BS: religious question

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! ;-) ).

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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: *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 - 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: 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 - 07:02 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *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: 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: 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 - 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:20 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: 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 - 04:15 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: 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: *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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Georgiansilver
Date: 13 Nov 04 - 06:48 PM

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

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: 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