kid - yay)
So maybe God is something like this. I dunno.

Or maybe, jOhn, he just forgot.

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:27 PM

Raedwulf said, in part:

4. God, while all good and all powerful, is not attentive--he just doesn't pay attention to us and our actions, so evil in effect goes on behind his back.

Doesn't work, Uncle DaveO.

I didn't say that's what I believed, did I? I reported it as one of the "solutions" I had heard.

As a matter of fact, I don't believe in any of the "solutions" I put forward, because I don't believe in a god, much less God. I was just dealing with the dilemma the first poster put up for us, which is a classic.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:34 PM

*g* I didn't say I thought you said... Of the points you put forward, it was the one that was entirely unsustainable, & therefore too good a target to ignore! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 05:46 PM

Hindus tell us that no one can completely know God. Why is God necessarilly Christian? That book called the Bible was written by scribes. Qu'ran, Bhagavad Ghita, Torah..............written by scribes.

I believe that the concept of God is an ideal. I like the Quaker's and Hindus view that God exists in every sentient being, but in some folks, gets suppressed.

Many Jews believe also that no one can fully know God. That's why they spell it G-d.

Does God do evil? Why does God allow evil? Who knows enough to say God does or doesn't? Who knows God that much? Or G-d? Or Krishna or Allah? Who is the final authority on God? Which religion knows God best?

This ideal of God is projected by people with different backgrounds and attitudes. I don't like Bush's idea of God because it's not the same as mine.

Bottom line: How can you define a mystery?

Frank





.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 06:24 PM

"...just how Jesus was the son of such a being/concept."

it's perfectly easy to write a story which breaks known laws and introduces concepts that stretch credulity. Science Fiction does it every day; they just don't try to sell it as 'real', and most people don't TREAT it as real...(except maybe for the Darkover series by Marion Zimmer Bradley..*grin*)

a story that was written BY people who already had basic beliefs and no way to research, except by word of mouth and an occasional scribe, could EASILY create a myth that began to sound real. That is still being done today by various cults..witness the comet people and the Branch Davidians...(It makes only a little difference whether those who wrote the various manuscripts for the world's religions believed what they wrote...most probably did, and those who did a good job got 'believed')

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: frogprince
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 06:38 PM

I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now."   - Bob Dylan
I'm kind of glad that, somewhere along the way I've
1. Lost interest in even trying to totally rationalize all my thoughts and feelings about faith or God, or the lack thereof, as Raedwulf seems to be straining so hard to do.
2. Concluded that it makes no sense whatever to feel that I must believe everything that is in "The Book", even when the brain cells that "God" gave me tell me a lot of it is contrary to observable and demonstrable fact.

I will probably keep using male pronouns for God, out of habit, and because saying "it" feels to me like speaking of something less than, rather than more than, human male or female. One thing I appreciate from the Christian Science tradition is their use of the expression (if I have it right) "Our Father/Mother God.

As to the "problem of evil", maybe realizing that easy answers don't really work for anyone is something of of a beginning of wisdom. (Don't take that as knocking anyone here; I think there has been a lot of good honest reflection on this thread).

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 06:50 PM

fprince - Nah, not me! I use rationality as a weapon against monotheism because they're so god-damned certain about everything. And they try to pretend it's rationality rather than faith... {rollseyes}

It's a good weapon because they've spent a few hundred years trying to make it their own. I'm not above rubbing the odd nose in... ;-)

I'm pagan. There's plenty of irrational/unexplainable in that, but monotheism is weak & intolerant. It can't handle that - it has to be certain...

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Cruiser
Date: 12 Nov 04 - 07:00 PM

Parsimoniously speaking: there are no Gods.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 12:34 AM

Wow. Turn around for a minute and a little thread becomes a huge rope.

I've enjoyed reading the comments. I think Laura's question strikes a nerve because so many of us have pondered the same issue. I do not want to put words in her post (so to speak) but the one way I have heard it stated most often is "why do bad things happen to good people." When I was younger I had a long winded and mostly misguided response to that question. Then I woke up and realized I really did not even understand the question, so how could I answer it?

As I get older it just seems that much of the problem exists in definitions. Just what is "bad" or "evil". Who can be considered "good". And why are "good" people, even if we could define such a term, supposed to be immune from so much of what we call life? Are we just as upset when supposedly "evil" people get good things like higher paying jobs and healthy grandchildren?

A little personal background here. Following my more self-righteous days when I knew all the answers and had all the solutions, both of my parents were diagnosed with cancer. First my father, with a cancer of an unknown origin that had already metastasized into his spine. Then a couple of months later my mother with breast cancer. My father was diagnosed in February, my mother in the spring. My mother had a major surgery and survived. My father had several major surgeries and passed away 10 days before Christmas.

Why did my mom survive and my dad pass away? Was one event "good" and one "evil"? If I am "good" why did "evil" happen to me in the event of my father's death? If I am "evil" why did my mom survive?

Actually, now I have just come to view both illnesses as events in my life that gave me the opportunity respond in evil or kind ways. I did not come to this realization quickly or easily. It has taken me years (14 and counting so far) to do so. But they were just events - how I ultimately will respond to both of them will determine whether they are "good" in my life or "evil". I must admit that initially I regarded them as evil, and I responded in kind. Like the character Tevye in my favorite movie "Fiddler on the Roof," I have been having a protracted and sometimes intense argument with God. I hope now that I am older and perhaps a bit wiser that I can fashion out of the results of both experiences something positive and good. Truth be known, probably no one will know whether I was successful or not until I am dead and gone.

I just hope that no one thinks that *that* event is a good one! :-)

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 09:40 AM

Can you give me your definition of "pagan", Raedwulf? I'm just asking out of general curiosity.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 11:16 AM

I think we need to be careful to distinguish between what is hard luck, unfortunate, etc., and what is evil.   To contract cancer, or to have a heart attack, or to have a satellite fall on your head is bad luck or unfortunate, all right, but there's no evil there, and I don't see any conflict with God (or "a god") being good, if you want to believe in a god at all.

Evil, on the other hand, proceeds from human action, and particular from malicious human action. Perhaps I should include greedy or antisocial human action. In other words, one might say evil proceeds from free will being misused.

When bad (merely bad, or unfortunate) things happen to good people, there is no particular contradiction or injustice. When a good person (or any person, for that matter) is the victim of evil (the result, even rather remote sometimes, of a malicious or a self-serving act), we get to the theological dilemma posed by the original poster.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 12:51 PM

Little hawk...I was wondering about Raedwulf and the Pagan thing.

From what Iv read about pagans, their spirituality was based on the natural world and the natural cycle, and I believe theres something
valuable in respecting and understanding nature.

But I wondered how anyone could be a proper pagan living in todays world and having all the percieved "wisdom"of modern life.

I too would like to hear Raedwulf explain, and like you its just plain curiosity.....no alterior motive this time....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 01:03 PM

modern paganism

Just incase he's busy.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 01:41 PM

It seems to me that before concluding that you believe in God (or not), you'd better have a fairly clear idea of just what God is. Unless you do, the God you believe in didn't make you in His/Her/Its image, you made is made Him/Her/It in your image.

You can learn a lot about people by determining what they believe God's nature to be.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 02:15 PM

Ah, Uncle Dave - 'tis the crux of the matter exactly. When we are in the midst of a crisis, however indiscriminate or "unfortunate" in your words, it is difficult not to label it as "evil". But, in the words of a famous book of the same title, the question is about God's role when "bad" things happen to good people. The book was written by a Rabbi whose son contracted a hideous disease and died at a young age. I forget the name of the author, but his ultimate conclusion was that God cares, and cares deeply, but is not all-powerful and is thus unable to do anything about it. (A position I happen to disagree with, however.)

I really do not wish to sound trite here, but a major influence in my thinking can be found in Joseph's words to his brothers once they were reunited after they (his brothers) faked his death and sold him into slavery. He told them, "you meant it for evil, but God meant (or used) it for good." As I age and *hopefully* am able to see the world through a little more clear prism I increasingly turn to the power of humans to overcome both the unfortunate and the evil through conscious, willful and deliberate choices. This can be seen in the holocaust survivors, the victim of rape, the lone survivor of a murdered family, etc. Some, and I would count myself among them, attribute this ability to their faith in a just and all powerful God. Others, who discount God, are still able to rise above the status of "victimhood" and are able to use their experiences in a positive, constructive manner. The power, from a human point of view, lies in the ability to rise above common definitions and the tendency to fall into confining "pigeon-holes" and to look above and beyond our own immediate injuries.

For some the question is philosophical, for others it is metaphysical/religious. Regardless of the orientation the question is worth asking, and well worth the discussion.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 04:13 PM

Joe Campbell said that there is nothing wrong with Myths. We need them to educate a civilized society.

Watch for those definitions. People throw Evil around like a beach ball.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 04:53 PM

But when anything 'bad' happens (or what we percieve as bad) the question is always:
Why Me?

So why? Why do things happen to some people and not to others? (this, I realise, is a pretty rhetorical question)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 05:00 PM

Freightdawg said, in part:

but his ultimate conclusion was that God cares, and cares deeply, but is not all-powerful and is thus unable to do anything about it. (A position I happen to disagree with, however.)

So what part of it do you disagree with? That God is limited in power? Or that he doesn't know? Or that he doesn't care? Or that he's not all good?

If you posit a God, the answer has to be one or more of the above.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 05:22 PM

*Laura*, you ask "Why me?". The short answer is "Why not?". Why do 1,000 ants drown for one to cross the water?

We are anthropocentric, virtually by definition, and we see everything - including God and religion - through their relationship (and effect) on us. This often stops us from seeing properly our place in the grander scheme of things (as in Nature), because we believe that we somehow have more rights than other creatures, by virtue of our intelligence or power to dominate.

But try to see yourself as a little ant or even less significant than that - which I argue we all are - and you'l see why the original question makes no sense.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 05:26 PM

fair enough

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:05 PM

From that site on Paganism:

"Unlike many mainstream religious traditions, Pagans view Divinity as immanent rather than (or in addition to) transcendent. Rather than pray to some form "out there," Pagans view all living things as sacred. Diversity is seen as an expression of the divine order. People are viewed as essentially good and holy, although still capable of acting unethically."

That is how I see it too. I don't call myself "pagan" (or anything else for that matter), but that's how I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:12 PM

"But try to see yourself as a little ant or even less significant than that"

It's not usually significant to a human if an ant dies. And it's not usually significant to an ant if a human dies. And perhaps to god, neither is significant.

But we are human, and as you say, necessarily anthropocentric, and there is something seriously wrong with a human who thinks there is no significance to the Holocaust, or to Ted Bundy's victims. You can't just say "Wot the hell--they're all insects," and still be human.

Yes, I know about the Jains, but they're coming from the other side, where the ant is as significant as the human.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:37 PM

… not where the human is as insignificant as the ant.

didn't finish the sentence

clint

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:48 PM

To God each of our deaths is important!
Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 07:02 PM

Clint...Cant agree, ants might not be more significant than humans , but fungi certainly are more significant,because without fungi the planet would become completely lifeless.
So why is there supposedly a god of humanity but no god of fungii.

Or is all theology a figment of our imagination and ego..Ake

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 07:05 PM

I said nothing about man's inhumanity to man, Clint. The Holocaust, and the deaths of Ted Bundy's victims, and more recent victims of atrocities (I'll leave it at that) have their significance - in relation to humanity.

And every individual's suffering has also significance - in relation to humanity, or at least to the one that suffers and those who care for him/her.

But for Life in general, some of humanity's laws do not apply. Faced with a hungry lion, a human is only more significant (to creation) than an ant because of size and because he/she can provide a more substantial meal for a living creature.

All I am saying is that we cannot extrapolate the values we have as humans and apply them to all of creation.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 08:02 PM

Why do people think God would involve Him/Her/Itself in human affairs? That's a serious question; I'm not trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 08:12 PM

Dave, the part of the Rabbi's conclusion that I disagree with is that God is limited in power, with one exception provided.

The entire Christian story contains many items that one must accept by faith. I was going to list several of them, but since I believe that this is a forum to share ideas and not to prosyletize I will refrain. Two of God's characteristics germaine to this discussion are his goodness and his power. Obviously, some believe that he (sorry for the gender issue - I do not believe God to be male but "it" is just way too impersonal for my taste) cannot be both good and all powerful. For them, to say that God is powerful enough to eliminate evil and yet not good enough to do so is a contradiction that prevents them from believing in God.

My rhetorical question to such a person is this: How can we who are finite mortal beings ascribe such attributes as omniscience, infiniteness and immortality to a being we call God, and in the same breath deny him the very attributes that we claim we ascribe to him? (If I could use italics, the phrase from the comma would be italicized) That is to say, if we claim we attribute omniscience to God, why is that we limit HIS view of knowlege to what WE know? If we label an event in our life as "evil", and we ask why God would allow such an evil to exist if he knew it was going to exist and was powerful enough to make it not exist, then we are positing that we know *everything* about the situation and there can be no other answer but to submit to our wish. So we conclude thusly: an omniscient God can be either all powerful, or good, but he cannot be both.

I submit that he can be omniscient, all powerful and good. The key lies in fully submitting to the concept that he is all knowing, and by recongnizing a fourth characteristic (there are many) of his nature, and that is his redemptive nature. In regard to the first, the more we fully admit to and allow God to be omniscient, the more we recognize our own fallibility and weakness. This, I believe, is a major aspect of faith in general. If I ascribe omniscience to God, I must ascribe omniscience in HIS view of the world, not just mine. Likewise goodness and power. If I ascribe all power and all goodness to God, it must be power and goodness as HE reveals, not just as I might imagine. Thus, I have no doubt that he knew my aunt was going to be murdered. I have no doubt that he could have used many designs to have made sure she was not murdered. But she was. Is God any less God because my aunt was murdered, or because my dad died of cancer?

In my arguments with God, which as I posted earlier, have been intense and frequent, I am always led back to God's redemptive nature. God does not prevent "evil" from occuring not because he is unwilling or unable or just not good enough. Evil exists because man wants it to exist. The holocaust happened because Hitler and Himler designed it. My aunt was murdered because her murderer chose to be a freaked out socio-path. A family was wiped out by a driver who chose to drink himself incoherent and then drive the wrong way down the interstate. But in each situation God has provided a way for the humans devastated by these "evils" to overcome them. Forgiveness. Social action. Rising up to eliminate prejudice and hatred. Working in homeless shelters. Working to rehabilitate and rebuild broken lives. Working to eliminate sexual abuse and to comfort those who are tragically victims of such abuses. In short, we who so choose to be, can become instruments of God's power and goodness to achieve the elimination of evil one human life at a time. I know that sounds utopian, and is probably an unreachable star. But I am hopelessly committed to being a Don Quixote de La Mancha.

And so, in the most kind and gentle way that I can, I would like to turn the question around and ask Laura to explain the goodness of Mother Teresa, the bravery of Jonas Salk, the courage of Martin Luther King, and the list could go on. I would say that, given man's almost indescribable tendency to create and inflict evil on each other, she would have a more difficult time explaining the existance of good and those that overcome evil than I would have explaining the existance of evil and those that try to destroy good.

Once again, sorry for the length of the post. And I apologize if any think I am trying to force my views on others. I am simply trying to verbalize some thoughts about my long and torturous journey. I do not claim that this journey is over, nor that I have all the answers. I am just tilting at the windmills in my life, but with every windmill I tilt at I believe I learn a little bit more.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 09:04 PM

"All I am saying is that we cannot extrapolate the values we have as humans and apply them to all of creation."

I know. But we cannot deny the values we have as humans just because they do not apply to all of creation. They do apply to us.

Many years ago I had a cousin born with a heart that grew much faster than the rest of him. It crowded his lungs and he suffocated when he was a year old. I don't think I should have told his mother that it was of little consequence in terms of the universe. Would any of you?

And this was not the result of any human decision, like murder; you can't blame it on the human race. Everyone who knew him would've saved him if they could but the all-powerfiul, all-good god would not. And if his death was of little consequence in terms of the universe, I can't believe that his life would've done any harm.

What I'm saying is that these "omni-" values people attribute to god cannot all exist at once.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 10:03 PM

Freightdawg, to say that the whole issue of this thread is avoided by saying "We can't know what he knows, so we can't judge the question" is possibly true, but it's obscurantism, and it denies the applicability of reason to not only this question but to any question regarding religion. I, for one, can't live that way--or at least find it impossible to deal with any question relating to religion if another person in the discussion can flee the field by simply saying "We don't or can't know."

That's exactly why I am forced to be at most an agnostic, at those times when I'm trying to be intellectually responsible. And now and then I lose patience and just say, "Eff it! I don't believe there even is a god!" Which I know is not intellectually supportable, but feels good emotionally, and is just as respectable (or disrespectable) as the person who says, "I don't know, but I feel there is a god."

Dave Oesterreich

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: freightdawg
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM

Dave, I really did not intend to suggest that we could, or even should, avoid the issue of the thread. I, for one, do not want to deny the applicability of reason to this question, or any question regarding religion. Of all the gifts man has, I believe one of the most beautiful is that of reason and intellect. If God did not want us to use it to ponder his nature he would not have given it to us period. What I am saying is that when we move into the realm of the metaphysical or the Divine we must use a different measuring tool. As I said in my very first post, to measure God's wisdom or knowledge or goodness or power by that of my own is to become idolatrous. That I am not willing to do. However, I believe I can legitimately use other tools available to me to attempt to intelligently approach this and similar questions. In my last post I attempted to do so by positing that there are ways that a good and all powerful God can demonstrate that goodness other than eliminating everything and anything that one human or another might label as "evil" at some point in history. One way, albeit not the only way, is to allow humans to become his partners in overcoming that said evil. We can do that by discovering vaccines, liberating the oppressed, providing shelter for the homeless, or just holding the victim of a crime.

I truly believe there are things about God that we cannot know. That, however, does not stop me from using every gift I have to discover the things I can know. And I enjoy and benefit from the searches of others as well, agnostic as well as believer. Just because we approach the issue from different angles does not mean we cannot assist and benefit from each other.

Many thanks for the posts.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: GUEST,Clint Keller
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 12:31 AM

"One way… is to allow humans to become his partners in overcoming that said evil… by discovering vaccines, liberating the oppressed, providing shelter for the homeless, or just holding the victim of a crime."

But all those are bound to come too late for some people, and justice delayed is justice denied. And none of those sound like a partnership to me; they sound like leaving it up to mankind.

Let me come at it another way. All those omni- attributes are an attempt to make god into something like mankind but greater. But whatever It may be, It is not human. And I have seen no sign that It cares about individual humans, unless you assume It practices favoritism.

So I feel the Kootenais are on the right track, because I find atheism inconceivable.

clint

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Cruiser
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 01:26 AM

{Quote}
"Joe Campbell said that there is nothing wrong with Myths"
{End Quote}

I enjoyed Mr. Campbell's PBS special. However, I disagree with the quote above by Frank.

The God Myth is a powerful, devastatng justification for misdeeds to humanity in the mind of (and he would say "in his heart of hearts") of someone like Mr. Bush and like-minded Evangelicals.

The belief in any God, especially an anthropomorphic God, is not rational, logical, reasonable, commonsensical, and not even good horse sense. I am astounded that in this age of science and reason that a 2000 poll found 94% of the respondents believed in God.

Freightdawg, I commend your introspection. There are other good posts on this subject in this thread.

I have written on the God topic elsewhere on this forum so I won't go into that detail here. I would only ask that each individual give themselves credit for possessing the attributes of decency, kindness, solicitude, and humanity instead of ascribing that goodness to a nonsensical, supernatural, mythical diety or some other etheric idealism.

Cruiser

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:07 AM

Thanks for the response, Clint - we agree.

For the majority of people, the anthropomorphic nature of religion means that we see God as "a better me". Infinitely better perhaps, but it's that "me" that bothers me, inevitable though it is. Because it leads us to ascribe will similar to ours, and makes it easy for those who want to twist it to mean "if I want this, God therefore must want this". Some of the Bush apologists are already doing this.

In the end, most of us (myself included) choose the God that "suits us". And though I too make that mistake, I cannot help but feel the logic is flawed.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 11:40 AM

Cruiser said, in a bit of wheel-within-wheels discussion:

{Quote}
"Joe Campbell said that there is nothing wrong with Myths"
{End Quote}

I enjoyed Mr. Campbell's PBS special. However, I disagree with the quote above by Frank.

Joe is right. Nothing wrong with myths. Why?

We have to understand the nature of myths. A myth is a story, set in the past, about things that are always true.

That is to say that a myth is a story which attempts to make a certain sort of metaphorical sense of principles which have always come up and always will.

Thus, to refer to "the Jesus myth", for example, is not to say that the events did or did not happen as set out, but that the story sheds light on timeless questions, regardless of historical fact. Likewise the myth of Sysephus, the myth of Narcissus, and on and on.

As long as we recognize the metaphorical nature of myth, it can be useful. It's when one tries to take the details of the story too literally that thinking gets muddled.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: *Laura*
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 02:32 PM

Sorry Freightdawg - I can't explain the goodness/bravery/courage of any of these people. Maybe they just were good at understanding things better than most people.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 03:48 PM

Guest - The day I need an anonymous... Someone... to explain for me!!!

Ake & Hawk, since you asked,

Well, according to the OED pagan means that I hold religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions, which is accurate, if somewhat vague. To be a little more precise, I'm germanic pagan, without the stoooopid right wing/nazi notions of blood/racial purity.

I do my best to be the best that I can, without constant recourse to my gods to tell my whether I'm right, wrong, or useless. I do not believe that human-written dogma (call it bible, talmud or q'ran) is the be-all & end-all of human morality. This is, perhaps, my biggest quibble with christianity. You can be the most worthless, useless loser ever born, but all you've got to do is say "sorry". You don't have to try, you don't have to fulfill your potential; as long as you're suitably apologetic, Jesus (& god) loves you...

So, a la the Middle Ages, spend the whole of your life being a 24-carat git, but spend the last 5 minutes apologising & regretting... Yer laughing... Who is right? Who wants to judge 500 years ago & say that they were wrong? That's what they believed then...

I cannot explain or define everything that I feel. I have no one source of dogma (call it bible, talmud or q'ran) that I can refer you to & say "This is what my god says". But then I consider that a plus point. I've had one or two try to tell me that "The gods say..."

Well, they can fuck off. If the message is that important, I reckon my gods will tell me personally; & loudly, so's I can't mistake the message! ;-) It hasn't happened yet, so I continue to muddle through, doing the best that I can, & in 50 years or so we'll see whether I've got it right or not...

No-one stands between me & my gods. *I* get it right, or *I* get it wrong. There's no pope or priest that could mediate for me. There's no pope or priest that I would allow to mediate for me. It's down to me to do what I think is best. No mediators, no excuses, no justification. Just me & what I've done throughout my life. I reckon, after 80 (give or take a few) years, that'll be a fair indication of what I am & what I did. If I still need an intermediary at that point, either I'm a fuck-up, or god is! (I don't have a good opinion of lawyers, BTW! ;-) )

My take on paganism amounts to:

This is the world that I live in.

I must do the best that I can within that world.

My beliefs are rooted in nature, but not irrevocably tied to it.

I could do more to reduce my 'footprint', but, generally, it would be an almost entirely useless self-sacrifice that would achieve very little.

Pragmatism!

I aim for the best that I can, knowing that I will not achieve what I might wish, but seeing how well I can do. If my efforts help or inspire others, so much the better, but I'm not here to preach & each must find their own way.

Because I desire the freedom to find my own way, I must allow others equal freedom. However, if their choices conflict with mine, I must inevitably fight for that which I believe in, figuratively or (if I think it will be effective) literally.

I do not live without regard to others, but ultimately I must do right by 'myself'. "Faith, folk, family" defines an expanding, but still limited, group of people (family, BTW, certainly includes those on Mudcat that I have met only met through the ether, but have still learnt to respect). I cannot know all the limitless mass of humanity. I can only hope that I am an influence for the greater good upon those that I know. Therefore, I am the best that I know how to be to those around me.

If I am loved, I return that love with interest, if I am attacked, I return that violence with (appropriate) interest.

So far, it seems to have worked pretty well! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:15 PM

There IS a God of fungi. You just haven't heard about it because mushrooms can't talk! :-)

What I mean to say, actually, is that God is intimately connected to ALL beings, not just human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:18 PM

"Why do people think God would involve Him/Her/Itself in human affairs? That's a serious question; I'm not trolling."

Thought I'd ask again.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:20 PM

Oh, and thanks for the explanation, Raedwulf. It seems that everyone is a "pagan" in somebody else's view...if they choose to use the word in a pejorative fashion, that is. I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:29 PM

Very well said Raedwulf, thanks for sharing your beliefs.

I feel we three are not to far apart on "spirituality",which as LH says ,has nothing to do with organised religion.

Personally, from our first meeting on MC, I have liked you style, there is something fine about a man or woman who can laugh at themselves, a sure sign of inner security.
Everyone needs reminding not to take themselves too seriously, and thanks for reminding me so often....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 04:37 PM

Bruce - People think that "God would involve Him/Her/Itself in human affairs" because they have the peculiar idea that God is separate from human affairs in the first place...therefore must step in when things get too far out of whack.

That is a misperception, in my opinion. God is not separate from anything. A consciousness which imagines itself to be alone sees itself as separate...therefore imagines God to be separate also, existing at some unimaginable distance. Also a misperception.

It's like one cell in the jellyfish thinking that the rest of the jellyfish is on the other side of the Universe somewhere... :-) Meanwhile the whole jellyfish carries on just fine, regardless of what that one little cell thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: frogprince
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:05 PM

Raedwulf, you have some (understandable)problems with Christianity, but I don't get the impression that Jesus himself (assuming for this point that we have some sense of what he was really like) would have any real problem with you. Let me pick at one nit with you: when you say you will repay an attack "with interest", are you claiming the right to defend yourself against actual harm, or do you believe in returning even a verbal assault "with interest"? I've been known to do the latter, and like as not it's been pretty conterproductive.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:21 PM

Raedwulf always returns verbal assaults "with interest", but never with aggression....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Peace
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:45 PM

"The tarot cards are drained,
God's been acting strange,
He gave up throwing Bibles at the wall;
His ministers complain,
But nothing much has changed,
I s'pose He's tryin' to forget about it all."

From my aetheist period.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:50 PM

That's what "turning the other cheek" was all about. It didn't mean to surrender to an attack...it meant not to return a hostile thought or intention with an an equally hostile thought or intention. Do not respond to negative thinking with negative thinking of your own. "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Anyone who has dealt with interpersonal relations in a family or a relationship ought to understand that or they are going to just exacerbate existing problems.

Likeswise, hurling abuse and hatred at someone who has just hurled abuse and hatred at you doesn't really do a thing to resolve a disagreement.

Seems like it took the Irish quite a while to figure that one out, and the Israelis and Palestinians haven't done too well either.

Subject: RE: BS: religious question
From: vanessathecat
Date: 14 Nov 04 - 05:55 PM

God is in control, and suffering and pain are part of the plan. Suffering for Christians has a purpose of improving and strengthening their relationship with God (see James Ch 1 in the new testament), and He allows it to continue because there is meaning and benefit in it. And(I know this is what you didn't want me to say!) part of evil is to do with the fact that we turn away and rebel against
god (free will!) and though He gives us the chance to come back to Him He doesn't force us to. I'm sorry if it seems that everyone has a set answer - it's because we have to go on what it says in the bible - we can't just make up answers, and since all Christians have the same reference point, we tend to come out with the same answers!

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! ;-) ).