BS: religious question

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!