 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religion, which is the best one?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 19 Oct 13 - 08:18 AM Joe O: Where did you get the idea that I suggested ""tearing down ancient religious sites because we disapprove of the religions that built them"". I make no such suggestion, and feel that it would be a purposeless approach. True, interesting architecture, is indeed interesting architecture to be enjoyed. However, when a main purpose is human sacrifice (in this case, to the gods), it puts that specific architecture in a different place, at least with me - no matter which period to which it belongs. We do live in a different world than ancient cultures. That puts us in a better position "to understand and reflect" on the unfortunate parts of history,(on slavery, cruelty, and human sacrifice) rather than ignore it as if it never existed, explain it away as a different time, or even "glorify" it. It is hardly "foolhardy" to also reflect on the full purpose of the specific architecture while still enjoying it. Few cultures, countries, race of people, or periods in time can claim "moral superiority", over another. Some terrible acts of human suffering has followed the human race - often tacked to a variety of causes" - and unfortunately they follow us to today. Ignoring them means we will never learn to be more compassionate and considerate of "the other ones" who have suffered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 19 Oct 13 - 06:22 AM Religion is simply an aspect of human life, not an independent agent that could want to control humans. The same applies, for example, to politics. Some people want to control, others want to be guided and lead, some hope to profit selfishly from the "powers that be", some find it wise to "do as the Romans do", and there are many other ways of relating to power and control. Those in power normally seek legitimation from the existing system of approved values, often in terms that we may call religious. If the existing religious tradition fails to provide the desired legitimation (- notably the New Testament, which is essentially critical of any earthly power, in spite of doing its best to avoid irritating the Roman Empire any more than necessary -), teachings can be tweaked and corrupted. That is all. No religion-vs.-people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 19 Oct 13 - 04:22 AM You practice something you call religion. Controlling the masses has been achieved using something called religion. Which use of the word religion do you wish people to prove? Yours can't be proven because it is unique to Joe Offer. Tell you what. I'll go one better. Blessed are the meek. The one about eyes of needles and rich men. Jam tomorrow. ... mmmmm. You know, the role of the church, mosque, temple, shaman... I wonder why kings put up with them? I wonder what use they had? Any other sentences you wish to take out of context? Be my guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Oct 13 - 03:34 AM Musket sez: It is a well researched, pretty well proven fact that the object of religion is controlling the masses. Joe's response: If it's proven, prove it. I, as one who practices religion, don't feel particularly controlled. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 19 Oct 13 - 02:55 AM You know Joe, instead of saying "Americans and Britons" you could just as easily say "Christians. " Stops the Spanish, Portuguese, Belgians, French, Germans, Russians from getting off the hook. Whatever the more temporal aims of those in charge, the foot soldiers were told their colonial actions were to the glory of God and the savages were a blasphemous affront. Denigrating practices that are not your own may well be bad manners but think on two thoughts if you would; By stating your Creed as part of debate, you lay it open to scrutiny. You shouldn't be offended when it is dismissed as irrelevant or indeed seen globally as part of the problem. Many people have no issue with religion so long as it affects their members only, and then only in a legal framework. The remnants from the superstitious past still linger on the statute books over here. Churches can sometimes be rather aggressive in trying to maintain influence in society. And let's not forget, the one area where science can take religion on board is that of social sciences. It is a well researched, pretty well proven fact that the object of religion is controlling the masses. The stories, which you for one are quick to point out are just stories to gain moral guidance from, were put forward for people to actually believe. Medieval peasants and inbred monarchs didn't have the benefit of your education nor indeed wisdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 13 - 09:00 PM I dunno, Ed. I tend to avoid moralizing about what was done by other cultures, especially by ancient ones. We live life from a different perspective, and I think it's foolhardy to morally condemn a perspective we cannot understand. Americans and Britons have had the bad habit of claiming moral superiority over other cultures that we've labelled "savage," and look where it's got us. To my mind, interesting architecture, is interesting architecture. I do not favor tearing down ancient religious sites because we disapprove of the religions that built them. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 18 Oct 13 - 07:03 PM If realy bad things happen in a structure (a recent example is the Castro house, where three young women were kept as sex slaves), the structure would seem just "creepy" to me. Human sacrifices, and human slavery to serve "the gods" is not a historic myth, it's a reality. IMO, the structures, no matter how advanced in history, should be a reminder of inflicting human folly of human suffering for a "relligious cause" - versus making them a monument revered for " good architecture", with "the rest of the story swept under the carpet". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 13 - 06:35 PM I think that says it all, Jeri. Did the Mayans do human sacrifice? Whether they did or not, their structures are intriguing. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Jeri Date: 18 Oct 13 - 06:24 PM I was raised as a Methodist, although I'm a non-believer now. I remember asking our minister about why we had to go to church and what was so special about it. I'm aware what some people believe about religions, but we were encouraged to ask questions, and the minister didn't always have answers. On this issue, though, he did, even if this is me paraphrasing what he said some 40-ish years ago. We don't need to be anywhere in particular to worship God. God made everything, so everywhere is his. Churches are just places where people can worship together, and are dedicated to that purpose. It's funny, but I just looked for my old church's website, and right there on the main page, it said "We know God can be found anywhere, but we feel closer here. Nobody was killed there. It's where my parents were married, where I was baptized and went to Sunday School, ate meals with people in my community, saw quite a few Christmas pageants, and sang. I have nothing but good memories of that building. Lots of bad things have happened in people's homes, but we still appreciate those, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 18 Oct 13 - 05:02 PM When I see the Mayan and Aztec pyramids I don't visualize "the beautiful religious architecture of these cultures" at all - I feel very saddened for the human misery they brought - as they were used as a "stage" for the sacrifice of human life to please their Gods. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 13 - 04:08 PM Passing Thought, I did not intend to accuse you of ridiculing, but it has become common in our modern, enlightened culture to ridicule and denigrate all thoughts and practices that are not our own. I think it's bad manners, but denigration is in vogue nowadays. I think it's clear in II Samuel Chapter 7, that God wasn't particularly interested in having a temple, and rather liked moving about in a portable tent. But David wanted a temple, and God allowed David's son Solomon to build on. From all accounts, it was really good for the tourist trade in Jerusalem, and Jews were really proud of it. I think the world would be poorer without the beautiful architecture of religious buildings from all cultures, from the Polish Cathedral style of architecture in the U.S., to the Mayan pyramids. Think of St. Peter's, St. Paul's, St. Basil's, Hagia Sophia, the Dome of the Rock and countless other mosques, and Angkor Wat. But I don't think religious buildings are for God - they are for the people, an expression of their identity and their relationship with their concept of God. All of the religious buildings on my list were a tremendous waste of money, and no doubt many involved greed and political intrigue and all sorts of other vices - but they sure are nice to have now. And they have served as a source of inspiration and pride and dignity and identity for generations upon generations of people. They also have provided employment to many artisans and craftsmen, and gathering places for all sorts of purposes. So, if people want to build churches, why not? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 18 Oct 13 - 03:30 PM Yeah, that title "Your Worship" sure sounds funny to us Americans. Wikipedia, of course, has something to say about it. I was really proud of a response I typed up for "Passing Thought," with all sorts of links for illustration. I clicked in not quite the right place, and the window and my post disappeared before I got a chance to click the "submit" button." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Ed T- not worshiping, just wondering? Date: 18 Oct 13 - 03:19 PM I wonder why they call city Mayors,"Your worship"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Just a passing thought Date: 18 Oct 13 - 10:57 AM Jo. you say; Why should anyone question or ridicule whatever is sacred and meaningful to me, if it does nobody harm? At the very least, isn't it rude and unkind to question or ridicule what I hold sacred? I'm not ridiculing you or anyone else, I'm just interested in people's reasons for needing or wanting to worshiping in public in places of worship,which after all are man made buildings, surely Your God would listen to you where ever you chose to worship, particularly if it was heart felt, rather then following in parrot fashion and often repetitive(weekly) a service that takes place in a place of worship. And yes OK it's not harming anyone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 17 Oct 13 - 12:28 AM Good one, MtheGM!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Oct 13 - 05:37 PM And don't forget, Ian ~~ "Listen, woman. You'd be a much better wife if you'd stop trying to make me a better husband." ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 13 - 03:49 PM "Passing thought" sez: Why do you need a place of worship such as a church, temple, mosque, synagogue to follow your chosen religion and be bound by the restrains & customs that go with them? People need churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, and religious laws and customs because they are sacred and meaningful to them. I remember my deceased mother's birthday because it is sacred and meaningful to me, even though she's dead and even though she often wasn't very nice to me. Why should anyone question or ridicule whatever is sacred and meaningful to me, if it does nobody harm? At the very least, isn't it rude and unkind to question or ridicule what I hold sacred? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket nodding Date: 16 Oct 13 - 02:34 PM Ed.. Ashamed of you. Don't burst the general BS bubble. We will have to think twice before firing off if we take your observation on board, and that would never do. I reckon it is this thread, (33% chance of being right) where Michael threatened to invoke the odd philosopher. Of the list he gave, I for one would vote for Andy Capp. I have studied his work, as transcribed to his faithful Boswell, Reg Smythe. In trying to educate the local vicar, he, as I recall, had the following advice; "One half of the world are trying to have fun and the other half are trying to stop them." "There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us, it's difficult to see who should be preaching to the rest of us." "As you ask, yes. I am ashamed that Flo goes out scrubbing floors to fund my time in the pub, but to be honest, she's too dim to do anything else." What with him and Brian Clough, Hartlepool has produced more than its fair share of philosophers....... (I could add my old mate Kev Rafferty, but I shan't....) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 16 Oct 13 - 12:29 PM Not only the CofE, most societies worldwide nowadays have big problems in the way they conceive and practice their collective identity. These problems should be discussed more frequently and seriously than currently done. The professional clergy will have to change their ways considerably, much more so than e.g. the current pope seems to plan. But if the CofE becomes yet another BHA, with more convincing KJ chant, no problem will be solved whatsoever. The same applies to people reflecting their "private spirituality" in front of their TV set. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Ed T Date: 16 Oct 13 - 11:13 AM I often wonder if people sometimes post to entertain themselves, versus posting to entertaining an important issue with others? Just a passing thoight, in passing thrlugh this thread.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Just a passing thought Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:56 AM But the buildings that pertain to be places of worship are built by mankind and so their designs are open to human vanities and the want to impress and pander to human egos ( mine cathedral/ Mosque / Synagogueis bigger than yours)and so the mere act of worship, for which they are supposed be built for becomes secondary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 09:26 AM Notwithstanding the need shared by many to go to church in order to carry out part of the traditional method, in The UK at any rate, of weddings funerals and baptism. The religious part being something that doesn't apply, just the tradition. I am told by my responsible adult that with wide screen TV etc it is daft going to a football match. I agree on every level other than the bit about going to the match. I am sure many church goers feel the same. In fact even last night it made more sense to me to be in the pub with a slightly restricted view of the screen to watch the England match than to sit at home Billy No Mates watching it in luxury. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Oct 13 - 08:39 AM In Judaism, for certain prayers to be devotionally valid, a minimum of ten adult men [known in Hebrew as a 'minyan'] is required to be present. There is a good wikipedia article giving details of the occasions where this is requisite. A foonote states -- "Maimonides (a preeminent medieval Spanish, Sephardic Jewish philosopher, astronomer and one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages) writes that "The prayer of the community is always heard; and even if there were sinners among them, the Holy One, blessed be He, never rejects the prayer of the multitude. Hence a person must join himself with the community, and should not pray by himself so long as he is able to pray with the community." Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Tefillah 8.1 Note that the final clause provides a let-out for times that a minyan cannot be gathered for any valid reason, or even if the worshipper is for some reason in a solitary situation. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:49 AM Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 16 Oct 13 - 07:14 AM "GUEST,Just a passing thought", you are raising an important point, often referred to as "private spirituality". The idea is that you choose (or even "cherry pick") a religion you are happy with, and do not care what others believe. You are perfectly entitled to do that, but in my experience and knowledge of human nature, it is not what people really want. Neither is Musket's diametrical extreme of just picking the buildings, gowns, and rituals. The primary idea of religion implies sharing it with your community and your ancestors (sorry for repeating myself). Sharing means compromise; individualists (like most Mudcatters including myself) will have their problems. Also, the way people think and speak changes dramatically in the course of the centuries, causing old language to change or lose its meaning. To cope with that, we must make an effort to identify the important essence and transfer it into our own ways of thinking. It cannot always be successful, but the alternative "they all are superstitious morons; I can do on my own" is much less desirable. Of course all holy books emphasize the value of collective worship. Temples on "sacred sites" are actually frowned upon by most theologians, but all religious organizations have them, together with other old practices that can be called superstitious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Just a passing thought Date: 16 Oct 13 - 05:48 AM Why do you need a place of worship such as a church, temple, mosque, synagogue to follow your chosen religion and be bound by the restrains & customs that go with them, after all aren't they man made? And does it say in any of the Holy books that you must congregate in these places in order to be a fully paid up member of your chosen faith. I.e. you're not a proper Christian unless you go to church! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 04:40 AM Who could disagree? (Having Goofus on side makes it tempting but I digress. ) But. . The criticism aimed at my point was whether churches should pick and choose from those for whom the tradition of certain functions such as marriage funeral and baptism. If belief itself is variable with regard to doctrine, then there is a place for the heathen majority who may not use it for personal religious reasons but support the continuity of the presence by the commercial cost of the services they sell. I am not sure that should insult the faith of the faithful? I keep harking back to the Maori guide telling us about a mountain chain and how giants made them in their religious history. "We traditionally believe. ." An excellent way of describing a strong sense of religion without inviting "holder than thou" from the ranks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 16 Oct 13 - 03:50 AM Joe Offer: "If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself If you keep these two principles in mind and remember that they may not be violated under any circumstances, the rest of Scripture starts to make sense - and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation. -Joe- .......... If only that understanding is grasped, would you begin to realize how profound Joe's words are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ...and this part, extends into all sorts of places in seeing life!!...."- and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation." ..and reality opens up, with properties, beyond judgement, but only imagined....and you begin to approach both the wonderment of the power of it all, with humble fascination...and more becomes accessible,.............. ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ""If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind: Love God above all things Love your neighbor as yourself If you keep these two principles in mind and remember that they may not be violated under any circumstances, the rest of Scripture starts to make sense - and it's impossible to honestly move to the extremes of interpretation."" Thank you Joe!!! Highest Regards!! Guest from Sanity |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Oct 13 - 03:17 AM Musket, Jesus was criticised for not adhering to the strict, literal interpretation of keeping the Sabath. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:35 AM Musket sez: What is the bloody difference? I recall the "we are all God's children" bit. So it makes the prerequisite to believe a little superfluous doesn't it? You're right, Musket. Therefore, if there is a God who is active in the world, what matters is not whether we believe, but how we respond to that God's actions - whether we acknowledge them as the action of God, or not. Is there a "prerequisite to believe"? I don't think so, but the evangelical Christians seem to think that's the only thing necessary. I do believe, and that has its good points and its bad points - but I think the "prerequisite" is whether you treat your world well, and your neighbor as yourself. And I think that's true, whether or not there is a God. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:16 AM Yeah but I move in mysterious ways Michael. My Morris comparison still holds. I would have replied earlier but was watching the England match in the pub and the celebrations carried on. A bit of a bugger as it is now 6.00am and I am waiting for my toast to burn before being picked up to go and deliver my sermon from the pulpit. (Speaking of future NHS structures at a conference is similar to speaking of the distant past in a church. Hope the congregation have a salt pot in their collective pocket. To both Joe and yourself I say this. You are both unduly complicating the issue. On the few occasions I have been in a service I have listened to the words. I don't think that is asking too much. If the words are being used, it isn't a mental leap too far to expect them to be bound up in the belief people profess. So... When I am sat across from a doctor saying amen to fantasy such as rising from the dead, performing of miracles or a being sentient enough to hear such prayer. .. I wonder how that doctor can explain how the rising from the dead works. They can't. They don't have to. They traditionally rather than fundamentally believe. Anyone can traditionally believe. Even for the hour or so it takes to knock out a weddingor funeral. I did a reading at a funeral. Does that make it any less real to those listening who had belief? No. It didn't. What is the bloody difference? I recall the "we are all God's children" bit. So it makes the prerequisite to believe a little superfluous doesn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Oct 13 - 01:09 AM Hi, Mike- I wouldn't say that Genesis is allegorical. It's written in the language of legend that is common in the stories people tell of their origins. What moral is to be drawn from the story of Lot's daughters? - that even the patriarchs had dysfunctional families, and yet they survived and prospered. Certainly that's a good lesson - that you can be totally screwed up and still do something good. Job is interesting, because it's so obviously written in two different styles. Chapters 1, 2, and 42 are written in the colorful language of a folktale, and they're a great story. The language in chapters 3-41 is theological and VERY boring, but it has value as an inquiry into the reasons why "bad things happen to good people." But again, it's boring. I'd recommend 1, 2, and 42. Leviticus is an interesting phenomenon, because it has lists of moral codes that sometimes contradict each other. Scripture scholars will tell you that such-and-such a passage was the moral code effective at such-and-such a time and place, and then next one was effective at another time and place. If I understand him correctly, Jesus says that all Scripture is to be interpreted with two basic laws in mind:
-Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 16 Oct 13 - 12:30 AM In your third para, Joe, I can't help feeling you are somewhat begging the question re the word 'allegorical', both as to its meaning & in relation to those parts of Holy Writ which should be so regarded. Some passages are clearly 'allegorical' (Song of Solomon, e.g.), others presumably to be taken as telling true historical facts {Babylonian exile}. But with many it is hard to tell which to regard them as ~~ Lot's daughters? [& if true, what morality are we to draw from that?]; Job?; the "fingers of a hand that writ" at Belshazzar's feast? [not NB on the wall specifically, despite the dead metaphor of "the writing being on the wall"]... I don't think it quite OK for you to use the word as if it were in all cases self-evident as to what is allegory & what is not. Musket: I'll make it Hegel. Your examples [the Morris &c] are qualitatively different from religious faith, and don't pretend you don't know it. No Morrisman has ever truly believed he was doing it on the pavements of Hammersmith to make the crops grow, and you don't think he has; while a true Christian worshipper in church at a recognised devotional occasion like a wedding does believe that, however much he is going somewhat mechanically & not with entire attention & concentration, thru a formulaic ritual, there is a real entity there listening whom he respects and worships. And don't disingenuously pretend you can't make out this distinction for yourself; becoz you just ain't that stchoopid! ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Oct 13 - 09:26 PM Musket sez: What you say would be of interest if it was the base of your church. But it isn't. Your church command obedience to a Creed, more than the Anglican ones do for that matter. I dunno what you're trying to say, Musket. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglicans, and many other Christian denominations hold to the same Nicene Creed, which is a statement of their common beliefs. It was developed over two hundred years and has been in force since 325 AD. People don't really obey a creed - they hold it, or believe it. And yes, I also believe that creed and hold the Bible as my sacred book. They give a fairly simple, straightforward message that is best expressed in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. What I don't believe, is all the literalism and extra garbage the Christian fundamentalists add to the Bible, particularly when they hold allegorical writings to be historical truth. And in areas were there is debate, I generally tend to take a moderate or liberal position. But just because the fundamentalists lay claim to sole possession of the title "Christian," doesn't mean they are the only valid expression of the Christian faith. And there are fundamentalist Catholics who claim to be the only true Catholics - some are having real trouble accepting our current Pope. And the same goes for political conservatives in the U.S. who lay claim to the American flag and all things American - I'm every bit as American as they are; and I'm every bit as Christian as the fundamentalists claim to be. But Musket, it strikes me as ludicrous that you, who make no claim to be Christian at all, should consider yourself to be an arbiter of such things. On the topic of rituals and such, let me say that I know many clergymen (especially in small towns) who will perform rites-of-passage rituals for anyone who has a need for such a ritual. You're right that even non-religious people have need of such rituals. But generally, good clergy tailor the ritual to the belief or lack of belief of the person on the receiving end of the ritual. It would be a sacrilege for a Catholic priest to have a funeral Mass for a professed atheist, but many priests will perform some sort of ritual for the deceased and the grieving family. My brother hasn't been a practicing Catholic since he became an adult, and he speaks of religion with a good dose of cynicism, much as you do. When he got married at Harrah's Casino in South Lake Tahoe, I was surprised that he wanted a religious ceremony. But that's what he got, and it was done tastefully. I was best man, and I did the reading about love from the 13th chapter of I Corinthians. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 15 Oct 13 - 06:10 PM "I am a bit whoozy from the excitement" - and so am I. What an exciting 90 minutes! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:58 PM Real morris dancers will not allow Pete to beat them in terms of fundamentalism and stubbornness. However, those who hope for a good yield in the bed chambers tend to prefer other dances. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:30 PM Michael to Musket ~~ I feel a fallacy in your comparisons above, especially the last one. But it's late at night and I am a bit whoozy from the excitement of England having left it pretty late to consummate their win over Poland & ensure place in Brazil World Cup. Might have to fallback on Hegel. Or Locke. Or Nietszche. Or Spinoza. Or Andy Capp... Shall give some overnight thought and return to the fray refreshed in the morning. Or not... G'night ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket to Michael Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:57 PM Well if you are real, your stance is coming over as unrealistic. You say people should only use a church if they take the words seriously. But with the exception of pete, I have yet to read a post from someone whose calling card has "Look at me, I'm a Christian" that doesn't qualify which parts of the Christian faith they buy into and which they dismiss as unrealistic. What's the difference between them and those for whom a church is the traditional part of key family and friend events? I suppose there is hypocrisy versus honesty but other than that, nothing. When someone says they want to uphold a tradition, but don't believe that it means anything beyond that, it seems like honesty to me. After all, how many Morris dancers feel they are real Morris dancers because their dancing will help produce a good yield in the fields and bed chambers? By your reckoning, you have to buy into pagan superstition in order to do the Winster gallop.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 15 Oct 13 - 12:16 PM But I am real, Musket. At least, I think I am. If you prick me do I not bleed? If you tickle me do I not laugh?* But maybe I'm just an old solipsist, at that...? ~M~ *Well no, actually; I happen not to be ticklish. But let's let that pass... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,musket to Joe Date: 15 Oct 13 - 12:06 PM And there we must leave reality behind. What you say would be of interest if it was the base of your church. But it isn't. Your church command obedience to a Creed, more than the Anglican ones do for that matter. You slate me for wanting the tradition yet seem happy to recite words on a Sunday that you would rather people not take literally. Well most people in The UK want to use their local CofE church less frequently, chant the words but not literally believe them. I think the difference between you and them is one of frequency and occasion. Plus most people increasingly can't see themselves as Christians as they cannot accept the embarrassing bits as true. Differentiating between belief and believing is beyond many of us, so congratulations for being able to do so. Casinos of Reno, Vegas etc are something to see when UK people go abroad. How you think they fit in with wanting a traditional wedding etc is beyond me. If you can't get a church here, a hotel and the local government registrar will turn up if the hotel is registered for weddings. For the other traditional uses of church, christenings and funerals, you are left with either travelling to an enlightened parish or joining the thousands who tell them any old bollocks if it helps get the public service they advertise as performing. I don't expect you to know the passive but ever present traditional role of the parish vicar to most UK people over the years, not just to Christians. Same as I don't have knowledge of Catholic churches other than visiting a few big ones on holiday such as The Vatican and myriad huge ones with fresh gold leaf in the impoverished areas of Malta. Joe. Don't question my knowledge. Knowledge of the ins and outs of organisations are not a prerequisite to understanding their effect on others. |
|
Subject: Lyr Add: IMAGINE (John Lennon) From: GUEST,If only Date: 15 Oct 13 - 11:13 AM Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today...
Imagine there's no countries
You may say I'm a dreamer
Imagine no possessions
You may say I'm a dreamer |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Oct 13 - 05:34 AM Musket sez: Our pious Christian brethren on this thread make such solemn vows and then get to pick and choose the bits they wish to believe. Well, Musket, it seems to me you have lost your objectivity, and you've been overwhelmed by your own cynicism. I think you have a very limited view of religious faith as merely subscribing to a laundry list of doctrines and rules. And of course, you then reject this faith as ludicrous. And yet you expect the ministers of this ludicrous faith to be available to you for pageantry when needed. Well, religion isn't so shallow as what you describe. The doctrines and rules are attempts to define what is beyond definition. Those doctrines and rules are useful tools for religious groups, but they are not the faith itself. Religious faith has appeal to many people who are far more intelligent than you make them out to be - some may even be more intelligent than you are. But you know, if you do need to hire somebody to do the rituals for your special occasions, there are many inactive clergy who will do the job for a fee, with no commitment required. Those affiliated with active congregations, will usually be unwilling to do your rituals unless you, too, are affiliated. If that's the case, go to the clergy who are willing to do the job for hire. If you can't find them in the UK, there are plenty in the casinos of Las Vegas and Reno and Atlantic City - and they do a pretty good job. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:42 AM Besides, my Karma just ran over your Dogma! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Musket between courses Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:38 AM Get real Michael. Our pious Christian brethren on this thread make such solemn vows and then get to pick and choose the bits they wish to believe. You seem to be saying that if you chant the words you need to believe them? In that case there are less Christians than we thought. Especially in CofE... Oh Hi Goofus! Thanks for that scintillating observation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity Date: 15 Oct 13 - 01:26 AM "Religion, which is the best one?" Same as political parties.....NONE OF THEM!!! GfS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: MGM·Lion Date: 14 Oct 13 - 01:59 PM Nigel ~~ Well of course they wouldn't check the religious affiliations, if any, of visitors to a beer festival or a film club, which are the sort of things a church will do, as it were extra-curricularly, to relate to its local community. But surely you can see that the same considerations might not apply to an earnestly and sincerely held faith-based ritual, constituting solemn vows made in the name of the deity that the church's primary function is to provide means for its genuine congregation to worship? Its provisions should not be exploited frivolously by those not involved in the rite as a specifically religious occasion. I still think it rude to treat such a rite as just another such provision as a film club or a beer festival. The fact that you and I don't believe in that deity is IMO entirely beside the point, both as regards morality and seemliness. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: Claire M Date: 14 Oct 13 - 01:08 PM Hiya, I agree w/ thine sentiments Grishka! No point going to a ceremony just to hear that. Oh, sorry, the bellowing was a ref to the blues song. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe Date: 14 Oct 13 - 11:56 AM I suppose whether or not a church will allow non-believers to marry on their premises will depend whether they see themselves as there only to serve committed believers or as an integral part of the wider community they are located in. I wouldn't want to get married in a church personally, but for a lot of people it's a fundamental part of the entire experience. The local CofE church near my house also serves as a venue for (non-religious) live music, a film club, a green festival and a rather good beer festival. Your credentials are not checked on the door. It also organises a fun run (no doubt to "raise money for the church roof", which always sounds like a euphemism) that lots of local people who don't attend the church participate in. Surely being part of your local community and appreciated by local people for that is better than remaining aloof? Certainly it appears to be more in line with the best of JC's teachings... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: frogprince Date: 14 Oct 13 - 11:10 AM With all the things that people do in this world that are harmful to themselves and others, I have no inclination to feel judgmental because someone who isn't religious wants their wedding to feel like they would like it to feel. And I feel a bit put off by hearing someone pass judgment on anything that benign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Religion, which is the best one? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Oct 13 - 10:48 AM Hi Claire; my previous message was the reply to Musket, of course. You have a different approach to the matter. The classical CoE style is mumbled and softly chanting, never "bellowing his head off". The latter can be heard, together with "thou/thy/thee", in some American-style evangelical churches. If there were an option, I would support those pronouns being reintroduced, so that it will be clear whether one or more person is being addressed, and in what grammatical case. Alas, no chance. You can enjoy ceremonies without subscribing to the ideas behind them, but that will not help you in religious matters. Many of those who fall into trance on such occasions (- believers, half-believers, and non-believers -) feel more miserable when waking up. There are other dangers, including being ruined mentally and/or financially. The other day you mentioned a fundamentalist who told you that your misfortune is your own fault - you get the idea. |
