What, if any, organized religion do you believe in?
This is not the place for excessive conjecture, insulting invective. Perhaps one could comment on the things that one's religion has done for him or her.
If I am overly naive in believing this topic can be handled in a mature manner by all the members here, then I say Ave Simplicitas.
I am a Marianist Roman Catholic, though I am not entirely in agreement as to the Church's denunciation of abortion and contraception as well as other matters in the same Church.
I am devoted especially to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and the Marian apparitions at Guadelupe, Lourdes and Fatima in particular.
Any moderators whom feel this wasn't a wise decision to start this topic, please PM me, I'll understand. I'm fully aware of how naive I might be in having started this thread.
I personally love and respect people as an overall rule, whatever they believe, if anyone wonders.
None.
I like a lot of the tools made available by the Buddha. But I don't call myself a Buddhist (I don't meditate or believe in reincarnation, etc.)
I'm a Daveist. :)
Quote from: dtwilbanks on August 21, 2007, 05:34:18 AM
I like a lot of the tools made available by the Buddha. But I don't call myself a Buddhist (I don't meditate or believe in reincarnation, etc.)
I'm a Daveist. :)
In a
Nietzsche-an way ;)?
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 05:37:13 AM
In a Nietzsche-an way ;)?
I tried reading Nietzsche once. A long time ago.
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 05:27:56 AM
What, if any, organized religion do you believe in?
None.
Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 05:46:41 AM
Rock-n-Roll
(won't ever change)
;D
"May think it's strange...."
I adhere to no formalised set of religious beliefs.
This is a great opportunity to share one of my favorite taglines I've ever seen a fellow Internet-user employ:
QuoteI don't belong to an organized religion. I'm Eastern Orthodox.
:)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 06:15:08 AM
This is a great opportunity to share one of my favorite taglines I've ever seen a fellow Internet-user employ:
:)
Great quote,
Karl.
Eastern Orthodoxy offers up some fascinating tenets...the entire discipline is really rewarding upon investigation.
The more I learn about Orthodoxy, Andy, the better Catholicism is illuminated unto me.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 06:38:26 AM
The more I learn about Orthodoxy, Andy, the better Catholicism is illuminated unto me.
I see your point. I wonder if that applies to most whom study religions outside their own faith. My studies of the various Far and Near Eastern religions has definitely done as you said: promoted a deeper love of my own beliefs. Those studies also helped me to love others, in part due to my learning just how intricate and complex the foundations of practically any World Religion are. I learned that people don't usually persevere in any religion unless they find aspects of it they find fulfilling on a personal level. As such, these aforementioned variables taught me that I'm no better than anyone else: most other people (no, most
everybody) have essentially similar feelings of desire, hope, love, and faith.
The last was an especially important thing for me to learn. I no longer dismissed others out of hand.
Maybe that's the first step we all can take toward stopping the hate and warfare. Understanding. Compassion. Wanting to help, regardless of
anything.
Sanctus Simplicatus, eh?
None
8)
This place is a nest of atheists!
Quote from: dtwilbanks on August 21, 2007, 07:08:01 AM
This place is a nest of atheists!
Do atheists nest? :-\
Please, don't confuse atheism with adhering to a religion. Two entirely different things, yes?
8)
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on August 21, 2007, 07:08:43 AM
Do atheists nest? :-\
Please, don't confuse atheism with adhering to a religion. Two entirely different things, yes?
8)
A flock? A den? A murder?
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 06:48:53 AM
Maybe that's the first step we all can take toward stopping the hate and warfare. Understanding. Compassion. Wanting to help, regardless of anything.
Sanctus Simplicatus, eh?
Si quis vult primus esse erit omnium novissimus et omnium minister.Who would be first, shall be last and the servant of all.
Would agnosticism be considered "adhering to a religion". in that its adherents claim not to?
well...... after everyone is dead, i guess they'll all be the same religion (or nonreligion), right?
at least i hope so...
anyways, i think i'd be a lot happier if i never thought of anything to do with religion or God ever again for the rest of my life, though unfortuanetely that's impossible :'(
I was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic, and I will probably slouch back to Rome at some point, but - at the moment - I'm neither particularly observant nor overly concerned with religion.
Apatheticism, then, would be my denomination.
Quote from: PSmith08 on August 21, 2007, 07:18:51 AM
I was raised and confirmed a Roman Catholic, and I will probably slouch back to Rome at some point, but - at the moment - I'm neither particularly observant nor overly concerned with religion.
Apatheticism, then, would be my denomination.
Don't we
all go through that, through various points of our lives (regardless of religion)? A trial by fire is what St. John of the Cross called it. Hey, you might like to check out his book of the same name ("Dark Night of the Soul").
Vaginal.
I was raised in Anglo-Catholicism and that is where my sympathies still lie (1928 BCP, incense & plainchant etc.) but have not been to church in years
Quote from: bwv 1080 on August 21, 2007, 07:34:41 AM
I was raised in Anglo-Catholicism and that is where my sympathies still lie (1928 BCP, incense & plainchant etc.) but have not been to church in years
Another interesting religion. It's so close to both RC and Eastern O. that it amazes me a bit that the three haven't reached a more conciliatory state.
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 07:35:52 AM
Another interesting religion. It's so close to both RC and Eastern O. that it amazes me a bit that the three haven't reached a more conciliatory state.
The Anglo-Catholic wing doesn't carry much weight in the Anglican/Episcopal church at large. Reconciliation with Rome or the East has recently been made yet more elusive by (on the more moderate end of the scale) the mutual decision between the Episcopal and Lutheran churches to consider their sacraments equivalent (I am sure I am simplifying there), and (on the less moderate end of the scale) the far-out wing of the Episcopal Church in the US :-)
More seriously, developments from the latter have inspired some degree of 'defection' from the Episcopal Church to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 07:14:30 AM
Would agnosticism be considered "adhering to a religion". in that its adherents claim not to?
The game of commonplaces has started?
I'm a Roman Catholic too, Haffner.
I follow no organised religion, but seek Truth in them all.
There is no religion higher than Truth.
I am Roman Catholic too. I respect other religions; in fact, when I still lived in the Netherlands (1985-1993) I have stood embarrassed (in the positive sense of the word) and humbled how much more intense and exemplary the relationship of some Protestant friends and colleagues was with God than that of most Catholics.
I am also a scientist. To me personally, my more recent discusssions about science and related topics with non-believers have confirmed what I thought all along: also intellectually the Catholic Church is a safe place to be ;)
I was raised Roman Catholic and while I consider myself Christian, other than personal prayer and faith, I do not subscribe to the dogma of any organization. I suppose I am in flux at the moment.
None.
The Netherlands is in fact one of the most secularised countries in the world: over 40% of the population has no religious affiliation. (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands))
Q
Quote from: Que on August 21, 2007, 09:13:54 AM
None.
The Netherlands is in fact one of the most secularised countries in the world: over 40% of the population has no religious affiliation. (Wikepedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Netherlands))
Q
Do you have a guest room, Q? ;)
Raised Roman Catholic, currently an atheist (or more properly an agnostic).
Quote from: karlhenning on August 21, 2007, 07:44:00 AM
The Anglo-Catholic wing doesn't carry much weight in the Anglican/Episcopal church at large. Reconciliation with Rome or the East has recently been made yet more elusive by (on the more moderate end of the scale) the mutual decision between the Episcopal and Lutheran churches to consider their sacraments equivalent (I am sure I am simplifying there), and (on the less moderate end of the scale) the far-out wing of the Episcopal Church in the US :-)
More seriously, developments from the latter have inspired some degree of 'defection' from the Episcopal Church to both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.
Sounds like the standard "divide and conquer the Christian" tactic to me.
I'm a Hindu, though explaining what that means would take a few lines I couldn't be bothered to write right now; here's my thread that nobody cared about...
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,2161.0.html
I'm a Buddhist.
Though currently a very stressed Buddhist, which I think is generally rather a contradiction.
I'm also, more or less, an atheist, and sort of a spiritual postmodernist.
Quote from: Sean on August 21, 2007, 11:12:21 AM
I'm a Hindu, though explaining what that means would take a few lines I couldn't be bothered to write right now; here's my thread that nobody cared about...
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,2161.0.html
Still don't. :P
Quote from: Sean on August 21, 2007, 11:12:21 AM
I'm a Hindu, though explaining what that means would take a few lines I couldn't be bothered to write right now; here's my thread that nobody cared about...
http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,2161.0.html
at least it looks like a fun, interesting religion, besides that, no comment :-X
Does "Kicking People in the Face" count as an organised religion?
Hmm... how about Pastafarianism?
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who has a deep reverence for St. Ignatius of Loyola--my confirmation saint--as well as the Jesuit order, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Josemaria Escriva (founder of Opus Dei). Theologically I have no qualms with the Church, but on the political end I do have some issues (I won't name them).
I try to observe all the various aspects of Catholicism (confess, weekly mass attendance with holy days of obligiation, etc.) but I can never remember to not eat meat on Fridays! :(
So I do the special penance instead.
I'm not religious at all, but I do think theology is interesting.
I have a friend who used to be a devout Protestant, but since studying theology at university he has become progressively less religious. Our conversations just get more and more stimulating as the terms pass ;).
Hedonism
I still have faith in Scriabin and his final mystery.
Nature...the birds & bees, a beautiful landscape, the sound of the wind in the trees, lapping water...
or maybe
I'm a Pragmatic Agnostic ;)
gee, i don't know, i am still waiting for a good one to come up...
I would have thought PSmith08 would be a hedonist.
No religion. Atheist.
And atheism is no more a religion than not playing chess is a sport.
;D
Quote from: admin on August 21, 2007, 05:17:06 PM
No religion. Atheist.
And atheism is no more a religion than not playing chess is a sport.
;D
But not playing chess IS a sport... :D
8)
I was raised Protestant but attended Catholic School growing up. To this day I believe in a higher power or Divine Presence but do not follow any particular organized religion. I believe that my relationship with my God is personal and that my code of ethics should not be dictated by any religious organization.
Is there a name for this type of faith?
I was raised as a Catholic, but like all religions based on dogma and set principles it's necessarily only an angle on spiritual truth, and inherently antagonistic towards all other religions (antagonism ultimately becoming pure hatred and extreme intollerance) . The Abrahamic religions of Christianty and Islam are the worst, justifying centuries of repression, torture, murder and inhumanity, Judaism escaping slighly being based on race and hence not proselytical.
The dharmic religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism etc are either less dogmatic, don't hold with God at all or have tollerance of other systems specifically built into them.
the church of latter day saints looked good for a while, but now they don't even practice polygamy anymore... :'( so, there is little point believing it)
i'm a christian, a member of the church of Christ. it shares many common beliefs among it's variants, but is not denominational...no central hq, no national board, etc.
dj
Religions are overrated. But that is not to say Bruckner is...'cause he's not.
So there, I believe in Brucknerism...
Quote from: Haffner on August 21, 2007, 06:48:53 AM
I see your point. I wonder if that applies to most whom study religions outside their own faith. My studies of the various Far and Near Eastern religions has definitely done as you said: promoted a deeper love of my own beliefs. Those studies also helped me to love others, in part due to my learning just how intricate and complex the foundations of practically any World Religion are. I learned that people don't usually persevere in any religion unless they find aspects of it they find fulfilling on a personal level. As such, these aforementioned variables taught me that I'm no better than anyone else: most other people (no, most everybody) have essentially similar feelings of desire, hope, love, and faith.
The last was an especially important thing for me to learn. I no longer dismissed others out of hand.
Maybe that's the first step we all can take toward stopping the hate and warfare. Understanding. Compassion. Wanting to help, regardless of anything.
Sanctus Simplicatus, eh?
I can understand how immersion in and study of a complex belief system as well as studies of other belief systems can give you that kind of insight into the deeper, common nature of all these and therefore promote tolerance of them. But if you see those deeper layers common to many of them, why don't you just go one step further and let go of that one dogmatic belief system? If you reach this level of insight and tolerance of others and other spiritual expressions, what need is there to adhere to just one of them?
As readers of these pages know, I don't blieve in any form of organized religion, but I find them all interesting as complex and varied mythological expressions of the same deeper human truth. Which means that I don't think that there is anything "supernatural" behind the world or the sacred texts on which religions base themselves on. But lots of things we don't understand yet which we can reach for and maybe experience in ways which I guess some would call "mystical". So basically, I think those belief systems are all about people, and very obviously made by people for people, not given by or actually about any deities.
I do however "believe", if that is the right word in this context, in love, as kitschy as that may sound. And since I currently don't have a girlfriend/wife anymore, I don't have a religion, when I have one, then she is my religion.
Quote from: Danny on August 21, 2007, 12:35:36 PM
I am a practicing Roman Catholic who has a deep reverence for St. Ignatius of Loyola--my confirmation saint--as well as the Jesuit order, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Josemaria Escriva (founder of Opus Dei). Theologically I have no qualms with the Church, but on the political end I do have some issues (I won't name them).
I try to observe all the various aspects of Catholicism (confess, weekly mass attendance with holy days of obligiation, etc.) but I can never remember to not eat meat on Fridays! :(
So I do the special penance instead.
I love the writings of St. Ignatius, and I just watched another movie recently about Sts. Therese and Bernadette.
I too consider the political dealings of the Church to often be very wrong and not-thought-through-enough. I am, however, also very much in love with the Theology and by and large the practices as well.
I am particularly devoted, Mass more than once a week, consecrations to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts 5-6 times a week, a full Rosary at least 7 times a week...
but I don't see myself as being any quicker toward getting "into Heaven" because of such devotion. I do it because it makes me understand Love better, and it makes me feel marvelous.
Quote from: hornteacher on August 21, 2007, 07:22:12 PM
I was raised Protestant but attended Catholic School growing up. To this day I believe in a higher power or Divine Presence but do not follow any particular organized religion. I believe that my relationship with my God is personal and that my code of ethics should not be dictated by any religious organization.
Is there a name for this type of faith?
You could arguably be referred to as a secular Baptist.
Saulism.
Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 07:27:40 PM
No, and I think that's a good thing. Simplicity in these things is best. It sure seems strange to have a middle man between us and our higher power, no?
I agree. Wise as always my friend.
Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 07:27:40 PM
No, and I think that's a good thing. Simplicity in these things is best. It sure seems strange to have a middle man between us and our higher power, no?
I'm not sure, but I think it's my very respected friend
George of GMG Forums whom I think sported the most wise signature "There are as many religions as there are people" (Gandhi).
I pray that
everyone finds their way to
Love. I really don't care
how they find it.
Quote from: M forever on August 22, 2007, 02:02:22 AM
I can understand how immersion in and study of a complex belief system as well as studies of other belief systems can give you that kind of insight into the deeper, common nature of all these and therefore promote tolerance of them. But if you see those deeper layers common to many of them, why don't you just go one step further and let go of that one dogmatic belief system? If you reach this level of insight and tolerance of others and other spiritual expressions, what need is there to adhere to just one of them?
As readers of these pages know, I don't blieve in any form of organized religion, but I find them all interesting as complex and varied mythological expressions of the same deeper human truth. Which means that I don't think that there is anything "supernatural" behind the world or the sacred texts on which religions base themselves on. But lots of things we don't understand yet which we can reach for and maybe experience in ways which I guess some would call "mystical". So basically, I think those belief systems are all about people, and very obviously made by people for people, not given by or actually about any deities.
I do however "believe", if that is the right word in this context, in love, as kitschy as that may sound. And since I currently don't have a girlfriend/wife anymore, I don't have a religion, when I have one, then she is my religion.
You don't sound kitschy at
all, and I believe there is so much wisdom in what you have written. Please forgive me in advance if this strikes you the wrong way, but it still sounds to me as though you believe in Love.
It hasn't deserted you, my very wise friend. I pray you start "feeling" Love again; though it's often hard to believe when one doesn't "feel" it, Love
never left you.
Quote from: hornteacher on August 22, 2007, 03:24:47 AM
I agree. Wise as always my friend.
That is, the good and wise
George of GMG. Feast day is pending (friendly smiling added, no emoticon needed).
"Religion is the opium of the people."
Oh, alright then...football, but I have yet to return to the new cathedral that is Wembley.
I have, therefore lapsed.
I will be forgiven in Heaven, which in real terms is England winning the World Cup. ;D
QuoteHaffner
What, if any, organized religion do you believe in?
None. I am an atheist but don't profess atheism as a religion, this to quote Chesterton.
Quote from: Hector on August 22, 2007, 03:52:02 AM
"Religion is the opium of the people."
Oh, alright then...football, but I have yet to return to the new cathedral that is Wembley.
I have, therefore lapsed.
I will be forgiven in Heaven, which in real terms is England winning the World Cup. ;D
32 year old Muhammad Ali knocking out George Foreman (in his prime).
Quote from: George on August 21, 2007, 07:27:40 PM
Simplicity in these things is best.
Simplicity is one mode, and in many instances, it is best.
One example perhaps of simplicity not being best in matters of faith: I am given the impression that suicide bombers in the Middle East see things as breathtakingly simple.
QuoteIt sure seems strange to have a middle man between us and our higher power, no?
Not to me. To give one illustration: when I wanted to learn to play the clarinet, I did not dismiss the idea of a teacher as an unnecessary "middle man." As I see the question of religion, it is something which inhabits not philosophy only, but community in a very important way. My neighbors are fellow seekers for the light, who in very practical ways can help me see things; I would find it a bit strange to consider them unnecessary "middle men."
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 04:22:33 AM
Simplicity is one mode, and in many instances, it is best.
One example perhaps of simplicity not being best in matters of faith: I am given the impression that suicide bombers in the Middle East see things as breathtakingly simple.
Not to me. To give one illustration: when I wanted to learn to play the clarinet, I did not dismiss the idea of a teacher as an unnecessary "middle man." As I see the question of religion, it is something which inhabits not philosophy only, but community in a very important way. My neighbors are fellow seekers for the light, who in very practical ways can help me see things; I would find it a bit strange to consider them unnecessary "middle men."
A beautiful thing about the Islamic religion is that pretty much everybody is going to Paradise (they have to be Muslims of course, but that doesn't change the picture for me).
I also find
Karl's assertion in regard to "middle men/women" to be easy to agree with, but that's coming from a person of like Faith, so I'm betting my opinion is thusly disqualified in most people's eyes...perhaps rightly so.
Just yesterday my own parish priest helped me immensely, answering some involved questions I had in regard to my beliefs. It's terrific, for me at least, to have such a man or woman available to help me. I have been through the "Dark Night of the Soul", more than once, and most of the time it's a member of the clergy whom has helped most.
However, I learn alot from other sources as well, including the often wonderful people here on
this forum.
Quote from: Hector on August 22, 2007, 03:52:02 AM
I will be forgiven in Heaven, which in real terms is England winning the World Cup. ;D
Now *that* is more unlikely than any of the miracles described in any religious texts I have ever seen. Walking on water? Why not. Rasing someone from the dead? Sure, you just have to know how. England winning the World Cup?
Come on! ;D
Quote from: M forever on August 22, 2007, 04:57:23 AM
Now *that* is more unlikely than any of the miracles described in any religious texts I have ever seen. Walking on water? Why not. Rasing someone from the dead? Sure, you just have to know how. England winning the World Cup? Come on!
;D
(laughing like a loon)
"Here Blue Meanie, take your nahsty medicine!"
Quote from: wtf on August 21, 2007, 03:14:06 PM
I still have faith in Scriabin and his final mystery.
LOL!!!!!!!!
duh, me too! One day the apocalypse will come from India and a giant image of Scriabin will appear before all the peoples of the earth and we will all drown in synesthesiatic ecstasy!
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 04:22:33 AM
Not to me. To give one illustration: when I wanted to learn to play the clarinet, I did not dismiss the idea of a teacher as an unnecessary "middle man." As I see the question of religion, it is something which inhabits not philosophy only, but community in a very important way. My neighbors are fellow seekers for the light, who in very practical ways can help me see things; I would find it a bit strange to consider them unnecessary "middle men."
They aren't. They are standing next to you, not between you and whatever may be the object of your spiritual desires. As such, they aren't "middle men".
The comparison with the clarinet teacher doesn't really make sense either in this context. Playing the clarinet is very much learning an entirely man made cultural technique. In fact, it is learning just consciously chosen aspects of that technique since different schools of clarinet playing are necessarily reductions of the overall possibilities of the instrument. By learning these defined techniques and esthetics, you are indeed becoming a member of a "community", namely the group of players whose style you adopt. Your comparison seems to suggest that that is the same for you with religious aspects. I can't imagine that that is what you wanted to say because it would confirm basically all negative clichés people like me have about organized religion.
Quote from: admin on August 21, 2007, 05:17:06 PM
No religion. Atheist.
And atheism is no more a religion than not playing chess is a sport.
;D
depends on how you define "religion", or course. If you want to be specific, then it isn't.
I looked in my dictionary, it says "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually having a moral code for the conduct of human affairs."
hard to say, really.... the "esp." part is everything in this definition, one dictionary can have it in, which would mean atheism is possibly a religion, but another dictionary can decide to leave the "esp." part out, which would mean it isn't a religion. Either way, it's a belief, and every single person in the world has a belief unless they've never even thought of the question or just choose to believe nothing...
Quote from: D Minor on August 22, 2007, 03:14:57 AM
Saulism.
...
it's Sa*lism, don't forget next time ;)
Quote from: M forever on August 22, 2007, 05:08:10 AM
They aren't. They are standing next to you, not between you and whatever may be the object of your spiritual desires. As such, they aren't "middle men".
In which case, for me to answer properly, I should need to know just the nature of the "middle men" which
George finds implausible. As it is, the figurative nature of the discussion is floundering on a variety of indefinitions, I think.
Sartre anyone (or no one?) :D ;)
I picked that up years ago, but couldn't get through it, Andy :-)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 05:18:24 AM
As it is, the figurative nature of the discussion is floundering on a variety of indefinitions, I think.
as is most of the discussion in the diner lol
Well, we've seen more than a few musical discussions chase their indefinite tails, too. Pass the vibrational fields, please.
I'm an Orthodox Christian.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 05:27:22 AM
I picked that up years ago, but couldn't get through it, Andy :-)
You really aren't missing much that you couldn't pick up from much better sources (i.e. pretty much any of the teachings from each of the world's religions as well as Nietzsche, Freud, and Hegel). I would reccomend the writings of Saint John of the Cross, St. Ignatius, or the Bhagavad-Gita before
Being and Nothingness.
Being and Nothingness could be said to be a fantastically verbose, avowedly atheistic bible of Marxist Buddhism-lite.
Not necessarily by me.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 05:29:38 AM
Well, we've seen more than a few musical discussions chase their indefinite tails, too. Pass the vibrational fields, please.
Maybe what we need is a damn good, Vibra-Slap WHACKING!
Wheeeeeeee!
Or not (laughing hyena-ically)
Once again (I'm pretty sure), another of George of GMG's signatures :
Martin Luther King: "Hate cannot defeat hate. Only Love can defeat Hate"
Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 07:13:03 AM
Once again (I'm pretty sure), another of George of GMG's signatures :
Martin Luther King: "Hate cannot defeat hate. Only Love can defeat Hate"
does that mean you're actually supposed to fight fire with water?
Quote from: greg on August 22, 2007, 07:25:40 AM
does that mean you're actually supposed to fight fire with water?
We're
there,
dude :).
Quote from: Corey on August 21, 2007, 09:05:50 PM
What you're describing sounds similar to Deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).
Oh cool. Now I can get a membership card. :)
When you "believe in" something, you don't necessarily think it's true. You might want to believe it, but can't manage it. Or you do believe it, but would rather not. The odd locution "believe in" indicates a problem. You would prefer not to be descended from an ape. Better to be descended from a god. Better still would be to judge beliefs independently of fear and desire. You don't get an accurate weight when your thumb is on the scale.
It's actually harder to believe things than you might suppose. Things that are unsupported by evidence, I mean. A small voice tells you it's degrading to try to believe things that are not true. That's the voice of your conscience. You might think you don't have an intellectual conscience, but you do. Such a small voice might insist you "believe in" certain doctrines, as a sort of meek protest against actually being pressured into believing them.
In the end, though, very little actual belief is accomplished. Pushing deities out of space and time is like painting a target where no arrow could ever land, then complaining about the marksmanship of skeptics. You have safeguarded your belief at the price of rendering it meaningless. No wonder you "believe in" it. There isn't anything to actually believe. At least Santa can be caught coming down the chimney! :P
There, I trust that is sufficiently restrained. :D
I'd define myself an atheist. Or non-religious as Tancata wrote.
But I don't feel really at ease with the definition "atheist", which as many will probably know has been forged by religious people, not by "atheists" themselves.
As Chomsky said "I can't even call myself an atheist because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny." That's the feeling I get.
I'm not sure I want to linger on the debate with my own words. I'll rather express my thoughts through Noam Chomsky again (sorry: it's late here, I'm tired):
I am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it's a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one's personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there's nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 22, 2007, 04:49:45 PM
As Chomsky said "I can't even call myself an atheist because it is not at all clear what I'm being asked to deny." That's the feeling I get.
This describes it very well for me. When asked to confirm or deny the existence of "God", I must first define the term. (For certain specific definitions, I may have enough information to make a judgment.) I can't prove or disprove the existence of something that cannot be defined or something that I cannot gain reliable access to. So rather than use the term "atheist" (and imply that I deny the existence of that which cannot be defined), I prefer to declare the question intractable and therefore make it a dead option and move on to other questions. Should good definitions and reliable evidence come along, I'll happily rethink the issue. If there is one basic idea that I adhere to, it is that there is no final word on any issue of substance.
That said, while I have never belonged to an organized religion, there are groups I sometimes hook up with to find a sense of community and/or interesting people. These include a philosophy study group, the local atheist group, and (occasionally) the Unitarian/Universalist Church. One purpose of organized religion is that sense of community that it gives. With some searching, that sense of community can be found elsewhere.
Heather
Heather, very good. God is just consciousness, or rather the silent essence of consciousness, the subject or featureless Self that perceives all else: we are God. God, Being or Brahman is transcendent though because It's the never changing absolute, in relation to the ever-changing relative, but immanent because It doesn't lie outside the universe but is inherent in its foundations and in us. We are in the world but not of it. This is why Ganesh is depicted having one foot on the floor and one raised: here's not a terribly good picture-
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.heathenworld.com/swastika/ganesh.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.heathenworld.com/swastika/ganesh.html&h=553&w=350&sz=140&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=2RR2dzusynFdvM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dganesh%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DISO-8859-1
Quote from: ChomskyI am a child of the Enlightenment. I think irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and I try to consciously avoid irrational belief. On the other hand, I certainly recognize that it's a major phenomenon for people in general, and you can understand why it would be. It does, apparently, provide personal sustenance, but also bonds of association and solidarity and a means for expressing elements of one's personality that are often very valuable elements. To many people it does that. In my view, there's nothing wrong with that. My view could be wrong, of course, but my position is that we should not succumb to irrational belief.
The belief that all belief can be (or ought to be) "rational belief," may itself be an irrational belief. But one sees how someone could derive personal sustenance, and a means for expressing elements of one's personality that are often very valuable elements, by embracing a belief that all belief can be "rational belief." So as long as it does not lead to intolerance for people of faith, why not?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 04:36:57 AM
The belief that all belief can be (or ought to be) "rational belief," may itself be an irrational belief.
Nonsensical.
Even if some things cannot be explained, we should seek to explain it. Doing anything else is to embrace silly superstition, which is all religion is: the desire to make stuff we don't yet understand make sense.
Hence why it is so popular across the globe; it shows that humans universally think a certain way about certain things because of the way we are made and genetically programmed.
Quote from: Michel on August 23, 2007, 04:41:52 AM
Nonsensical.
That's your idea of
restraint, is it? 8)
Quote from: MichelEven if some things cannot be explained, we should seek to explain it.
Oh, I certainly agree, though this does not in my view 'negate' my point. The impulse to seek an explanation is itself most worthy.
But the idea that everything
can be explained, is itself a species of faith. Possibly irrational.
I think it is intellectually healthy to seek explanations, with an understanding that perhaps (just perhaps) no explanation may be found.
Then again, I also believe in showing respect to people who think otherwise than I do. Possibly,
Michel, you may not find me dismissing your remarks as
nonsensical or as
bollocks, just because I think otherwise.
I thought that one of the mods had made a request to refrain from posting threads of this nature. Apparently, this one went through for some reason. Which is a good sign.
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2007, 04:34:36 PM
When you "believe in" something, you don't necessarily think it's true. You might want to believe it, but can't manage it. Or you do believe it, but would rather not. The odd locution "believe in" indicates a problem. You would prefer not to be descended from an ape. Better to be descended from a god. Better still would be to judge beliefs independently of fear and desire. You don't get an accurate weight when your thumb is on the scale.
It's actually harder to believe things than you might suppose. Things that are unsupported by evidence, I mean. A small voice tells you it's degrading to try to believe things that are not true. That's the voice of your conscience. You might think you don't have an intellectual conscience, but you do. Such a small voice might insist you "believe in" certain doctrines, as a sort of meek protest against actually being pressured into believing them.
In the end, though, very little actual belief is accomplished. Pushing deities out of space and time is like painting a target where no arrow could ever land, then complaining about the marksmanship of skeptics. You have safeguarded your belief at the price of rendering it meaningless. No wonder you "believe in" it. There isn't anything to actually believe. At least Santa can be caught coming down the chimney! :P
There, I trust that is sufficiently restrained. :D
I've got to exercise lots of restraint not to take this post apart, bit by bit.
No, I won't do it. We are on the "restraint" thread.
I wonder if some people feel that belief necessarily entails constant announcements of personal beliefs. People like that always remind me of he quote from Shakespeare "the Lady doth protest too much".
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2007, 04:34:36 PM
A small voice tells you it's degrading to try to believe things that are not true. That's the voice of your conscience.
Really? Mine tells me not to kill or tell whopping great lies. Believing, OTOH, comes as easily to me as breathing.
Quote from: drogulus on August 22, 2007, 04:34:36 PM
Things that are unsupported by evidence, I mean. A small voice tells you it's degrading to try to believe things that are not true. That's the voice of your conscience. You might think you don't have an intellectual conscience, but you do. Such a small voice might insist you "believe in" certain doctrines, as a sort of meek protest against actually being pressured into believing them.
since we know so little about the past history of the world and the universe, it makes sense that everyone would be confused. Maybe one system of belief is right, maybe even nobody is right. If nobody is right.... that'd be kinda weird... :P
There is so much, day by day, that people "take on faith". Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is all about the ramifications of "truth" seeking, and how much one can find out about oneself when contemplating one's lifelong relationship with truth.
One could assert that such exercises help compose the bulk of the discipline in self-mastery: what, when, how, and why does a person choose to accept something as "truth"?
According to Nietzsche, the most interesting way to answer would be with a question: "Why truth at all?". And then he'd go on to ask the reader to look inside and see how many little untruths exist within him or her. And to accept the ones within (those that add to the contemplater's life) as necessary. And to see the bits of self-deceit which harms ones life as being faulty and needing to be pruned. Thus, he writes there "becomes less and less a distance between God and man". Man becomes changeable, as he inevitably will, but he accepts such and molds his accepted religion just as much as it molds him or her.
Quote from: Mark on August 23, 2007, 05:30:31 AM
Really? Mine tells me not to kill or tell whopping great lies. Believing, OTOH, comes as easily to me as breathing.
For me, total conviction is proof of grace granted. I have had plenty of those "convinced" times, and those are the times I believe that God is giving us a taste how it feels to live in Love.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 05:48:30 AM
For me, total conviction is proof of grace granted. I have had plenty of those "convinced" times, and those are the times I believe that God is giving us a taste how it feels to live in Love.
My point was simply this: my conscience isn't there to tell me I'm wrong to 'believe' in anything (save that murder or theft are 'good', for example). It acts, for me at least, like an unseen but deadly accurate moral compass ... and that's all I need it to do. Without it, who knows
what awfulness I'd perpetrate.
Quote from: Mark on August 23, 2007, 05:51:55 AM
My point was simply this: my conscience isn't there to tell me I'm wrong to 'believe' in anything (save that murder or theft are 'good', for example). It acts, for me at least, like an unseen but deadly accurate moral compass ... and that's all I need it to do. Without it, who knows what awfulness I'd perpetrate.
The Danish philosopher Kierkegaard wrote that there are two types of morals for a person, which often bleed into each other:
a) the moral law from "outside": things which are punishable by the civil authorities for example.
b) the moral law on the inside: the one which can make a person sick with grief at the idea of actually killing or raping a person, etc.
It may prove illuminating for many, to look inside and see what repels a person on a moral level. And why. Then go back in and see whether it is more "acquired" or "authentic".
Quote from: karlhenning on August 22, 2007, 05:27:22 AM
I picked that up years ago, but couldn't get through it, Andy :-)
Sartre was a c..t. He justified violence to bring about political change.
Sod democracy, ay, Jean-Paul, you cul.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 05:57:38 AM
The Danish philosopher Kierkegaard wrote that there are two types of morals for a person, which often bleed into each other:
a) the moral law from "outside": things which are punishable by the civil authorities for example.
b) the moral law on the inside: the one which can make a person sick with grief at the idea of actually killing or raping a person, etc.
It may prove illuminating for many, to look inside and see what repels a person on a moral level. And why. Then go back in and see whether it is more "acquired" or "authentic".
Unsurprisingly, my 'moral compass' points to both a) and b) above. For example, if I kill someone, I'll not only feel deep remorse but also spend many years without my freedom. And the notion of rape is certainly something which makes me physically sick - I know of three women close to me who were so violated. :(
Quote from: M forever on August 22, 2007, 04:57:23 AM
Now *that* is more unlikely than any of the miracles described in any religious texts I have ever seen. Walking on water? Why not. Rasing someone from the dead? Sure, you just have to know how. England winning the World Cup? Come on!
;D
You can laugh and if you go on like that I'll send you all the posts from Al Moritz.
You'll be laughing, if at all, on the other side of your face, then ;D
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 05:57:38 AM
b) the moral law on the inside: the one which can make a person sick with grief at the idea of actually killing or raping a person, etc.
makes you wonder about certain people who don't actually have this...... i guess some are born without it, and some lose it.
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2007, 06:08:08 AM
makes you wonder about certain people who don't actually have this...... i guess some are born without it, and some lose it.
Makes me wonder whether most, if not all, murderers and rapists
do feel the same, awful inward feeling at the thought of committing such crimes.
It might have been their upbringing; child abuse early on might make the criminal experience a splitting inside. A dissassociation from the "bad" person that was punished. So, whenever he or she committed a crime, it would always be the "other" person, the "bad" person, whom actually did the crime, with the offender's conscience standing by (inside), horrified and unwilling to take the blame.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 06:15:08 AM
It might have been their upbringing; child abuse early on might make the criminal experience a splitting inside. A dissassociation from the "bad" person that was punished. So, whenever he or she committed a crime, it would always be the "other" person, the "bad" person, whom actually did the crime, with the offender's conscience standing by (inside), horrified and unwilling to take the blame.
yeah, probably that's it.
unless you're just born a complete psychopath, but that's very rare....
Interesting how this thread has come down to discussing ethics; even though it could have been said to be inevitable...
Still, I will once again be a spoilsport and note that, however entertaining such a discussion might be, it would very much help the general argument if views aren't simply "thrown in" without justification. And that's regardless of verity: I'm mostly saying this due to notions like "men can be born evil" that seem to suddenly be dropped in the conversation. :o
Citing Kierkegaard specifically, on the other hand, was - in my view - useful; just don't fall into the trap of discussing only what was immediately referenced, rather than at least part of the sum of opinions on record regarding the subject.
Interlude on "debating productively" over. You may continue with your discussion. :P
(And no, I am not doing this just to be an "ass". After all, I'm not even participating in the present debate. But I do think some refinement could help it flourish into something more "solid", and indeed interesting. :))
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2007, 06:19:21 AM
yeah, probably that's it.
unless you're just born a complete psychopath, but that's very rare....
I've read that there are those with...abnormalities (I grimacingly await responses).
Quote from: Renfield on August 23, 2007, 06:31:15 AM
Interesting how this thread has come down to discussing ethics; even though it could have been said to be inevitable.
Haven't ethics always been a core component of religion? This aspect of the discussion, of itself, strikes me as non-news.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 06:39:32 AM
I've read that there are those with...abnormalities
That's so
last century.
Now, they are simply
different-normalitied 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 06:55:06 AM
Haven't ethics always been a core component of religion? This aspect of the discussion, of itself, strikes me as non-news.
Exactly my point, in describing the discussion going that way as something that "could have been said to be inevitable". Or rather "could be said to have been inevitable" would be a clearer way to put it, but concurrent thoughts were apparently befuddling me, as I was typing the original post. ;)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 06:56:22 AM
That's so last century.
Now, they are simply different-normalitied 8)
lol ;D
Quote from: Renfield on August 23, 2007, 07:03:27 AM
Exactly my point, in describing the discussion going that way as something that "could have been said to be inevitable". Or rather "could be said to have been inevitable" would be a clearer way to put it, but concurrent thoughts were apparently befuddling me, as I was typing the original post. ;)
I follow you now.
One interesting aspect of these discussions, is where some of our more zealous neighbors actually attempt to categorize religious belief as, itself, a mode of unacceptable behavior (only one example being the citation of Chomsky warning us that "irrational belief" is of its nature "dangerous").
I'm an agnostic. I generally don't like religion, but I like some of its 'products'.. Like the music.
Quote from: Haffner on August 22, 2007, 03:01:36 AM
I love the writings of St. Ignatius, and I just watched another movie recently about Sts. Therese and Bernadette.
I too consider the political dealings of the Church to often be very wrong and not-thought-through-enough. I am, however, also very much in love with the Theology and by and large the practices as well.
I am particularly devoted, Mass more than once a week, consecrations to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts 5-6 times a week, a full Rosary at least 7 times a week...
but I don't see myself as being any quicker toward getting "into Heaven" because of such devotion. I do it because it makes me understand Love better, and it makes me feel marvelous.
Well, I do it for both, really. ;D
I think being a practicing Catholic makes me a better person, but know that going through the various motions won't have any real effect in your life if you view it as "going through the motions." There has to be a real and sincere faith operating within it. I know that in the past I've fallen into the trap of thinking that if you did x, y, and z that everything was taken care of. Although I obviously do not agree with a lot of what he believed/taught, I think Luther was right in re-stressing a strong personal faith in Christ that was at the heart of St. Paul's teachings.
Let's Drink to St Paul!
(oops)
Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 11:23:51 AM
Let's Drink to St Paul!
(oops)
For me, I'll make it a cup of coffee! ;D
And are there any Evangelical Humanist Catholics out there like Erasmus? :P
Quote from: Danny on August 23, 2007, 11:15:20 AM
Although I obviously do not agree with a lot of what he believed/taught, I think Luther was right in re-stressing a strong personal faith in Christ that was at the heart of St. Paul's teachings.
I'm betting that people (well, most) figure out that one can't have faith without it being personal.
Interesting to ask oneself what one does that
isn't ,at least in some way,
personal.
I was never wild about St. Paul's more misogynistic writings...in fact, just the opposite. However, his song of love, and much of his writings in regard to Christology and prayer, continue to Affirm and Inspire me.
I have read both Luther and Calvin, and while I respect their intellect, I didn't learn much from them I hadn't already guessed. Luther's movement, as you know, stemmed from both his vocational failure and (perhaps mostly) the
awful state of the Catholic Church at the time.
I must heartily thank both Luther and Calvin for having helped tremendously in making the RC church clean its act up!
As I wrote the latter, I realize that some here may feel offended, believing perhaps that the RC church never did "get right". i apologize if I have offended any, and offer up my sincere respect for them and whatever Faith they live by.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 23, 2007, 04:36:57 AM
The belief that all belief can be (or ought to be) "rational belief," may itself be an irrational belief.
Agreeable, but quite generic and vague. I don't think Chomsky was saying this.
But elsewhere you can find his considerations about a study conducted in the US.
I was just looking at a study by an American sociologist (published in England) of comparative religious attitudes in various countries. The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that -- it's astonishing.
These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population.
Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believed in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago.
Again, you've got to go back to pre-technological societies, or devastated peasant societies, before you get numbers like that. Those are the kinds of belief systems that show up in things like the God-and-country rally. Source: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pfrm/pfrm-12.html
Quite spooky, eh?
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 12:21:02 PM
Agreeable, but quite generic and vague. I don't think Chomsky was saying this.
But elsewhere you can find his considerations about a study conducted in the US.
I was just looking at a study by an American sociologist (published in England) of comparative religious attitudes in various countries. The figures are shocking. Three quarters of the American population literally believe in religious miracles. The numbers who believe in the devil, in resurrection, in God doing this and that -- it's astonishing.
These numbers aren't duplicated anywhere else in the industrial world. You'd have to maybe go to mosques in Iran or do a poll among old ladies in Sicily to get numbers like this. Yet this is the American population.
Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believed in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago.
Again, you've got to go back to pre-technological societies, or devastated peasant societies, before you get numbers like that. Those are the kinds of belief systems that show up in things like the God-and-country rally.
Source: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pfrm/pfrm-12.html
Quite spooky, eh?
Hm. Not really spooky at all, for me. I'm convinced that religious miracles exist (outside the "ordinary-extraordinary" miracle of Love itself). For a Catholic, the Eucharist itslelf is a Miracle in every way.
It
is tough for me on the Darwin thing, however. I've noticed that the book I read awhile back, "
Darwin's Black Box", is more and more popular...
I guess the only thing "amazing" about the above statistics is the apparent fact that you find such "spooky".
Absolutely no offense intended, and I greatly admire and respect the coherence of your assertions.
i don't believe in religious miracles, not any that have "happened" after the Bible and i don't think God actually interferes at all with the world or anything nowadays. At least, it'd only make sense if he didn't.
I have my religion. If you don't like it, I can change it.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 11:55:56 AM
I'm betting that people (well, most) figure out that one can't have faith without it being personal.
Interesting to ask oneself what one does that isn't ,at least in some way, personal.
I was never wild about St. Paul's more misogynistic writings...in fact, just the opposite. However, his song of love, and much of his writings in regard to Christology and prayer, continue to Affirm and Inspire me.
I have read both Luther and Calvin, and while I respect their intellect, I didn't learn much from them I hadn't already guessed. Luther's movement, as you know, stemmed from both his vocational failure and (perhaps mostly) the awful state of the Catholic Church at the time.
I must heartily thank both Luther and Calvin for having helped tremendously in making the RC church clean its act up!
As I wrote the latter, I realize that some here may feel offended, believing perhaps that the RC church never did "get right". i apologize if I have offended any, and offer up my sincere respect for them and whatever Faith they live by.
Hmmmmm...............I see. But I meant personal by something that is closely connected to who you are. I know that you can have a kind of faith that does not play an important or meaningful role in your life (even if you go to church and do all the ritual stuff). Hence why I wrote that a personal faith should be at the center of your religious worship.
Agreed with your comments about Luther and Calvin. I do apprecitate Luther more than Jean, but I'll leave it at that.
And I woud say that the Church is always in a perpetual state of reform.
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2007, 12:31:49 PM
i don't believe in religious miracles, not any that have "happened" after the Bible and i don't think God actually interferes at all with the world or anything nowadays. At least, it'd only make sense if he didn't.
Do you pray, Greg?
Quote from: Danny on August 23, 2007, 12:51:38 PM
Do you pray, Greg?
yeah, i think him for everything and stuff
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2007, 12:31:49 PM
i don't believe in religious miracles, not any that have "happened" after the Bible and i don't think God actually interferes at all with the world or anything nowadays. At least, it'd only make sense if he didn't.
this thought process was common in the
1st enlightenment. A common analogy is that God is the perfect clock maker, but after completion of his work he sits back and watches it tick, eventually the clock is going to go bad. So the clock maker fixes it (jesus christ) and the cycle begins again.
I personally disagree with the above beliefs. Now on the subject of miracles, it's all what you perceive. A child in a 3rd world country who is about to die and somehow gets the needed medicine at the point of death calls that a miracle. We call that lucky timing and good people doing good things. However, dont mistake miracles as God talking (like the burning bush instance).
To be honest, you can find God in anything and he can speak to you in everything. Personally, the reason for my passion of
THIS music is because I can feel God in it.
BTW, to answer the thread question- i believe in a mix of Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian. But, if i had to choose id say i subscribe to the Methodist church.
Quote from: Danny on August 23, 2007, 12:45:13 PM
Hmmmmm...............I see. But I meant personal by something that is closely connected to who you are. I know that you can have a kind of faith that does not play an important or meaningful role in your life (even if you go to church and do all the ritual stuff). Hence why I wrote that a personal faith should be at the center of your religious worship.
Agreed with your comments about Luther and Calvin. I do apprecitate Luther more than Jean, but I'll leave it at that.
And I woud say that the Church is always in a perpetual state of reform.
Thanks for your well thought out response,
Danny. But isn't even "a kind of faith that does not play an important or meaningful role in your life (even if you go to church and do all the ritual stuff)"
personal?
I tell respectful people whom ask me that the Bible is a Living Bible, and that it is always currently being "written". I believe that many of the writings of the Saints will be canonized in a future date (yes, I'm including apparitions at Guadalupe, Fatima, and Lourdes), according to the RC canon.
Not only do I completely agree with your assertion "the Church is always in a perpetual state of reform.", I applaud at how you put it so succinctly. The Church is a living Church, just as much are the tenets of such. Just my opinion, and it's nice to share with you.
oh wait, there was this guy named Gustav Mahler. Besides that, i don't believe in any miracles in that last 2000 years. :)
Quote from: greg on August 23, 2007, 01:10:01 PM
oh wait, there was this guy named Gustav Mahler. Besides that, i don't believe in any miracles in that last 2000 years. :)
His music can definitely
be a miracle :). Speaking of, just slapped on the Bernstein "Resurrection".
Quote from: George on August 23, 2007, 01:22:26 PM
Can you ask 'ol Lenny how it feels to be back? ;D
This recording is often
that good!
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 12:28:52 PM
I've noticed that the book I read awhile back, "Darwin's Black Box", is more and more popular...
Popular it may be, of course. But that is utterly irrelevant.
I wonder if you know that each single theory expressed in that book has been taken, twisted and scientifically demolished (I know you got very little consideration for science, but that's it).
Furthermore, it has been legally confirmed - in a regular trial in Dover - that the ID theory is not science, but religion instead. That's the reason why they don't teach it in schools along with the Evolution theory, so far. Thanks God ;D
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 01:46:49 PM
Popular it may be, of course. But that is utterly irrelevant.
I wonder if you know that each single theory expressed in that book has been taken, twisted and scientifically demolished (I know you got very little consideration for science, but that's it).
I never asserted that I believe the assertions in Darwin's Black Box to be true, and your continual hostility is noted. I feel bad that I provoke such antagonism in you...a member I've never once come close to disrespecting in any way.
Finally, I've never made any claims of being scientifically informed.
Because I refuse to purposely antagonize you, I will here state that I am saying a prayer for you, that I won't provoke these incendiary feelings in you. That's the greatest show of strength I can produce in these circumstances.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 12:21:02 PM
Just a couple of years ago, there was a study of what people thought of evolution. The percentage of the population that believed in Darwinian evolution at that point was 9% -- not all that much above statistical error. About half the population believed in divinely-guided evolution, Catholic church doctrine. About 40% thought the world was created a few thousand years ago.
Again, you've got to go back to pre-technological societies, or devastated peasant societies, before you get numbers like that. Those are the kinds of belief systems that show up in things like the God-and-country rally.
Source: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/pfrm/pfrm-12.html
Quite spooky, eh?
Well, before somebody get's spooked it first needs to be cleared up what "divinely guided evolution" is. It might as well be plain Darwinian evolution. However, as we know, the laws of nature have to be very special to allow evolution in the first place. And this opens the rational possibility that "God did it". Other possibilities for the very special laws of nature are brute coincidence and the (unprovable) multiverse, but I would not consider these more rational than the first option, even though certainly a viable explanation for some. Some hold that the laws of nature have to be the way they are, but there is no logical or mathematical rationale for this.
Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2007, 02:18:30 PM
Well, before somebody get's spooked it first needs to be cleared up what "divinely guided evolution" is. It might as well be plain Darwinian evolution. However, as we know, the laws of nature have to be very special to allow evolution in the first place. And this opens the rational possibility that "God did it". Other possibilities for the very special laws of nature are brute coincidence and the (unprovable) multiverse, but I would not consider these more rational than the first option, even though certainly a viable explanation for some. Some hold that the laws of nature have to be the way they are, but there is no logical or mathematical rationale for this.
Firstly, "divinely guided evolution" is, as stated before, the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not of the scientific community. Postulates of a God, or supreme intelligence or whatever, are deemed to be logically unnecessairy in scientific investigations, as long as phenomena are explainable in natural/reductionist terms.
QuoteSome hold that the laws of nature have to be the way they are, but there is no logical or mathematical rationale for this
At least this is an assumption that can be falsified. The assumption by which a divine hand created natural laws isn't.
And the problem with rationality, to me, concerns not only the postulate of an alleged divine hand behind natural laws, but many other things religious people usually believe in. Resurrection, miracles and so on.
Do you consider those beliefs to be rational
tout court? I'm merely asking, not being argumentative.
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 02:34:03 PM
Firstly, "divinely guided evolution" is, as stated before, the doctrine of the Catholic Church, not of the scientific community. Postulates of a God, or supreme intelligence or whatever, are deemed to be logically unnecessairy in scientific investigations, as long as phenomena are explainable in natural/reductionist terms.
That is correct. But "coincidence" is also not a scientific term for explaining the laws of nature, and neither is an unprovable multiverse, which there is no evidence for, science. Science lives from evidence. That something can be described in scientific terms does not automatically mean that it is science.
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 11:55:56 AM
I must heartily thank both Luther and Calvin for having helped tremendously in making the RC church clean its act up!
They did? How? When?
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 12:28:52 PM
Hm. Not really spooky at all, for me. I'm convinced that religious miracles exist (outside the "ordinary-extraordinary" miracle of Love itself). For a Catholic, the Eucharist itslelf is a Miracle in every way.
So the miracle of love in itself isn't enough? Or of life? Or of everything that exists around us? Why the need for these "supernatural" miracles? The whole point of these in any religion seems to me to be inherently aggressive and dividing because they are supposed to "prove" that this, and only this religion which believes in these, and only these miracles which are the only ones which really happened outside "normal reality", that that somehow "proves" that this, and only this form of belief is really true.
I have a hard time seeing how people can believe in miracles defined by a religious organization as being exclusively "authentic" and at the same time declare they have tolerance for other forms of religious thinking or experience. I mean, it sounds really nice. But it is really honest?
Quote from: Haffner on August 23, 2007, 11:55:56 AM
I was never wild about St. Paul's more misogynistic writings...in fact, just the opposite. However, his song of love, and much of his writings in regard to Christology and prayer, continue to Affirm and Inspire me.
Is religion a cold buffet? Can we just walk up to it and pick and choose what we want and leave the bits we don't like on the table?
That is what appears to me what organized religions basically do. They prepare the menu for you. As long as you order from it, you are fine. If you want to go and take a look yourself, you are in deep trouble...
I find that misogynism a huge problem. Not just as a concept and a way of looking at women that I don't agree with. I know people have spent a lot of effort on trying to explain that away, but it is still obviously a strong element of that religion.
Which I find strange. When you actually read some of the biblical texts, the "official" ones as well as some of the "apocrypha", I see elements buried in them, but only half buried, half sticking out, which give me a suspicion (note I am saying "suspicion", not "conviction" or "belief"), a very, very strong suspicion actually, that one of the most important elements, maybe even the most important element in whatever the original form of Jesus' teachings may have been was the complete acceptance of and love for everybody - as it is indeed "officially" preached, but with a lot of qualifications... - without any form of qualification or reservation - including and especially women.
It appears that women have played an extraordinarily important role in the early church. That may explain some of the incredible dynamic it developed, which is still very hard to grasp. We are talking about a time and environment here in which women were definitely considered to be human beings of lower stature than men. Somebody preaching that they were just as valuable from any point of view (and indeed maybe even central to the understanding of love as the givers and receivers of love) must have made an enormous impact on people, insightful men and, obviously, women, for most of which such thinking was totally unheard of. You can still see in many biblical texts what important roles women played in many key events of the stories, except that some of them appear half painted over and redefined, as divine mothers or whores or whatever other archaic role definitions of women came in handy. It appears that women were the ones who held the early Christian community together after Jesus' death. And guess who was there with him during the crucifixion, who found his empty grave, to whom he appeared first (at least according to scripture). Not to any of the male "apostles". We can also learn even from some of Paul's texts that women were among the leaders of early church communities.
So, what happened? How did they end up in a role in which they weren't even allowed to speak in church or play any "leading" roles anymore? Could it be that what we have here is a concept of religious humanism way, way, way ahead of its time which was envisioned by a wandering preacher and which impacted those who heard it enormously not because of some great "miracles" he performed, but because of the extraordinary and revolutionary nature of these teachings, and the emotional and freeing impact this message of unconditional (and unconditioned) love? And which was then, unfortunately, taken over, revised, and used by people who were not actually ready for this message yet, and so felt the need to revert some of its key elements (such as the acceptance of women) to the archaic modes of thinking they were used to?
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 23, 2007, 02:46:08 PM
And the problem with rationality, to me, concerns not only the postulate of an alleged divine hand behind natural laws, but many other things religious people usually believe in. Resurrection, miracles and so on.
Do you consider those beliefs to be rational tout court? I'm merely asking, not being argumentative.
First let me state that rationality requires one to not only accept the validity of the scientific method and the results it produces, but also to recognize the boundaries of science, beyond which philosophy begins. That something lies outside science does not automatically mean that it is irrational.
The concept of God lies outside science, but from a philosophical perspective, it is a rational assumption, albeit not an assumption without other rational alternatives. Furthermore, if one assumes that God created the laws of nature, it is also rational to assume that he is free to suspend them whenever he wishes. Rational evidence shows that this does not happen on a regular basis, but cannot exclude that it never happens.
Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2007, 06:29:14 PM
First let me state that rationality requires one to not only accept the validity of the scientific method and the results it produces, but also to recognize the boundaries of science, beyond which philosophy begins. That something lies outside science does not automatically mean that it is irrational.
Very true. But does that mean it has to be "supernatural" and/or "divine" then? For people not too long ago, more or less everything, even the things today a moderately intelligent 9 year old can understand, were completely outside science.
Quote from: Al Moritz on August 23, 2007, 06:29:14 PM
The concept of God lies outside science, but from a philosophical perspective, it is a rational assumption, albeit not an assumption without other rational alternatives. Furthermore, if one assumes that God created the laws of nature, it is also rational to assume that he is free to suspend them whenever he wishes. Rational evidence shows that this does not happen on a regular basis, but cannot exclude that it never happens.
Very true, too, but there are countless such miracles which have been reported by people over the millenia. Not just the few which are supposed to "prove" the exlusivity of one form of organized religion. On what basis did you decide only these few are "authentic" and worth believing in?
M, I appreciate your quarrel with the misogynistic elements in the Pauline letters. There could follow a long and detailed discussion, and yet, you might find at the last still that you disagree.
All I will point out is, that there are women who are Christians, who embrace the faith — who intelligently embrace the faith — and yet do not labor at all under the 'self-loathing' implicit if (as some argue) misogyny were somehow an 'inherent aspect' of Christianity.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2007, 03:59:11 AM
M, I appreciate your quarrel with the misogynistic elements in the Pauline letters. There could follow a long and detailed discussion, and yet, you might find at the last still that you disagree.
I don't think it matters so much with what I personally agree or disagree about this. That is ultimately a personal decision which may or may not be relevant to other people. I personally find it horrible, deeply inhuman, and it appears to me to be a glaring contradiction, but that has nothing to do with the question of the "authenticity" of these concepts and the events they claim are connected to that.
The interesting question is how it came to be that way. Especially since it is so obviously contradicted by many elements of the same texts this Pauline form of Christianity claims to be based on. But then Paul was the man who went to Jerusalem and argued with the people who actually knew Jesus personally, because he thought he knew better than them what all that was really about and how it was supposed to be understood, right? When it comes to that whole subject, I think we simply don't know anymore what it was really all about, since people (like Paul) started helping themselves to whatever elements of this new movement fitted their very own agenda very early on, and whatever the original message and content really was, it disappeared, just like the original Christian (if we even want to call it that way) community, or rather, was made to disappear.
So what follows is two millenia of highly complex and diverse religious concepts based on some of these elements, but nothing "authentically" and directly connected to the - supposedly - historical origins.
I find the question of what is behind all that enormously interesting and intriguing, and it is without a doubt of singularly immense importance to the whole history of mankind from that point on, but we simply don't know much or anything about "what really happened" - thanks to people like Paul who didn't actually care about that. They had other plans...
BTW, I think we have all really been very restrained in this discussion so far. Is this still GMG? 8) ;D $:)
Actually, call this a 'glass half full' take on the matter, but what I find interesting is that, in spite of for instance the "institutionalization" of dubious remarks in the Pauline letters, that in fact Christianity has among all world religions been the one which has, perhaps, most effectively and meaningfully fostered an intellectual and cultural environment, and the moral impulse, to address the injustices of sexism the world over.
Even the fact that you, M, are finding these elements in the Pauline letters "horrible, deeply inhuman," is the intellectual fruit in this culture of the religion which you are critiquing.
Quote from: M forever on August 24, 2007, 04:18:18 AM
I don't think it matters so much with what I personally agree or disagree about this. That is ultimately a personal decision which may or may not be relevant to other people. I personally find it horrible, deeply inhuman, and it appears to me to be a glaring contradiction, but that has nothing to do with the question of the "authenticity" of these concepts and the events they claim are connected to that.
The interesting question is how it came to be that way. Especially since it is so obviously contradicted by many elements of the same texts this Pauline form of Christianity claims to be based on. But then Paul was the man who went to Jerusalem and argued with the people who actually knew Jesus personally, because he thought he knew better than them what all that was really about and how it was supposed to be understood, right? When it comes to that whole subject, I think we simply don't know anymore what it was really all about, since people (like Paul) started helping themselves to whatever elements of this new movement fitted their very own agenda very early on, and whatever the original message and content really was, it disappeared, just like the original Christian (if we even want to call it that way) community, or rather, was made to disappear.
So what follows is two millenia of highly complex and diverse religious concepts based on some of these elements, but nothing "authentically" and directly connected to the - supposedly - historical origins.
I find the question of what is behind all that enormously interesting and intriguing, and it is without a doubt of singularly immense importance to the whole history of mankind from that point on, but we simply don't know much or anything about "what really happened" - thanks to people like Paul who didn't actually care about that. They had other plans...
All of
M's assertions are excellently written and well thought out. I'm very impressed and at the same time sympathetic. But perhaps the greatest genius of his last few posts lie in the fact that the assertions and questions he's come up with are overall nearly impossible to provide conclusive redactions to; at least from the standpoint of the Roman Catholic Church.
I'm sure that people in general (religious and non-religious) often tend to grasp onto religion as an entity that simply provides answers for what they can't/won't-try-to/don't-care-to try and understand. I agree fully with
M that this isn't exactly an example of Nietzsche's idea of "intellectual hygiene". And I'm not trying to minimize the subject of will to Ignorance. But try this: how many things in an individual life are treated with what I term Der Wille Zur Wegsehen: the will to look away. That is, how many variables in a person's life are not put under the witheringly-bright lamp of thorough inspection...
by necessity toward the goal of life-efficiency?
The failed musician tells him or herself that it's "who you know"; the failed mechanic had "the wrong treacher", etc.
Again, I can fully understand how many would consider this very much a minimization of personal dishonesty. But the writings of Nietzsche brought into the world a way of understanding the role of "dishonesty" in one's life, and his goal in writing (when he wasn't inadvertantly writing from his own, bitter loneliness) was to pretty much prove
M's and my own belief that Christ taught people to see every day as a Blessing in and of itself, that the very
fact of existence (and especially one's experience and relationship to Love) is the most obvious
Miracle in-itself[/i].
"Beyond Good and Evil" was written by Nietzsche to reassure people that whatever form of rationalization that people use to augment their lives (read:"make them easier") ,
without hurting others in the doing, are intrinsic to human psyche as an overwhelming rule. He felt that people should search inside and understand that they:
a)"tell" themselves things...thus being "intellectually hygienic"...and then
b)
understand the whys, hows, wherefores of this "telling" then
c)
accept the fact that this is
going to happen regardless of one's self-indignation ("the worse form of lying" to Nietzsche), and forgive it when seeing it in another.
What one
chooses to believe in...
there's the rub, nicht wahr?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2007, 04:41:54 AM
Even the fact that you, M, are finding these elements in the Pauline letters "horrible, deeply inhuman," is the intellectual fruit in this culture of the religion which you are critiquing.
Great point,
Karl. I think
M has really kicked a** on this topic, and I must state again how impressed I am.
Quote from: M forever on August 24, 2007, 03:05:26 AM
Very true. But does that mean it has to be "supernatural" and/or "divine" then? For people not too long ago, more or less everything, even the things today a moderately intelligent 9 year old can understand, were completely outside science.
No, I am not talking about the "God of the Gaps" – we have no natural explanation yet for this and that, so "God did it". In fact, I have forcefully argued against the God-of-the-gaps argument in my essay
The Origin of Life at talkorigins.org, the major evolution site on the web:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html#homochirality
(Last three paragraphs of that chapter.)
I am not talking about the current limitations of science, I am talking about the boundaries of science, period. I am not talking about gradations, I am talking about a categorical distinction. Science studies the natural causes to natural effects. It cannot say anything about the question if the natural causes ultimately might come from a supernatural source or not.
The American National Academy of Sciences states:
"Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."
(http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063647&page=58)
By the way, even if science one day could explain why each and every physical constant has the precise value that it has from a model that unifies all physical forces (desirable, but still far away in the future), this would still not be an argument that the laws of nature have to be the way they are – such an argument of course might be used to bolster the suggestion that we would not need a supernatural explanation for this. The laws of nature could still be different based on another unified structure, and also, different laws of nature would be conceivable based on a non-unified structure. There is no compelling logical or mathematical argument that would exclude those possibilities. Not just according to our current limitations of knowledge, but in principle.
Not every scientist (I suspect very few) would agree on the assumption that scientifical investigation and acquiring of new knowledge will never possibly offer an alternative explanation for Deism or for Divine determination of natural laws.
First theory that practically did that (and eliminated the need to conceptualize nature as a divine creation) was Darwin's. At the time when the theory of evolution was first published, the whole scientific community relied on the Natural Theology of Paley, the same doctrine that the ID is bringing back in new suits with the pretension that it is an alternative scientifical explanation (which is not).
Not to mention Dawkins, another one who consider scientifical hypotetical evidences as a way to exclude God is Stephen Hawkins. This is a consideration of him from the book "A brief history of time".
When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity , there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before : that space and time together might form a finite , four dimensional space without singularities or boundaries , like the surface of the earth , but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe , such as its large - scale uniformity and also the smaller scale departures from homogeneity , like galaxies , stars , and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self - contained , with no singularities or boundaries , and completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.
Same thing occurs for Chomsky again. I feel very close to the way he interprets the hypothesis of a divinity beyond the material world.
What is it that I am supposed to believe or not believe in? Are you asking whether I believe there is something not in the universe (or the universes, if there are (maybe infinitely) many of them), and that somehow stands above them? I've never heard of any reason for believing that. (http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/1990----.htm)
Given that Science has no tools so far to deny or affirm God, let's consider the ammount of rationality intrinsic to religious constructs and beliefs such as the resurrection, apparitions, miracles, afterlife and so on, since -as said - having a religious life experience not only deals with affirming the ingerence of God on natural laws as plausible. I didn't obtain a straight answer so far, and I really would like to know.
For what concerns the philosophical argument of the necessary First Cause for natural phenomena, I think that its contraddictions and flaws have been well demonstated through the XXth Century logical debate. If we assume a First Cause, we must explain who caused it. If we admit God can be uncaused, why God can be and the Universe can't?
Quote from: Scriptavolant on August 24, 2007, 07:06:48 AM
Not to mention Dawkins, another one who consider scientifical hypotetical evidences as a way to exclude God is Stephen Hawkins. This is a consideration of him from the book "A brief history of time".
When we combine quantum mechanics with general relativity , there seems to be a new possibility that did not arise before : that space and time together might form a finite , four dimensional space without singularities or boundaries , like the surface of the earth , but with more dimensions. It seems that this idea could explain many of the observed features of the universe , such as its large - scale uniformity and also the smaller scale departures from homogeneity , like galaxies , stars , and even human beings. It could even account for the arrow of time that we observe. But if the universe is completely self - contained , with no singularities or boundaries , and completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.
Hawkins in all fairness says "if". And unlike Hawkins suggests, nobody has yet succeeded in combining quantum mechanics with general relativity. It is the big problem in current physics. And since nobody has solved it yet, noone can see the consequences of that. You owe it to yourself to read Lee Smolin's
The Trouble with Physics on this. (And no, this physicist has no religious agenda; from his book it seems he is either an atheist or an agnostic.)
EDIT:Quoteand completely described by a unified theory , that has profound implications for the role of God as the Creator.[/i]
See what I said about the laws of nature.
QuoteFor what concerns the philosophical argument of the necessary First Cause for natural phenomena, I think that its contraddictions and flaws have been well demonstated through the XXth Century logical debate.
This is debatable, but another whole point of discussion which I have no time for now. I have said what I wanted to say about rationality and about the boundaries of science, and I'll leave it at that.
I have a fundamental problem with the word "supernatural." In my (amateur) opinion, anything that exists is by definition "natural." If a "Supreme Being" exists, it is most definitely "natural," and arguably the most fundamentally "natural" aspect of existence, no?
And why assume that if a Deity (or Deities) exist(s) that hard evidence for said existence will never come to light? It seems to me that attempting to define the boundaries of scientific knowledge is akin to trying to predict the future, and in this particular instance, is based on the assumption that some aspects of existence are, indeed, "supernatural," which is just a fancy way of saying "totally incomprehensible."
Perhaps it is true that some things are simply "incomprehensible," but where is the proof? Such a claim truly boils down to mere assumption. Look at the progress of human knowledge over the millenia -- it is staggering! I'd rather keep our options open. We should always try to increase our knowledge (on a species-wide scale). What if Einstein had decided that the apparent constant speed of light found in experiments such as Mickelson and Morley's was simply "incomprehensible" -- a "supernatural" phenomenon not worth furter investigation? If he had done that, the GPS system in my car (thanks, Mom!) wouldn't work worth a damn!
Again, I am not saying that all knowledge is attainable by human kind. I really don't know. But why set limits before we get there? Who knows what the future holds in store?
Quote from: aquariuswb on August 24, 2007, 08:51:49 AM
I have a fundamental problem with the word "supernatural." In my (amateur) opinion, anything that exists is by definition "natural." If a "Supreme Being" exists, it is most definitely "natural," and arguably the most fundamentally "natural" aspect of existence, no?
If God created nature, he is outside of it.
As for the remainder of your post, I am not quite sure if you have understood everything I said before. And yes, I am all for science finding out everything it possibly can.
Quote from: Al Moritz on August 24, 2007, 08:59:02 AM
If God created nature, he is outside of it.
Is God unnatural?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 24, 2007, 09:27:11 AM
Cute!
wouldn't that be a bizarre ending for this thread?
Quote from: greg on August 24, 2007, 09:44:59 AM
wouldn't that be a bizarre ending for this thread?
Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part
didn't end up fighting?
Quote from: Haffner on August 24, 2007, 09:57:58 AM
Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?
if so, i just might start believing in miracles ;)
Didn't St. Paul, in Romans 5, place the blame of the fall of man on Adam's shoulders? (Or is that apple?)
And doesn't the doctrine of Original Sin (based on St. Paul's writings) that was later formulated by St. Augustine principally blame the fall of mankind on what Adam did?
Besides all that, how could a misogynist write in Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."
Quote from: Haffner on August 24, 2007, 09:57:58 AM
Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?
This thread might end, but another similar one will begin shortly. No matter the basic subject, someone always throws in the religious card.
Quote from: Haffner on August 24, 2007, 09:57:58 AM
Will this thread end? And if it does, will it be because people for the most part didn't end up fighting?
Why should it end at this point, or any time soon? It looks to me like we all behaved very well so far, and that in itself is a very good group effort since this is a complicated and for many people rather emotional subject. It is also a good discussion because the choice of the subject is very good. Because it isn't so much about the question if supernatural gods exist or not, or if people believe in that or not, but mostly why people believe in that or not, and why they believe in specific forms of organized religion or not. So it stays on a personal level, it's not about what is the "truth", we are leaving that open for now, but what personal relationship people have to the subject. That is something we can respectfully discuss. And that is actually very interesting. We don't have to waste much time fighting about detail content of this or that religion, but it is interesting to hear from people why they chose to believe in certain things, but not in others.
Anyway, thanks for the thought out replies to my posts, I will come back to these a little later. It's a complicated subject which requires a little thinking now and then, so some of the posts deserve to be taken more time to reply to than typing in a few spontaneous lines...
I survived 12 years of catholic schools. Since I graduated from my all girl catholic high school in 1974 I have distanced myself from the church and its teachings. I know that the catholic religion is fine and wonderful for many people and if that's what makes them happy then more power to them, but it is not for me. Now whenever I am asked what religious beliefs I have I just say I am a Druid.
All I can say about religion is that people can believe in any organized religion they wish to because it was their choice. I feel that people are free to practice their religion of choice and believe in whichever god or gods they want to as long as they don't come to my door or approach me on the street trying to add me to their congregation. So you can believe in god or not and practice whichever religion you wish, but please leave me out of it. I am far happier spiritually walking in the lovely Vienna Woods and surrounding nature where Beethoven spent many hours of the day.
This is as far as I am going to get involved in a religion topic since such a topic usually gets way out of control and ends up getting locked.
Quote from: Danny on August 24, 2007, 11:06:20 AM
Didn't St. Paul, in Romans 5, place the blame of the fall of man on Adam's shoulders? (Or is that apple?)
And doesn't the doctrine of Original Sin (based on St. Paul's writings) that was later formulated by St. Augustine principally blame the fall of mankind on what Adam did?
Besides all that, how could a misogynist write in Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself."
Beautiful quotes,
Danny! Many doubt the authorship of some (at least parts) of the "Pauline Epistles". Many point out the inconsistencies as being indicative of later interpolations.
Quote from: Hollywood on August 24, 2007, 11:18:54 PM
I survived 12 years of catholic schools. Since I graduated from my all girl catholic high school in 1974 I have distanced myself from the church and its teachings. I know that the catholic religion is fine and wonderful for many people and if that's what makes them happy then more power to them, but it is not for me. Now whenever I am asked what religious beliefs I have I just say I am a Druid.
All I can say about religion is that people can believe in any organized religion they wish to because it was their choice. I feel that people are free to practice their religion of choice and believe in whichever god or gods they want to as long as they don't come to my door or approach me on the street trying to add me to their congregation. So you can believe in god or not and practice whichever religion you wish, but please leave me out of it. I am far happier spiritually walking in the lovely Vienna Woods and surrounding nature where Beethoven spent many hours of the day.
This is as far as I am going to get involved in a religion topic since such a topic usually gets way out of control and ends up getting locked.
Good post! I'm not wild about the door to door thing either.
Obviously this topic hasn't been locked, and because of the amazing, perfectly restrained posts of practically all of our members (CONGRATULATIONS ALL!) we have
grown together.
Like I said, I am only just warming up! Hang on...
;D :o 8) >:D $:) 0:)
Quote from: M forever on August 25, 2007, 03:46:47 AM
Like I said, I am only just warming up! Hang on...
;D :o 8) >:D $:) 0:)
M has contributed some of the
best posts on this topic, in my opinion.
Bravo!
Yes, maybe - or maybe not, but not *that one*!!!! That was just a bunch of smileys I clicked on. Any good discussion is a give and take, and what I meant is that I will be back ("I will be back", you know, like our governator here in this beautiful state of California...) with some more detailed replies answering the and, hopefully, reflecting the quality of some of the restrained and reflected posts other forum members here made. These replies just sometimes need a little time!
0:)
Quote from: Haffner on August 25, 2007, 03:34:42 AM
Beautiful quotes, Danny! Many doubt the authorship of some (at least parts) of the "Pauline Epistles". Many point out the inconsistencies as being indicative of later interpolations.
Yeah, heard that they think he wrote about 7, with Colossians and Ephesians doubtful, while the Pastoral Epistles are completely ruled out.
To answer the initial question, I don't believe in ANY religion. I think all the "religions" have failed mankind in a horrible way. Marx was right. Religion IS the opiate of man (paraphrase). No, I'm not communist. Yes, I believe in "God". Not the God of the Bible. I now feel the Bible is a small amount of fact twisted, turned, and manipulated to fit the needs of man, not God. I think there was a Jesus. His teachings have been so changed where they are no longer recognizable.
I suppose if you put a name on my thinking, it would be "Deism".
None. All. Whatever works.
Quote from: Danny on August 25, 2007, 10:14:45 AM
Yeah, heard that they think he wrote about 7, with Colossians and Ephesians doubtful, while the Pastoral Epistles are completely ruled out.
I feel that really explains alot of the awkward feel in some of the Epistles...I guess today many people would state that passages just don't flow with the rest.
Nevertheless, I have made it a point to read
Romans alot recently, and the Inspiration one can receive from it is, for me, at times much like a Miracle.
Quote from: Hollywood on August 24, 2007, 11:18:54 PM
as long as they don't come to my door or approach me on the street trying to add me to their congregation.
this interests me. i agree, BUT the bible states that it is every Christians mission to bring new people into the body of the church.
Matthew 28:19
And Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."my question, is evangelical Christianity practical in today's society.
Quote from: scsinger01 on August 26, 2007, 06:19:15 AM
this interests me. i agree, BUT the bible states that it is every Christians mission to bring new people into the body of the church.
Matthew 28:19
And Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
my question, is evangelical Christianity practical in today's society.
i think going door-to-door is a wrong approach. What'd be better is to share your beliefs with your friends, and to reach people in other ways (which is normally what they do).
Quote from: scsinger01 on August 26, 2007, 06:19:15 AM
my question, is evangelical Christianity practical in today's society.
Evangelism can take a running jump- it's the essence of fear and the inability to accept other views, and the small minded desire to force everyone else in the world into your tiny moronic perspective on the world.
I don't mean any offense to Jehovah's Witnesses; however, I certainly do feel offended when I tell them at my front door I'm Roman Catholic and they still show up for days afterward.
I also caught myself getting into an argument at (again) my front door with a 7th Day Adventist about Jesus being actually the archangel, St. Michael. I am especially grateful that I caught myself, and refused to argue or deal with them anymore...gracefully.
This is what you need:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/Tividale%20temple/Templeportraits13-07-07020.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/Tividale%20temple/Templeportraits13-07-07015.jpg)
You bunch of psychos.
Quote from: Haffner on August 25, 2007, 12:43:42 PM
I feel that really explains alot of the awkward feel in some of the Epistles...I guess today many people would state that passages just don't flow with the rest.
Nevertheless, I have made it a point to read Romans alot recently, and the Inspiration one can receive from it is, for me, at times much like a Miracle.
I hope that St. Paul wrote all of the texts attributed to him. I think there's reason for believing that he did, but even if he didn't write an epistle like Colossians or Ephesians the thought and ideas are so thoroughly inspired by Pauline thought that, perhaps, it doesn't really matter.
Romans is a marvellous text; it gets a bad rap from too many people, imo.
Quote from: Sean on August 26, 2007, 09:48:09 AM
the essence of fear and the inability to accept other views, and the small minded desire to force everyone else in the world into your tiny moronic perspective on the world.
At last...something you
are an expert on!
Quote from: Sean on August 26, 2007, 09:50:48 AM
This is what you need:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/Tividale%20temple/Templeportraits13-07-07020.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/SeanMcHugh02/Tividale%20temple/Templeportraits13-07-07015.jpg)
You bunch of psychos.
Thank you,
Sean. Obviously, I was wrong all along. You have helped immeasurably!
Quote from: scsinger01 on August 26, 2007, 06:19:15 AM
this interests me. i agree, BUT the bible states that it is every Christians mission to bring new people into the body of the church.
Matthew 28:19
And Jesus said, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."
my question, is evangelical Christianity practical in today's society.
Does one "bring new people into the body of the church" by going door to door to people who, before you knock on their door, were strangers, and after you've left them some 'literature', will remain strangers again?
The witness that brings people to the Church, is perforce something more personal than (for instance) The Sandwich-Board Man, a guy who walks around North Station, or sometimes the Boston Common, who I suppose genuinely thinks he's serving God by doing as he does.
I think St Francis was on the right tack with:
Share the Gospel always. When necessary, use words.
Quote from: Sean on August 26, 2007, 09:48:09 AM
Evangelism can take a running jump- it's the essence of fear and the inability to accept other views, and the small minded desire to force everyone else in the world into your tiny moronic perspective on the world.
That's
restraint, is it?
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2007, 06:26:07 AM
I think St Francis was on the right tack with: Share the Gospel always. When necessary, use words.
That's priceless gold,
Karl! Thanks for sharing!
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2007, 06:26:07 AM
I think St Francis was on the right tack with: Share the Gospel always. When necessary, use words.
I agree. Another Saint said something like "Never argue. Inform."
Karl, I recommend the Elephant God to you (Ganesh), and probably the Monkey God (Hanuman) to M forever.
Quote from: Sean on August 27, 2007, 06:52:46 AM
Karl, I recommend the Elephant God to you (Ganesh), and probably the Monkey God (Hanuman) to M forever.
It's obvious that
Sean is only trying to help.
Quote from: Sean on August 27, 2007, 06:52:46 AM
Karl, I recommend the Elephant God to you (Ganesh)
But why should anyone care to take your recommendations,
Sean, when the example you set is "you lot can take a running jump"?
Do you ever think about the things you say,
Sean? You know what they say about the unexamined life . . . .
Quote from: Haffner on August 27, 2007, 06:55:35 AM
It's obvious that Sean is only trying to help.
8)
I've seen Ganesh at the MFA; I don't think we quite suit one another.
Quote from: Sean on August 27, 2007, 06:52:46 AM
Karl, I recommend the Elephant God to you (Ganesh), and probably the Monkey God (Hanuman) to M forever.
which one do you recommend for me?
how about the Dragon God, that'd be so cool....... and then i could ride him over the earth and he could spit fire at anyone who opposes me >:D
Karl, I think you're very right there, and I'm wrong. I'm well aware how difficult and sensitive religious subjects are, for me as well as others, and I don't really want to give offence- that's not right. All the main religions are full of fine values needless to say, and need to be respected.
Spoken like a gentleman, Sean.
come on, Sean, gimme a recommendation! :)
You mean, there are people who oppose you, Greg? 8)
greg, well there's Kali, she's a goddess but you don't want to mess with her-
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.indhistory.com/img/hindu-gods-kali.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.indhistory.com/hindu-gods/hindu-gods-kali.html&h=440&w=313&sz=81&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=6ZmSZ7Ar3jcW4M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKali%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DISO-8859-1
And she knows what she wants-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kali_Union.jpg
Quote from: karlhenning on August 27, 2007, 07:28:09 AM
Spoken like a gentleman, Sean.
I expected no less from
Sean. I look at
Sean as being a Winner.
A what?
Quote from: Sean on August 27, 2007, 07:42:17 AM
greg, well there's Kali, she's a goddess but you don't want to mess with her-
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.indhistory.com/img/hindu-gods-kali.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.indhistory.com/hindu-gods/hindu-gods-kali.html&h=440&w=313&sz=81&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=6ZmSZ7Ar3jcW4M:&tbnh=127&tbnw=90&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKali%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DISO-8859-1
And she knows what she wants-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kali_Union.jpg
awfully tempting......
just think of what she can do with 4 arms....
Quote from: Sean on August 28, 2007, 05:59:01 AM
A what?
Just me, but
A Winner=a person whom is loved, and loves.
QuoteYour lovin' give me a thrill, but your lovin' don't pay my bills, now give me money, that's what I want . . . .
do we need a seperate thread here?....
(money vs. love)
what if you have neither :-X
Quote from: greg on August 28, 2007, 07:46:18 AM
what if you have neither :-X
QuoteMoney for nothin' and your chicks for free
Okay Haffner, sure thing.
QuoteMoney for nothin' and your chicks for free
uhhhhhh..... i feel kinda dumb right now, can't figure that out ???
Quote from: greg on August 28, 2007, 08:12:12 AM
uhhhhhh..... i feel kinda dumb right now, can't figure that out ???
QuoteWe've got to move these refrigerators; we've got to move these color TVs . . . .
Quote from: Corey on August 28, 2007, 08:33:44 AM
Yeah! That's the way you do it! ;)
QuoteHe's bangin' on the bongos like a chimpanzee.
#@$#!%#!$#!
you're totally confusing me, Karl!
i don't understand any of those analogies, except for the last one
Quote from: Sean on August 28, 2007, 08:08:32 AM
Okay Haffner, sure thing.
I might have been completely off the mark in regard to you,
Sean. If so, please accept my sincere apologies.
I am grateful for my life (Love) , because I am a very happy person. I feel blessed, and I feel compelled several times each day to offer gratitude for the above.
The Carmelites were present in on my father's lineage, and they have always been held in regard by me, because I am awed by their gratitude toward Life. They felt each day that they were living life too easy, when there where others suffering horribly (lepers, virus sufferers, psychotics). They felt that they weren't truly feeling Love for another unless they were personally suffering their sufferings.
I have felt God (whom I recognize as being Love) and realized how much bigger He (or She or neuter) is compared to me. I saw how much I learned about Love, and understood that each day is a Blessing where and whenever my body is healthy, and I can learn (by grace) the lessons to be learned in/about/for Love .
I am compelled dozens of time each day to say a prayer of gratitude for my life in Love. To even know that Love always exists is an ecstatic bestowal for me, even when I'm not "feeling" Loved.
There, I opened up a bit more. As always, I am merely stating these as personal facts.
Uhhhh, there went a debatable amount of restraint!
Those are good things Haffner and I hope I share your positive outlook. My life has been highly polarized, some good things some dire.
Quote from: Sean on August 28, 2007, 09:24:26 AM
Those are good things Haffner and I hope I share your positive outlook.
Love wins.
Quote from: karlhenning on August 28, 2007, 09:37:47 AM
J. Geils?
That's an unwelcome childhood memory. I always had the "heavy" stuff on (you know the bands), and for me "Love Stinks" was more for the Courduroy Cult of the early 1980's.
Quote from: Haffner on August 28, 2007, 09:39:59 AM
That's an unwelcome childhood memory. I always had the "heavy" stuff on (you know the bands), and for me "Love Stinks" was more for the Courduroy Cult of the early 1980's.
You preach to the choir; half a dozen hallmates found musical religion with that album ::)
I was "raised" Roman Catholic, but the minute I turned 18, told my parents that I would no longer go to church, and renounced Catholicism.
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 29, 2008, 09:03:15 AM
I was "raised" Roman Catholic, but the minute I turned 18, told my parents that I would no longer go to church, and renounced Catholicism.
I'm personally not exactly wild about the "Novus" Catholic mass (I only go on the First Saturdays of the month), but I am very devoted otherwise (Eucharistic Adoration twice a week, Rosary several times a month, etc.). I'm not sure whether a person can be considered "un-Catholic" by not going to Church.
But I think I know what you mean; you just plain
aren't Catholic.
None.
Here's the short version-- I was not neccessarily a member of most of these, but I attended services & was doing a lot of looking around. Most of this took place from 1990 to around 2001 or so.
Born & raised Catholic > agnostic > Church of Christ :-[ > agnostic > Greek Orthodox > Episcopal > atheist > Unitarian > Quaker > atheist
I also flirted with philosophical Daoism.
A few years ago I finally dumped it all & I've felt much better since. Simplify, simplify! :)
I like how my sister put it-- she said "You don't believe in God, but you believe in good." 0:)
I'm still a Daveist. It has served me well. If you'd like to be a Daveist too, just send me $500 and I'll tell you all about it.
Quote from: MN Dave on January 29, 2008, 09:21:57 AM
I'm still a Daveist. It has served me well. If you'd like to be a Daveist too, just send me $500 and I'll tell you all about it.
What flavors does the Daveist kool-aid come in? :D
Quote from: ChamberNut on January 29, 2008, 09:23:40 AM
What flavors does the Daveist kool-aid come in? :D
No Kool-aid. Just G&Ts and martoonis.
Quote from: MN Dave on January 29, 2008, 09:25:00 AM
No Kool-aid. Just G&Ts and martoonis.
Is there a paperback version of the "
Dave-ist Catechism" available yet?
Quote from: Haffner on January 29, 2008, 09:30:31 AM
Is there a paperback version of the "Dave-ist Catechism" available yet?
The Heiligenstadt Testament :D
Like I said. $500. 0:)
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 09:44:33 AM
Although I like what she says, I must ask: How do you know what is good?
Or rather, does good even exist?
Good question. The short version: Its a never-ending task, I suppose & it would depend on each concrete situation I'm faced with...
I just no longer have much interest in working that out from a theological angle-- I find it makes something complicated even MORE complicated! :P I've never had so much peace of mind since I discarded all that...
Quote from: Ephemerid on January 29, 2008, 09:53:32 AM
Good question. The short version: Its a never-ending task, I suppose & it would depend on each concrete situation I'm faced with...
I just no longer have much interest in working that out from a theological angle-- I find it makes something complicated even MORE complicated! :P I've never had so much peace of mind since I discarded all that...
Amen, brutha!
Quote from: Ephemerid on January 29, 2008, 09:53:32 AM
Good question. The short version: Its a never-ending task, I suppose & it would depend on each concrete situation I'm faced with...
I just no longer have much interest in working that out from a theological angle-- I find it makes something complicated even MORE complicated! :P I've never had so much peace of mind since I discarded all that...
Theology >:D, doctrines >:D DOGmas >:D,
YUCKKKI'll take God w/o all the hangups.
Quote from: paulb on January 29, 2008, 10:11:01 AM
Theology >:D, doctrines >:D DOGmas >:D, YUCKKK
I'll take God w/o all the hangups.
So, God is your only hang-up then, eh? ;D
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 10:00:55 AM
I like your Answer.
I will add that peace of mind only increases when these ideas of good and bad are discarded as well.
True, good and bad are relative in one sense but also have a psychological basis to consider.
I think I'll look over Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil, if i have a copy somewhere. Anyone care to quote something from the great man's book.
Quote from: MN Dave on January 29, 2008, 10:15:30 AM
So, God is your only hang-up then, eh? ;D
ahh, but I do think the confession of a
hangup is more on you. ;)
Quote from: paulb on January 29, 2008, 10:17:25 AM
ahh, but I do think the confession of a hangup is more on you. ;)
No, I'm not allowed any hang-ups.
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 10:00:55 AM
I like your Answer.
I will add that peace of mind only increases when these ideas of good and bad are discarded as well.
This seems highly unlikely and counter-intuitive. If complacency is synonymous with peace of mind, then allow me to be a disturbed individual.
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 01:30:03 PM
With pleasure.
Pleasing, yes, but only for so long, à la Dionysus.
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 01:42:21 PM
If we could back up a bit, how do you equate complacency with discarding ideas of good and bad? Due to our conditioning as humans, this is not accomplished through complacency, but rather an active mind that resists judgement.
What do you mean due to our conditioning as humans? Are you saying that we are inclined to judge, and thus, to refuse judgment is an active task? I am not so sure about this, if that is your point. Consider, for example, the protagonist Meursault in Camus' novel
L'Étranger. I find him as a rather complacent individual. To withdrawal oneself from a world of normative ethics and moral intuition requires a certain degree of activity, but one of self-delusion, I think. Instead of very actively wrestling with what it means to deal with rational moral judgment, and by choosing to resign this faculty all together, you are left with something else humanity is inclined toward, which is a moral indifference, such as the case of our example in the novel. I think, psychologically, it is much more complex than a general activity, as complacency is not synonymous with a lack of cognitive motivation, but an active acceptance of one's own contentment and indifference, which comparatively, we might say is far less challenging than pursuing the former.
The Church of What's Happening Now!
Quote from: BorisG on January 29, 2008, 02:26:05 PM
The Church of What's Happening Now!
Church of '
sssssSSSSUP!
Quote from: George on January 29, 2008, 05:00:09 PM
The less thinking, the more peace of mind IMO.
Right.
No brain, no pain! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on January 30, 2008, 12:28:42 AM
Right. No brain, no pain! ;D
;D ;D ;D
Man, my coffee is all over the place......
Quote from: Harry on January 30, 2008, 01:06:48 AM
;D ;D ;D
Man, my coffee is all over the place......
Don't think, experience this new reality... :)
Quote from: Florestan on January 30, 2008, 01:27:30 AM
Don't think, experience this new reality... :)
Feel the heat, bay-beeee ;D!
I believe ones views on relion shape what composers one is drawn towards.
At least reading over this topic I see some associations betwenn ones thoughts and ones choice in music. Music has always been a part of religion.
Quote from: Florestan on January 30, 2008, 12:28:42 AM
Right. No brain, no pain! ;D
What post is that quote extracted from? I was looking forward to his response. I must have missed it.
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 04:26:38 AM
I believe ones views on relion shape what composers one is drawn towards.
I do not believe any such thing.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 30, 2008, 08:25:34 AM
I do not believe any such thing.
I also think that kind of view is...let's say
bizarre.
Oh, I don't know. I religiously listen to whatever the hell I want to.
Quote from: MN Dave on January 30, 2008, 08:32:28 AM
Oh, I don't know. I religiously listen to whatever the hell I want to.
;D
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 04:26:38 AM
I believe ones views on relion shape what composers one is drawn towards.
I don't see how this necessarily follows. Considering my views have changed considerably over time, that has never altered my attraction to certain composers. Ages ago, I heard Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms & fell in love with it, but not because it was necessarily
religious music. And even now as an atheist, I still love it. (just to cite one example)
And when I was a fundamentalist 18 years ago :-[ I loved Barber, Copland and other gay composers, fully aware they were gay-- it certainly didn't dissuade me from loving their music back then, when, according to the Church of Christ, that's sin sin sin!
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 04:26:38 AM
I believe ones views on relion shape what composers one is drawn towards.
At least reading over this topic I see some associations betwenn ones thoughts and ones choice in music. Music has always been a part of religion.
This seems particularly inaccurate. It is not that what you say is entirely incorrect, but that it is extremely vague. Are we speaking about one's views of religion in terms of the sociological institutional phenomena, or one's view of religion in terms of spirituality, meaning, and beauty? The latter could be associated with a religious understanding of aesthetics, insofar as I may value Bruckner for his spiritual ambitions, divorced from any specific religious establishment that may have informed his spirituality, because I may find something as equally meaningful in this spirituality. I believe Woody Allen was the one who said art is an intellectual's religion, and it holds true in many cases. Music reaches at something fundamental that transcends orthodoxy and religious establishments, and comes closer to what we mean when we talk about the transcendental, the moral, the spiritual, or the beautiful -- these are ideas that can be associated with religion inasmuch as they are the foundation for which people search for meaning, and quite similarly, what many of us look for in aesthetics. I may be non-religious, but I am certainly not non-humanity, and I know spiritual greatness in Bach or Bruckner when I hear it.
Glad to know my idea is controversial.
makes me feel good. ;)
I live on the same road as this major Hindu temple and visit regularly for a blessing from Lord Ventakeswara, a Vishnu incarnation. Also contributed to the Wikipedia article-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tividale_Tirupathy_Balaji_Temple
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 10:57:50 AM
Glad to know my idea is controversial.
It isn't controversial. It's just wrong ;D
Quote from: karlhenning on January 30, 2008, 11:30:10 AM
It isn't controversial. It's just wrong ;D
A tiny wrong isn't so bad in comparison to Bush's wrong if/when troops go into pakistan. Thats a monster of a wrong. Al qaeda is the face of a religion in its death throes. Islam doesn't need any help from us.
Oh. I thought you were talking of your belief that "one's views on religion shape what composers one is drawn towards." I don't think it quite charitable to speculate on the "death" of a major world religion.
Quote from: karlhenning on January 30, 2008, 12:05:58 PM
Oh. I thought you were talking of your belief that "one's views on religion shape what composers one is drawn towards." I don't think it quite charitable to speculate on the "death" of a major world religion.
Doesn't Islam have even more adherents than Christianity?
Quote from: karlhenning on January 30, 2008, 12:05:58 PM
I don't think it quite charitable to speculate on the "death" of a major world religion.
whats so
insulting about the obvilous, the inevitable?
Quote from: Haffner on January 30, 2008, 12:28:22 PM
Doesn't Islam have even more adherents than Christianity?
what does #'s have to do with anything?
You guys have the biggest numbers in your classical camp? Does that make your composers better than our classical camp?
China, africa and india each have the biggest populations. Does that make them better than say Costa Rica?
Isalm will not exist in 100 years , or (hopefully) less.
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 01:11:04 PM
what does #'s have to do with anything?
Well, it
does has everything to do with your specious notion that Islam is "dying."
Furthermore, i already knew how you guys would take my initial statement.
How you responded was no surprise at all. And i know whats futher comming my way. I'm intuitive.
Quote from: Ephemerid on January 30, 2008, 01:14:36 PM
Well, it does has everything to do with your specious notion that Islam is "dying."
Dying is not the right image. She, the whore = Miss Islam , is dead.
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 01:17:23 PM
Dying is not the right image. She, the whore = Miss Islam , is dead.
Paul, forgive me for having missed this, but are you an adherent of a religion?
Quote from: Haffner on January 30, 2008, 12:28:22 PM
Doesn't Islam have even more adherents than Christianity?
no......... at least, not until they kill us all.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on January 30, 2008, 03:50:37 PM
no......... at least, not until they kill us all.
:D
I will refrain from saying anything more of the truth about
mohamedISM, lest the "faithful" send one of their henchmen to kill me.
As my real name is used as login and home town for everyone to see.
Which means read quickly cause i am about to erase it.
Quote from: paulb on January 30, 2008, 04:09:06 PM
:D
I will refrain from saying anything more of the truth about mohamedISM, lest the "faithful" send one of their henchmen to kill me.
Oh, please... ::)
Quote from: Ephemerid on January 30, 2008, 04:50:42 PM
Oh, please... ::)
would you please delete the quote.
if they murder me, it;'ll be on your conscience 0:)
Quote from: Corey on January 30, 2008, 04:51:54 PM
The Great Satan is actually some dude living in Louisiana. Whodathunkit?
spoken like a true Mohamedist.
what a rascal that guy was, mohamed i mean, you ought to read his bio. :o
This thread hopefully won't go on too much longer like this. "Restraint" was part of the topic title.
Quote from: Haffner on January 31, 2008, 03:17:49 AM
This thread hopefully won't go on too much longer like this. "Restraint" was part of the topic title.
I'm through. As is mohamedism. what a supreme scoundrel. but then maybe they get what they deserve.
The OT tells us this. God would know.
Quote from: Corey on January 30, 2008, 04:51:54 PM
The Great Satan is actually some dude living in Louisiana. Whodathunkit?
Thank God for that! >:D
Well, why do you think they've got gators down there? 8)
Quote from: Corey on January 30, 2008, 04:51:54 PM
The Great Satan is actually some dude living in Louisiana. Whodathunkit?
I thought as much, well that a long way away.... ;D
in what way is islam a religion
Quote from: paulb on January 31, 2008, 12:56:51 PM
in what way is islam a religion
All religions have one thing in common. They are sets of values posing as facts. In order to be facts instead of just good ideas like the Golden Rule, for example, they acquire a guarantee of their truth status, most commonly of a supernatural provenance. I find it unsatisfactory because such a provenance is no more factual than what is to be guaranteed.
It's frequently suggested that without this support for values they will lose their power to guide behavior, but I reject this. First, religion is a failure at instantiating the values it espouses. They are in fact given living expression more faithfully by many without religion. All such failures to improve moral performance are chalked up to individual weakness, leaving one to question how it is possible to regard religion as good for sinners, except in the sense that it give license for their continued depravity. Whatever the result in terms of the long and dreary history of religious failure to prevent the crimes it in fact encourages, one is never supposed to blame the program. It's always user error. We aren't religious enough, the Muslims say, as they double down on the worst bet in history.
Second, if you examine the option of choosing right action because it
is right, and not because a Bronze Age tyrant will torture you forever if you transgress, you'll find it works rather well. We are an ethical species, creating values is what we do, and it's helpful to engage our rational faculties in the process. I'm heartened to see that this is becoming a more widely shared view. I think we will do better if given a chance. We could hardly do worse.
Quote from: drogulus on February 01, 2008, 05:05:22 AM
All religions have one thing in common. They are sets of values posing as facts.
Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 01, 2008, 05:49:39 AM
Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.
Touche.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 01, 2008, 05:49:39 AM
Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.
Yes, whether one espouses to a religion or takes the un-religious, atni-religious, atheist view point, sets of values are what makes a person who and what they are.
Everyone has values. Quite often the atheists and theists share simular values. Though obviously the highest values are at opposites.
I would say the theists fail , more often, to honor and respect due to the nature of the challenge to reach those values. Whereas the atheists seem to prosper quite well at achieving their objectives, values.
Though not to be envied by the true faithful theist.
Quote from: paulb on February 01, 2008, 03:54:59 PM
Yes, whether one espouses to a religion or takes the un-religious, atni-religious, atheist view point, sets of values are what makes a person who and what they are.
I could be reading you wrong here, Paul, but I do hope you aren't equating atheism with "anti-theism." I certainly have nothing against theists
per se. I'm just sayin'. ;)
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 01, 2008, 04:09:04 PM
I could be reading you wrong here, Paul, but I do hope you aren't equating atheism with "anti-theism." I certainly have nothing against theists per se. I'm just sayin'. ;)
Would you be frank and honest enough to admit there are those in your rank and file who do have issues with the theist camp?
But gee, if truth be told I probably have more conflicts with the current state of christianity than do the atheists. maybe this has more to do with my perspectives which clash with mainstream christianity.
I'm pro choice/might as well say pro abortion, I'm for the death penalty, not against romance pre marriage. etc etc. You name it, they and i differ. No, i don't get along very well on christian forums.
In fact other than St Paul , one of the greatest saints I know of is St Friedrich. Heck, that alone is enough to have blasphmies the size of small boulders comming my way ;D
makes me happy to know my middle name is the Frederick. I wish my german mother had spelled it as friedrich. But as this is america, she chose the americanized version.
Quote from: paulb on February 01, 2008, 05:06:15 PM
Would you be frank and honest enough to admit there are those in your rank and file who do have issues with the theist camp?
I'm not sure there is any "rank and file" among atheists.
Some atheists are more on their soapbox than others, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to equate the majority of atheists with "anti-theism" (picking Madelyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins as generally representative of most atheists is the same kind of mistake as saying Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell are representative of Christianity).
Unless its fundamentalists itching to make trouble, I don't much think in terms of people in boxes-- its not very helpful. I'd rather focus on humanistic values that some religious people and some non-religious people have in common (I still read Thomas Merton & MLK on occasion, even if I am unable accept certain metaphysical assumptions).
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 01, 2008, 05:33:27 PM
I'm not sure there is any "rank and file" among atheists.
Some atheists are more on their soapbox than others, certainly, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to equate the majority of atheists with "anti-theism" (picking Madelyn Murray O'Hair or Richard Dawkins as generally representative of most atheists is the same kind of mistake as saying Pat Robertson & Jerry Falwell are representative of Christianity).
Unless its fundamentalists itching to make trouble, I don't much think in terms of people in boxes-- its not very helpful. I'd rather focus on humanistic values that some religious people and some non-religious people have in common (I still read Thomas Merton & MLK on occasion, even if I am unable accept certain metaphysical assumptions).
very good, you're a moderate and may i say reasonable. i don;t know the writings of Dawkins or O'Hare. i know a tad of Falwell and some of Robertson's views. Both too extreme and I'd say typical mindset evangelical christianity.
Merton I would never care much for.
I prefer Eckhart and Nietzsche for my education. Eckhart was condemned late in his life, but post mortem re-instated into the church. I'm not sure how protestant seminary students in the US deal with Niezsche. Catholic seminarians may be more open, also european religious students.
Sure its not wise to sterotype groups, but its fair to say there are generalities that can be drawn about atheists and theists.
I think a good example of the better side of christianity would be a guy in texas, Joel Osteen. Though I could never make a committment to his church, its just not me. But there are quite a few who do like his message.
Christianity is going through a rough time right now with all the TV guys under fire by that midwest senator. And then of course the catholic scandal. Some say its an interesting time we live in ::) ???
What religion do I believe in?
I am becoming increasing interested in Buddhist thought, particularly Soto Zen.
I didn't think one believed in a religion. I think one had some beliefs and if that beliefs were shared by others you BELONGED to that religion. Am I wrong?
Quote from: karlhenning on February 01, 2008, 05:49:39 AM
Well, that has the look of an opinion posing as fact, BTW.
True. Some of mine are, and some of yours no doubt. But are religious opinions facts? In other words, if they were facts would they still be religious in nature? Is there such a thing as religious fact? What character, other than unverifiability, would a religious fact have to distinguish it from an ordinary one? If the Pope says it's raining, we can assume he's not imparting a religious fact even if it
is raining. Looking out the window has no known religious component. Until we can nail this down I think we're stuck with unverifiabilty as the mark of the religious, so "posing as fact" would be justified.
A second piece of evidence for values mistaken for facts as an explanation concerns the arguments against atheism advanced by some believers. You'll note that atheists frequently attack religion as being either false or incoherent (or even false
because incoherent), and the counterargument is often a moral one, that the attack on religion is an attack on morality. To an atheist this is a bizarre argument: the existence or nonexistence of entities can't be made contingent on a purely moral view of any kind, even one you strongly approve of. By their own arguments I'm led to the conclusion that believers wish their values to do the work of facts, even if they don't recognize it.
Quote from: paulb on February 01, 2008, 06:33:34 PM
I think a good example of the better side of christianity would be a guy in texas, Joel Osteen. Though I could never make a committment to his church, its just not me. But there are quite a few who do like his message.
Christianity is going through a rough time right now with all the TV guys under fire by that midwest senator. And then of course the catholic scandal. Some say its an interesting time we live in ::) ???
True conversation:
ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS: Once I was going through a hard time, and had a lot of questions on my mind, and was feeling really just depressed and awful, and I turned on the TV and the first thing I saw was Joel Osteen, and he was talking about exactly how I felt, and it was really amazing, and I felt so much better.
UNBELIEVER ME: Cool.
SHE: Yeah, God talked to me through Joel Osteen.
ME: I thought it was Joel Osteen talking to you.
SHE: No, it was God talking to me through him! God talks to me through a lot of people. Even you.
ME (startled): Me?
SHE: Yeah, one time God talked to me and he used you to say it, or something.
ME (amazed): Wow, what did I say?
SHE: I don't remember. It was ... uh, something ...
ME: How do you know it was God talking and not me?
SHE: It was you. But it was also God. But I just felt it, because it just was an answer that I'd really been looking for and asking for.
ME: Well, maybe it was just me and not God.
SHE: Why do you have to take God out? That's so mean.
ME: Why do you have to put God in? I'd feel better if I'd helped you.
SHE: But you did.
ME: Whatever.
SHE: Why don't you respect my religious beliefs?
[etc.]
Thank you, Brian--that story is a fine illustration of how ego blinds us to the presence of God. Most of us are like that famous New Yorker cover, only with our inflated egos in place of Manhattan.
Here it is:
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/50326_l.jpg)
Quote from: longears on February 03, 2008, 01:13:58 PM
Thank you, Brian--that story is a fine illustration of how ego blinds us to the presence of God. Most of us are like that famous New Yorker cover, only with our inflated egos in place of Manhattan.
Here it is:
(http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/assets/2/50326_l.jpg)
:D
That pic is so funny.
I will have to order a copy of that issue.
That image could very easily apply to new or;leans. As many of you already were aware of us being
swamp people. Pre K we really were very isolated from culture. Our nearest sis city is Houston, and Baton Rouge. New Orleans and baton Rouge were the 2 most opposite city within one state, only 90 miles apart, and you couldn't find 2 cities more unlike and opposite each other.
Post Katrina the gap widen ever greater. UNREAL how opposite the 2 cities are. The only thing NO and BR have in common is both cities are in the same state.
There are still many areas of the city with blocks and blocks of gutted/half gutted houses.
Quote from: Brian on February 03, 2008, 12:32:16 PM
True conversation:
ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS: Once I was going through a hard time, and had a lot of questions on my mind, and was feeling really just depressed and awful, and I turned on the TV and the first thing I saw was Joel Osteen, and he was talking about exactly how I felt, and it was really amazing, and I felt so much better.
UNBELIEVER ME: Cool.
SHE: Yeah, God talked to me through Joel Osteen.
ME: I thought it was Joel Osteen talking to you.
SHE: No, it was God talking to me through him! God talks to me through a lot of people. Even you.
ME (startled): Me?
SHE: Yeah, one time God talked to me and he used you to say it, or something.
ME (amazed): Wow, what did I say?
SHE: I don't remember. It was ... uh, something ...
ME: How do you know it was God talking and not me?
SHE: It was you. But it was also God. But I just felt it, because it just was an answer that I'd really been looking for and asking for.
ME: Well, maybe it was just me and not God.
SHE: Why do you have to take God out? That's so mean.
ME: Why do you have to put God in? I'd feel better if I'd helped you.
SHE: But you did.
ME: Whatever.
SHE: Why don't you respect my religious beliefs?
[etc.]
Great ancedote of how other people can believe. You being not a religious type, yet this girl sees how God was in something you said.
Both St Paul (Acts) and Christ(can't recall the scripture) make mention of the fact : "don't ye know that ye are gods".
Quote from: drogulus on February 03, 2008, 11:54:05 AM
True. Some of mine are, and some of yours no doubt. But are religious opinions facts? In other words, if they were facts would they still be religious in nature? Is there such a thing as religious fact? What character, other than unverifiability, would a religious fact have to distinguish it from an ordinary one? If the Pope says it's raining, we can assume he's not imparting a religious fact even if it is raining. Looking out the window has no known religious component. Until we can nail this down I think we're stuck with unverifiabilty as the mark of the religious, so "posing as fact" would be justified.
A second piece of evidence for values mistaken for facts as an explanation concerns the arguments against atheism advanced by some believers. You'll note that atheists frequently attack religion as being either false or incoherent (or even false because incoherent), and the counterargument is often a moral one, that the attack on religion is an attack on morality. To an atheist this is a bizarre argument: the existence or nonexistence of entities can't be made contingent on a purely moral view of any kind, even one you strongly approve of. By their own arguments I'm led to the conclusion that believers wish their values to do the work of facts, even if they don't recognize it.
I agree, alot of what the 4000 to 5000!!!!!!!! protestant sects of christianity believe is absolute nonsense. In fact there are some pentascostal sects that seem more closer to satan's camp than to the kingdom of light.
You mention the word
fact.
The most important fact concerns the fact that there liveda man called Jesus Christ.
And also a fact is the number of churches in every corner of this land.
Drog
Here's something you may enjoy.
Its been said if Christ were to come back today in the flesh, he'd be persecuted by many of the protestant churches.
I know of some who would indeed persecute Jesus as being
the antichrist
right now whats going on is the establishment of home cell groups. Which is a very good thing. The catholic church is Ok for the most part, but even in the catholic system things are falling apart.
but most of the protestant movement has proved to be less than successful as a means to higher truth.
Quote from: paulb on February 03, 2008, 05:24:15 PM
The catholic church is Ok for the most part, but even in the catholic system things are falling apart.
Most non-Catholics are usually a little more hostile. :D
About the latter statement, what would you say is "falling apart"?
Episcopalian ;)
Quote from: Danny on February 03, 2008, 06:45:16 PM
Most non-Catholics are usually a little more hostile. :D
About the latter statement, what would you say is "falling apart"?
:D
yes generally catholics are tame sheep compared to some of the more wildly fanatic protestant groups. which is to be expected since the protestants ahve more than 4000 sects, there's bound to be some
black sheep and worse
mountain goatsI'm a mountain sheep. meaning belonging to no sect.
falling apart.. attendance by the young is down. The sacraments are not what they use to be.
Rome has a lot of stupidity comming out of its mouth and the youth now a days are too smart to swallow dumb things about REAL LIFE. So the catholic church is behind the times, addressing none of the needs of the individual. The catholic church lives in the middle ages.
I do know 2 catholic priests who were quite amazing in their knowledge and do think for themselves. But as they have to remain in rank and file, their ideas can't really go anywhere.
Of the main protestant groups,the one i do not particulairly care for are the episcopalians. My father is
one.
Quote from: paulb on February 03, 2008, 07:44:59 PM
:D
yes generally catholics are tame sheep compared to some of the more wildly fanatic protestant groups. which is to be expected since the protestants ahve more than 4000 sects, there's bound to be some black sheep and worse mountain goats
I'm a mountain sheep. meaning belonging to no sect.
falling apart.. attendance by the young is down. The sacraments are not what they use to be.
Rome has a lot of stupidity comming out of its mouth and the youth now a days are too smart to swallow dumb things about REAL LIFE. So the catholic church is behind the times, addressing none of the needs of the individual. The catholic church lives in the middle ages.
I do know 2 catholic priests who were quite amazing in their knowledge and do think for themselves. But as they have to remain in rank and file, their ideas can't really go anywhere.
Of the main protestant groups,the one i do not particulairly care for are the episcopalians. My father is one.
Fascinating, Paulie.......................I'd say that Benedict XVI has said and done things that aren't really all the controversial within the Church (at least from my local parish level) but are viewed by people without as un-modern or old fashioned.
At my parish we're bringing back the Latin Tridentine Mass starting next month; I'd say there's a split among members over it, with the older Catholics decidely in favor of it, the middle-age baby boomers not so enthusiastic and the younger members such as myself who are very mostly excited to have the 1962 missal back. In other parts of the country/world it most certainly can be different, of course.
Of beliefs and what you call "real life" I think the trend here in the the States/Europe is pretty sad from what I've seen. I've heard from priests, religious educators and the like that this is due to the changes of Vatican II and the difficulties in implementing them. ("Trent took about 75 years to satisfy," one Father told me, "so the struggles make sense if you see it from that perspective.")
However, with the return of the Latin mass............maybe Vatican II really is being undermined.
Quote from: Steve on February 03, 2008, 07:52:59 PM
Indeed.
So like are you episcopal for any particular reason, or just brought up in that branch of faith?
Quote from: paulb on February 03, 2008, 08:10:04 PM
So like are you episcopal for any particular reason, or just brought up in that branch of faith?
Should they be mutually exclusive?
I was not raised Episcopalian, but came to know its teachings and dogmas through close friends. The difference was partly theological, and partly cultural. I saw in Episcopalianism a wonderful blend of orthodoxy and modernity.
Quote from: Danny on February 03, 2008, 07:58:26 PM
Fascinating, Paulie.......................I'd say that Benedict XVI has said and done things that aren't really all the controversial within the Church (at least from my local parish level) but are viewed by people without as un-modern or old fashioned.
At my parish we're bringing back the Latin Tridentine Mass starting next month; I'd say there's a split among members over it, with the older Catholics decidely in favor of it, the middle-age baby boomers not so enthusiastic and the younger members such as myself who are very mostly excited to have the 1962 missal back. In other parts of the country/world it most certainly can be different, of course.
Of beliefs and what you call "real life" I think the trend here in the the States/Europe is pretty sad from what I've seen. I've heard from priests, religious educators and the like that this is due to the changes of Vatican II and the difficulties in implementing them. ("Trent took about 75 years to satisfy," one Father told me, "so the struggles make sense if you see it from that perspective.")
However, with the return of the Latin mass............maybe Vatican II really is being undermined.
Hi Danny
I'm not up on the vatican 2 or 'Trent" deal. I'll google tomorrow.
The latin version of the mass would be interesting for some catholics. so every chruch should offer one mass on sunday with the latin version
And...instead of latin being reintroduced into catholic high schools, i'm wondering if french and spanish classes should be brought in as early as 2nd or 3rd grade. Yeah that would be most excellent. Connect the students to the rest of the world. German is too difficult. But could be offered at the high school level.
This is just one thing the catholics need to address, broadening the minds of their young flock.
There are so many issues i butt heads with the catholic church, its not fair to say i'm catholic at all. Which is why i hardly ever attend the mass. late 1960's the catholic charasmatic movement took off, and continued through the late 70's. I attended one charasmatic service in 1977. Powerful.
I did visit the main charasmatic group 3 yrs ago, that fire has chilled. I could never be a part of this movement, its too catholic-ISM.
But there is so much i have issues with over what Rome believes. Romance before marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc etc ........ETCETRA, ...divorce. You name it, we are at odds.
Quote from: Steve on February 03, 2008, 08:17:20 PM
Should they be mutually exclusive?
I was not raised Episcopalian, but came to know its teachings and dogmas through close friends. The difference was partly theological, and partly cultural. I saw in Episcopalianism a wonderful blend of orthodoxy and modernity.
I would venture to guess that most members of the major branches of C are born into that faith. But no all faiths are open to receive whoever will come.
But sure episcopals are just as good as any other branch of faith. No one branch is any better than another.
God has taught me restraint and humility. :-X ...dang it, I bit my tongue, ouch
Quote from: paulb on February 03, 2008, 05:24:15 PM
You mention the word fact.
The most important fact concerns the fact that there liveda man called Jesus Christ.
Well, to be fair, we can't be sure that this is true. It seems quite likely that Jesus did exist, but on the other hand evidence is sparse and contradictory. Notable Jewish scholars of the day, including Philo, who lived at the same time as Jesus and wrote extensively about the relationship between Pontius Pilate and the Jews, fail to mention Jesus at all. Flavius Josephus' mention of Jesus, in his own history, is the only account of Jesus' life written by a non-Christian in the first 100 years after his death - but the passage was a forgery by a later Christian author.
Our only real evidence for Jesus' existence are (in chronological order) the letters of Paul, who never met the man and does not really describe his life (Paul does not mention a virgin birth, for instance); the Gospel of Mark, which also omits much of our contemporary story, including the virgin birth and Jesus' ascendance to heaven after the tomb is found empty; and the other three Gospels, which borrow largely from Mark and were written decades after Jesus' death. It seems likely that a historical Jesus did in fact exist, and that he did wander Palestine practicing faith healing and offering teachings of peace toward neighbors, but there is no particular evidence for anything more than that.
In addition, our histories point out some definite problems with the Jesus story. We know
for certain from historical records and the internal evidence of the Bible itself that Jesus was not born in December, he was not born in Bethlehem, he was not necessarily a carpenter, he was not born of a virgin, there was no census in the year of his birth, Herod didn't kill all the children, Jesus was not tried overnight on the eve of Passover, John the Baptist actually lived for several years after Jesus' death, and of course that there were no earthquakes or solar eclipses after the crucifixion.
R.G. Price lays out all the facts in a rather extremist article (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm) which, despite its slant, contains some fascinating points. The passage on Philo (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#9) is especially worthwhile. I disagree with his assertion that Jesus was a myth, and with his suggestion on bizarre evidence that the Gospel of Mark was some sort of joke, but his dissection of the alleged Jesus story is compelling, and most of it makes perfect sense. Our historical "Jesus" is largely fact, but with a lot of made-up trimmings.
Agreed, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is quite sparse. Of course, I've always found the numerous mention of
Christ in both Josepheus and Tactius to be rather solid,
Tactius, c. 116
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."
and Josepheus, from Antiquities, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Quote from: Steve on February 04, 2008, 08:27:34 AM
"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."
Indeed, this one is important, and I mentioned it only in passing. According to Price, a majority, or at least plurality, of scholars, believes that the portions of this which refer to Jesus in reverent/Christ-like/God-like terms were not written by Josephus but added later by Christians; Josephus was, after all, not a Christian, and several years later in his biography fails to mention the Christian faith entirely while he's talking about all the religious sects he dabbled in during his lifetime. A smaller percentage of experts seem to think that the whole passage was added later, given that in context it really makes no sense. Try reading Josephus' writing with and without the third paragraph:
Quote
1. But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea, removed the army from Cesarea to Jerusalem, to take their winter quarters there, in order to abolish the Jewish laws. So he introduced Caesar's effigies, which were upon the ensigns, and brought them into the city; whereas our law forbids us the very making of images; on which account the former procurators were wont to make their entry into the city with such ensigns as had not those ornaments. Pilate was the first who brought those images to Jerusalem, and set them up there; which was done without the knowledge of the people, because it was done in the night time; but as soon as they knew it, they came in multitudes to Cesarea, and interceded with Pilate many days that he would remove the images; and when he would not grant their requests, because it would tend to the injury of Caesar, while yet they persevered in their request, on the sixth day he ordered his soldiers to have their weapons privately, while he came and sat upon his judgment-seat, which seat was so prepared in the open place of the city, that it concealed the army that lay ready to oppress them; and when the Jews petitioned him again, he gave a signal to the soldiers to encompass them routed, and threatened that their punishment should be no less than immediate death, unless they would leave off disturbing him, and go their ways home. But they threw themselves upon the ground, and laid their necks bare, and said they would take their death very willingly, rather than the wisdom of their laws should be transgressed; upon which Pilate was deeply affected with their firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable, and presently commanded the images to be carried back from Jerusalem to Cesarea.
2. But Pilate undertook to bring a current of water to Jerusalem, and did it with the sacred money, and derived the origin of the stream from the distance of two hundred furlongs. However, the Jews were not pleased with what had been done about this water; and many ten thousands of the people got together, and made a clamor against him, and insisted that he should leave off that design. Some of them also used reproaches, and abused the man, as crowds of such people usually do. So he habited a great number of his soldiers in their habit, who carried daggers under their garments, and sent them to a place where they might surround them. So he bid the Jews himself go away; but they boldly casting reproaches upon him, he gave the soldiers that signal which had been beforehand agreed on; who laid upon them much greater blows than Pilate had commanded them, and equally punished those that were tumultuous, and those that were not; nor did they spare them in the least: and since the people were unarmed, and were caught by men prepared for what they were about, there were a great number of them slain by this means, and others of them ran away wounded. And thus an end was put to this sedition.
3. Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
4. About the same time also another sad calamity put the Jews into disorder, and certain shameful practices happened about the temple of Isis that was at Rome. I will now first take notice of the wicked attempt about the temple of Isis, and will then give an account of the Jewish affairs. There was at Rome a woman whose name was Paulina; one who, on account of the dignity of her ancestors, and by the regular conduct of a virtuous life, had a great reputation: she was also very rich; and although she was of a beautiful countenance, and in that flower of her age wherein women are the most gay, yet did she lead a life of great modesty.
The third paragraph seems "out of place" ... and a little skimpy treatment for a Messiah.
From what I've read (and I studied the "Jesus Never Existed" idea extensively back in 2002), few scholars lend credibility to the "Jesus Never Existed" subject. Even the "Jesus was just an amalgation of several, revolutionary Judaists" subject is losing ground. Even Nietzsche's paranoid idea that Paul invented the whole thing to bring low the Roman Empire smacks of pure horse manure...the "secret" would have been out by now.
Based upon my own (at the time vehemently atheistic) research; and letting you folks know up front that I'm fully aware of my being a nobody guitar teacher in nowhere New England, I came to the conclusion that we overall have much more historical evidence of Christ's existence than we do of several dozen other historical characters whom are taught just as much (probably more these days) in schools.
In fact, overall it can be stated that Christ was the massively influential historical figure in the history of the world (or at least the last three millenium). Most people whom look for a mythological Jesus are those whom look for "secrets"/"hidden knowledge"...a phase that prety much everyone falls victim to at one time or another.
As to whom Jesus was, now there's a debate, huh?
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 04:31:26 AM
From what I've read (and I studied the "Jesus Never Existed" idea extensively back in 2002), few scholars lend credibility to the "Jesus Never Existed" subject. Even the "Jesus was just an amalgation of several, revolutionary Judaists" subject is losing ground. Even Nietzsche's paranoid idea that Paul invented the whole thing to bring low the Roman Empire smacks of pure horse manure...the "secret" would have been out by now.
And yet, some people really have a taste for that horse manure 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 04:44:43 AM
And yet, some people really have a taste for that horse manure 8)
Yeah! People whom want to be seen as "mysterious", having "hidden knowledge"...like I wrote above, we all go through manifestations of that phase.
An interesting fact is how strident that many White Supremacist groups are in announcing the "Jesus Myth". One thinks of that old saw about there being one water they traverse: "De-
NI-L"! Many people are afraid of the the idea of Jesus, just like many are afraid of the Saints, Marian apparitions, Lanciano, the apparent incorruptibilty of Bernadette Soubirous, and many other Catholic and Orthodox figures, etc.
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 04:49:27 AM
Yeah! People whom want to be seen as "mysterious", having "hidden knowledge"...like I wrote above, we all go through manifestations of that phase.
An interesting fact is how strident that many White Supremacist groups are in announcing the "Jesus Myth". One
There are so many white supremacist groups, not all have this same ideas on jesus.
I saw this Travel Channel show where this young british guy seeks membership in the KKK, where he meets the highest ranking KKK in the country in Los Angeles.
He is taken to headquarters where can be seen lots of nazi memorbelia , american flags, nazi flags and sourthern rebel flags. There on a small table is spread a american flag and the bible opened to some verse that is suppose to prove a certain white clan are direct descendents of jesus or whatever.
After the british journalist said he was jewish, they adruptly told him to get out.
Some white supremacists do
believe in jesus ???
I am gald that after all your research into the
jesus question that you gave us all a
thumbs up , that is was a real person.
Gee thanks, I started to have doubts ;)
Yes now the question remains, just what did he say? Or mean to say? and what he actually didn't say , but the christians have shoved all sorts of nonsense into his mouth, and have clothed him in very ugly clothes, unpractical for real life, a wholesome life.
<<<<<These are the questions that must be answered. ::) :-X>>>>>>
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 07:24:23 AM
Some white supremacists do believe in jesus ???
Yes, in fact most I am aware of DO. This is not to equate Christianity with racism or anything like that of course. (sadly, I am all too well-acquianted with white supremecist movements & know some of the Aryan nation type weirdos personally in my days in northeast Lousyana)
About that Travel Channel show: That's part of the whole Christian Identity movement. Basically the jist is that "white people" are the "true Israelites" & America is the promised land in the Bible. The Jews are "imposters" and there's a lot of talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc etc ad nauseum. The holocaust never happened, etc. They love David Irving's crap. They make the John Birch Society look tame. Crazy people.
Information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 07:45:59 AM
Yes, in fact most I am aware of DO. This is not to equate Christianity with racism or anything like that of course. (sadly, I am all too well-acquianted with white supremecist movements & know some of the Aryan nation type weirdos personally in my days in northeast Lousyana)
About that Travel Channel show: That's part of the whole Christian Identity movement. Basically the jist is that "white people" are the "true Israelites" & America is the promised land in the Bible. The Jews are "imposters" and there's a lot of talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc etc ad nauseum. The holocaust never happened, etc. They love David Irving's crap. They make the John Birch Society look tame. Crazy people.
Information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity
Their certainly strange. David Irving's books aren't all crap (though obviously alot of them are). I'm part Jewish, and yet I learned a bit from several of his books. But I try to do that with all books.
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 07:49:15 AM
Their certainly strange. David Irving's books aren't all crap (though obviously alot of them are). I'm part Jewish, and yet I learned a bit from several of his books. But I try to do that with all books.
I have no patience for people posing as historians to pass off lies.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 07:45:59 AM
Yes, in fact most I am aware of DO. This is not to equate Christianity with racism or anything like that of course. (sadly, I am all too well-acquianted with white supremecist movements & know some of the Aryan nation type weirdos personally in my days in northeast Lousyana)
About that Travel Channel show: That's part of the whole Christian Identity movement. Basically the jist is that "white people" are the "true Israelites" & America is the promised land in the Bible. The Jews are "imposters" and there's a lot of talk about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, etc etc ad nauseum. The holocaust never happened, etc. They love David Irving's crap. They make the John Birch Society look tame. Crazy people.
Information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_identity
Yes that was some of the things the brit journalist (undercover, til the end when he revelaed his purpose) guy was asking the KKK.
Dangerous minds these KKK.
I was not aware north louisiana had its share of white supremacists, but now that i recall how often acts of hate by whites on balcks in the past few yrs near Shreveport, its believeable.
And of course the latest Jena hate thing with the nooses froma oak tree.
Idaho and that area is big time hate , anti-everything-except-white movements.
And to think these guys live, breathe, and havea community! right here in america 2008.
Strange times we live in.
back to topic, Jesus, what did he actually man to say in his message. Obviously the christians have not got the low-down, as there are now over
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a120.htm
well according to this catholic author, 30K +.
His thesis may have some validity, if you consider that each
non-denominational church counts as one sect.
Whether its 3000 or 30K , the point being the protestant division of christianity is splintered into a thousand parts, each holding doctrines and dogmas slightly different from the others.
Numbers of youths attending catholic church service is drastically falling. So they don't seem to have the answers people are looking for either.
Maybe we should get Jesus back here and ask him what he really means to say, and clear up these divisions once and for all. ::)
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 08:03:07 AM
I have no patience for people posing as historians to pass off lies.
It's really great to know that we have an objective historian on the board.
I thought he was expressing indignation at Barry Miles:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51HABB54Y3L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_OU01_AA240_SH20_.jpg)
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 11:10:00 AM
It's really great to know that we have an objective historian on the board.
Asking for a historian to provide proper documentation in their books isn't too much to ask for. Irving is notorious for not doing that. After all, how else can he support his contention that the holocaust never happened? The man's a fraud, masking his anti-semitism in what appears to be academic research.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 11:19:13 AM
Asking for a historian to provide proper documentation in their books isn't too much to ask for. Irving is notorious for not doing that. After all, how else can he support his contention that the holocaust never happened? The man's a fraud, masking his anti-semitism in what appears to be academic research.
Cool. Sounds like you've done some in depth research on the topic.
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 11:20:32 AM
Cool. Sounds like you've done some in depth research on the topic.
Actually, I have read a couple of his books, and various articles by him a long time ago when I was getting involved with "Christian Identity" along with other holocaust-denial literature. Thankfully, I realised how screwed up these people were and got out before I got much more involved.
So I'm familiar enough with David Irving & the like to know that its just anti-semitism dressed up in a different garb. Its not exactly a big secret, you know. How much more "research" do I need to say, yes, Irving is dead wrong, the holocaust did happen & those who survived aren't lying? ::)
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 11:35:43 AM
So I'm familiar enough with David Irving & the like to know that its just anti-semitism dressed up in a different garb. Its not exactly a big secret, you know. How much more "research" do I need to say, yes, Irving is dead wrong, the holocaust did happen & those who survived aren't lying? ::)
So I take it that all of David Irving's books basically promote that idea?
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 11:38:48 AM
So I take it that all of David Irving's books basically promote that idea?
Irving's scholarship is, from what I understand, just as shoddy as his books on the holocaust, the same shaky methodology and sources (or mis-use of sources). Many other historians find him a very unreliable historian because of that. Oh, well, too bad for Mr. Irving.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 11:52:02 AM
Oh, well, too bad for Mr. Irving.
Sounds bad. Thanks for letting me know your take on this very controversial author.
Quote from: Haffner on February 05, 2008, 04:31:26 AM
From what I've read (and I studied the "Jesus Never Existed" idea extensively back in 2002), few scholars lend credibility to the "Jesus Never Existed" subject. Even the "Jesus was just an amalgation of several, revolutionary Judaists" subject is losing ground. Even Nietzsche's paranoid idea that Paul invented the whole thing to bring low the Roman Empire smacks of pure horse manure...the "secret" would have been out by now.
Based upon my own (at the time vehemently atheistic) research; and letting you folks know up front that I'm fully aware of my being a nobody guitar teacher in nowhere New England, I came to the conclusion that we overall have much more historical evidence of Christ's existence than we do of several dozen other historical characters whom are taught just as much (probably more these days) in schools.
In fact, overall it can be stated that Christ was the massively influential historical figure in the history of the world (or at least the last three millenium). Most people whom look for a mythological Jesus are those whom look for "secrets"/"hidden knowledge"...a phase that prety much everyone falls victim to at one time or another.
As to whom Jesus was, now there's a debate, huh?
I don't know if the content of my posts gave the opposite impression, but I agree with you almost absolutely. :) The place where we probably differ is on that last question of yours! :D
As far as I know David Irving did some legitimate history before going cuckoo, yes?
Haffner, Here is a good item about Irvine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
Mike
Quote from: knight on February 05, 2008, 01:51:21 PM
Haffner, Here is a good item about Irvine.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4449948.stm
Mike
Great article, and you probably guessed that I wouldn't be surprised. Irving actually seemed like a legitimate historian very early in his career. I think the draw of sensationalism perverted his entire methodology.
Gravedug'd
My religion is Gaea.
Quote from: sarabande on February 05, 2008, 11:19:13 AM
Asking for a historian to provide proper documentation in their books isn't too much to ask for.
I was under the impression that his thesis was based on the lack of proper documentation in the first place. He says the gassing never happened because there is no proof, and you are asking him to prove it. I don't think it works that way. It is proponents of the holocaust who have to prove him wrong, not the other way around. One wonders why this wasn't simply done, rather then go to the inane extend of jailing him and making him
persona non grata in ten different countries. Shouldn't truth see to itself? Why all the bullying tactics?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 05, 2011, 01:30:41 AMHe says the gassing never happened because there is no proof, and you are asking him to prove it. I don't think it works that way.
"A proof is a proof. What kind of proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, that's because it's proven." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU)
You had to revive this sorry thread just to share that (admittedly funny) clip? ::)
Quote from: MishaK on April 05, 2011, 06:45:05 AM
You had to revive this sorry thread just to share that (admittedly funny) clip? ::)
Philo didn't share a clip, I did. 0:)
We seem to be on a mining expedition here lately. Now everyone can watch the clip, but we won't go ahead and repeat the endless crap that we first put forth in 2008. I am only a little amused by people who find these threads resurfaced and start arguments with people who haven't been members here in 3 years... ::)
8)