One man's magic is another man's miracle, as Kirth pointed out.But there is a difference between the two. The miracles recorded in the Bible are fundamentally about God, whereas magic seems to be fundamentally about people. I think this is the fundamental difference.
Sorry, but I fail to see the distinction here. What do you mean by "about God?" Do you mean that God caused them? If so how is that different from say, Aphrodite guiding Aeneas' spear at Troy? It seems to me that which deity is supposedly the source of an effect is the sole deciding factor as to whether its declared to be a miracle or magic. When you get right down to it a miracle is a supernatural violation of the laws of nature, and so is magic. They are the same thing.
Joan of Arc was followed because the French people thought her voices came from God. An English Christian court managed to prove they came from the devil. She was executed. Later on, after the English King seperated himself from Catholicism the Pope declared her a martyr and decided that her voices DID come from God after all.
My point here is that there was and is no way of knowing. Whether she was a saint or a witch depends solely on the circumstances of the time. I can't see a reliable way to differentiate a miracle from magic, though you may be able to.
In the OT (Book of Joshua I think) Saul consults the Witch of Endor for a prediction on how a battle will go.It is the book of 1 Samuel, Chapter 28 and Saul summons the spirit of Samuel to speak to. And Samuel's spirit rebukes Saul for doing it. Saul shouldn't have done it, and he knew this. It is passages like this that indicate to me that magic is real. Sorry to be blunt, but what is your point? Just becasue something is recorded in the Bible doesn't automatically make it right for us to go out do the same thing.
OK, that'll teach me to make biblical references off the top of my head! My point was that God didn't care, but if He did then yes... I have no point.
Solomon summons Genies to build his palace and does other magic.Can you give me a reference? I have never come across this account in he Bible. It doesn't sound like everyhting I have read about the construction of the Temple.
Sorry, that's in the Koran as well, I get them mixed up. They are so similar. The Koran claims that the God of the Christians and the Jews is also Allah, and has all the same prophets and very similar stories in it.
I sometimes forget that many Christians think Allah is one of Satan's tricks, so if you fall into that camp then you are hardly going to accept the Koran as evidence. Ignore what I said about Solomon.
In the Koran Jesus does magic, turning a bird made of clay into a live bird.That is the Koran, not the Bible, and doesn't accord with what we know about Jesus from the Bible. I very much doubt this account occured at all.
But there are numerous other references in the Bible to Jesus performing miracles (feeding the 5,000, calming the storm, miraculous healings, raising the dead), that...
Well it also occurs in the gospel of Thomas. And here is a biblical quote which seem to me (and some scholars) to be an example of Jesus casting a spell. Italics mine:
"I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means "Sent").
So he went away, washed, and came back seeing. (John 9: 1-23)"
If the miracle came from God then what's with the material and somatic components? What's with bathing in the sacred pool? Why didn't Jesus just touch the man on the chest like a modern healer?
Another example is when the crowd was stoning Magdalene and Jesus drew a mysterious mark in the dirt which made them stop so he could have his say. If the mark wasn't an important part of the story then why would the gospel writer have included it? I don't know about you but that sounds like a magic ritual. Especially in the gnostic gospels, many of Jesus' miracles seem to be spells. I personally think Jesus was a magician, which is not to say that I think he could do magic, but that I think he and his followers thought he could.
I also just read while researching the above bible quote that in many early representations of Jesus he is shown performing his miracles (the loaves and fishes, Lazarus, etc) using a magic wand.
But there are numerous other references in the Bible to Jesus performing miracles (feeding the 5,000, calming the storm, miraculous healings, raising the dead), that could easily be classified as "magic". But look at who they point to. They all serve to show that Jesus is from God, and so we should listen to him. whereas most magic seems to be about serving ourselves.
Well, you can look at it that way. But how do you know Jesus' magic didn't come from the devil? Just because someone says that they have power from God doesn't make it so. Didn't work for poor old Joan until it was too late. She didn't even win the war ;)
I would be interested to hear why you don't think magic is real. Do you not believe in the spirit or supernatural realm?
I'm not sure about those things. I don't believe in magic, which to me means changing reality through an effort of will or by using means which don't follow cause and effect, eg. sticking pins in a doll's head to cause a stroke in the intended victim. I think things like that are pre-science. They were vain attempts by humans to control the world before we had a decent understanding of logic, cause and effect, and the scientific method.
I also don't think reality can be altered by an effort of will (magical workings, meditation, prayer, good old fashioned wishing) but I DO think these things can affect our individual mindsets which I suppose indirectly affects the world.
Basically, if magic was real then people would routinely get what they wish for, because when it gets right down to it magic is making something happen without doing anything to make it happen. It violates cause and effect and if there's one thing I'm 100% certain of (maybe the only thing I am certain of) it's that events are caused by other events according to rules. I reckon if something seems to be magic it just means I'm not aware of all the variables involved. Does that answer your question?
One man's magic is another man's miracle, as Kirth pointed out.But there is a difference between the two. The miracles recorded in the Bible are fundamentally about God, whereas magic seems to be fundamentally about people. I think this is the fundamental difference.Sorry, but I fail to see the distinction here. What do you mean by "about God?" Do you mean that God caused them? If so how is that different from say, Aphrodite guiding Aeneas' spear at Troy? It seems to me that which deity is supposedly the source of an effect is the sole deciding factor as to whether its declared to be a miracle or magic. When you get right down to it a miracle is a supernatural violation of the laws of nature, and so is magic. They are the same thing.
Joan of Arc was followed because the French people thought her voices came from God. An English Christian court managed to prove they came from the devil. She was executed. Later on, after the English King seperated himself from Catholicism the Pope declared her a martyr and decided that her voices DID come from God after all.
My point here is that there was and is no way of knowing. Whether she was a saint or a witch depends solely on the circumstances of the time. I can't see a reliable way to differentiate a miracle from magic, though you may be able to.
I get your basic argument, and yes, miracles and magic seems to be very similar. I suppose the 2 differences are who is doing the initiating, and who is glorified through the miracle / magic.
It seems with most magic that it is humans initiating it, and it is humans who are glorified, where as miracles are initiated by God, and He is glorified through them.
I realise for dome it may be a rather weak distinction, but that is the best way I can phrase it at the moment.
Well it also occurs in the gospel of Thomas.
I think it may have been from the Gospel of Thomas that Muhammed got the story. Any way, the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic gospel (written in the 2nd century I think) that is in no way an authentic account of Jesus, and in my book has about the same authority as the Koran.
And here is a biblical quote which seem to me (and some scholars) to be an example of Jesus casting a spell. Italics mine:
"I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means "Sent").
So he went away, washed, and came back seeing. (John 9: 1-23)"If the miracle came from God then what's with the material and somatic components? What's with bathing in the sacred pool? Why didn't Jesus just touch the man on the chest like a modern healer?
I will admit that that account does seem very much like magic. But where does it say in the account that either the mud or water was special, or magical. He could have healed him the same way he healed most of the other people (ie with a word and / or a touch), but he didn't this time. I don't have the time to work throug hall the details for myself at the moment, but my initial thoughts would be that Jesus healed him this way in order to make a point. What that point is, I don't know at the moment, but I am confident there is one.
Another example is when the crowd was stoning Magdalene and Jesus drew a mysterious mark in the dirt which made them stop so he could have his say. If the mark wasn't an important part of the story then why would the gospel writer have included it? I don't know about you but that sounds like a magic ritual. Especially in the gnostic gospels, many of Jesus' miracles seem to be spells. I personally think Jesus was a magician, which is not to say that I think he could do magic, but that I think he and his followers thought he could.
Two quick things. Most early manuscripts don't have this event, and most scholars think it is a later addtion to the gospel of John (I think it is John, maybe chapter 8?) However, most scholars also agree that it is consistant with what Jesus did etc, and is most probably a later addition from Christian tradition.
And again, nothing in the account claims that the symbol Jesus drew in the ground was special. It just records him doodling in the dirt. It amy have been important, it may not have been. The problem is that it wasn't recorded by an eyewitness, and so we can not invest too much significance in the details.
I'm not sure about those things. I don't believe in magic, which to me means changing reality through an effort of will or by using means which don't follow cause and effect, eg. sticking pins in a doll's head to cause a stroke in the intended victim. I think things like that are pre-science. They were vain attempts by humans to control the world before we had a decent understanding of logic, cause and effect, and the scientific method.
I also don't think reality can be altered by an effort of will (magical workings, meditation, prayer, good old fashioned wishing) but I DO think these things can affect our individual mindsets which I suppose indirectly affects the world.
Basically, if magic was real then people would routinely get what they wish for, because when it gets right down to it magic is making something happen without doing anything to make it happen. It violates cause and effect and if there's one thing I'm 100% certain of (maybe the only thing I am certain of) it's that events are caused by other events according to rules. I reckon if something seems to be magic it just means I'm not aware of all the variables involved. Does that answer your question?
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. It seems your main objection is that it doesn't seem to reliably and observably follow a casue and effect relationship, and so you are not inclined to believe / trust something that seems unreliable. Is that a fair assesment of your position?
If it is, I can definently understand that. And it seems a good deal more thought out than most of the knee jerk reactions from people who are unwilling to belive anything about the supernatural at all. (And sadly, a lot of "Christians" fall into this camp).
I get your basic argument, and yes, miracles and magic seems to be very similar. I suppose the 2 differences are who is doing the initiating, and who is glorified through the miracle / magic.
It seems with most magic that it is humans initiating it, and it is humans who are glorified, where as miracles are initiated by God, and He is glorified through them.
I realise for dome it may be a rather weak distinction, but that is the best way I can phrase it at the moment.
Fair enough. It is a weak distinction to me, but that's because I'm not a Christian. We all have our preconceptions.
I think it may have been from the Gospel of Thomas that Muhammed got the story. Any way, the Gospel of Thomas is a gnostic gospel (written in the 2nd century I think) that is in no way an authentic account of Jesus, and in my book has about the same authority as the Koran.
I think you're probably right. I don't want to get into the whole authenticity of particular gospels thing (to me they all seem equally valid), and obviously as an orthodox Christian you regard the synoptics as the only valid gospels. Though I will recommend that you read the Koran for interest's sake (if you haven't already done so), it has different versions of many of the stories of the Old and New Testaments.
I will admit that that account does seem very much like magic. But where does it say in the account that either the mud or water was special, or magical. He could have healed him the same way he healed most of the other people (ie with a word and / or a touch), but he didn't this time. I don't have the time to work throug hall the details for myself at the moment, but my initial thoughts would be that Jesus healed him this way in order to make a point. What that point is, I don't know at the moment, but I am confident there is one.
Also fair enough. Your confidence that there must be a hidden reason for Jesus' actions seems a bit like my confidence that everything can be rationally explained!
And again, nothing in the account claims that the symbol Jesus drew in the ground was special. It just records him doodling in the dirt. It amy have been important, it may not have been. The problem is that it wasn't recorded by an eyewitness, and so we can not invest too much significance in the details.
Maybe John wanted to portray Jesus as a magician for some reason? The above example with the mud and the eyes also comes from John. Jesus is portrayed differently in each of the gospels (synoptic and gnostic) depending on how each writer saw him.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. It seems your main objection is that it doesn't seem to reliably and observably follow a casue and effect relationship, and so you are not inclined to believe / trust something that seems unreliable. Is that a fair assesment of your position?
No worries, and yeah that's pretty close. Maybe not that it seems unreliable, but that the universe has rules and that these rules can't be broken just by wishing, or performing some completely unrelated action. If it really worked to bury a coin, say a chant and become rich then I'm dead certain people would have noticed and everyone would do it. The reason people don't do this is because it's a lie. It might be slow but you can't circumvent the rules. If you want to travel at 200kms an hour you have to build a sports car and drive it, you can't just rub some herbs on yourself and start flying. I don't know how else to say it. Magic doesn't happen :)
Having said that, it is not about how much good you do (or don't do). It is about who you are serving. And Ghandi was not serving God, therefore he was serving Satan (probabaly not explicitly and directly, but there are only two choices, and He definently wasn't serving God, he was a Hindu).
Think of it like this. There is a great Sailor. He is the best Sailor that ever lived. In fact, he is so good, that he can sail the ship all on his own. This frees the rest of the crew and the captain to persue other pursuits, and means the ship can be in active duty a very high percentage of the time.
Sounds like a great sailor right?
But there is a problem. Our theoretical sailor is a pirate. He doesn't seem so good now does he.
Let me make a better analogy about the sailors and pirates. Gandhi is a great sailor, who has the Jolly Roger on his ship because he's from a nation that uses that flag a lot. He is not a pirate, because he HELPS people, he does not hurt them. Ever. In fact, when people are robbed by pirates, he gives them money because that's the kind of guy he is.
Now you have another sailor, with a white sail, and an angel for a frontpiece, and he sings psalms to keep his rowers rowing. But those rowers are slaves, and this guy IS a pirate, despite appearances and despite flying the True Holy Flag.
Which one is or is not the true pirate? My point in the earlier posting about Gandhi was that the flag doesn't matter the slightest bit. Your claim here seems to be that the flag is ALL that matters, and actions are totally unimportant. Or am I missing something?
If it really worked to bury a coin, say a chant and become rich then I'm dead certain people would have noticed and everyone would do it. The reason people don't do this is because it's a lie.
I'll mention that Marie Curie publicized radiation, and a mere forty years later, we had nuclear weapons. ANY system of knowledge with tangible benefits is quickly exploited. If sorcery worked, then it would be in common use. In fact, if it was discovered that long ago, it would have been developed as much as economically feasible by now (unless, as Larry Niven posits in his fantasy stories, it got "used up"). Even if you ruthlessly executed everyone who knew about it, some joker would eventually figure it out again through trial and error and you'd have it all over. The fact that we don't tells me that it doesn't work. New discoveries are constantly being made, but old ones doen't just "go away" forever. Advances made by older civilizations and then lost (e.g., the prototype lead battery discovered in Roman ruins, apparently forgotten when Rome fell; or the suspension-type bridges used in ancient Peru) are inevitably rediscovered if they're useful.
Many would say that any version of Christianity that promotes nothing but intolerance and superstition comes closer to serving the Devil than it does God.I would agree with you 100% here.
And Ghandi was not serving God, therefore he was serving Satan (probabaly not explicitly and directly, but there are only two choices, and He definently wasn't serving God, he was a Hindu).
I'm frustrated a bit because feel as if we're not communicating at all clearly. For one, evidently our definitions of "intolerance" are totally dissimilar. What I'm reading, I think, is that anyone performing good deeds, but refusing to fly your proverbial Jesus flag is an evil person who serves Satan. If that's true, then there are a few things I'm not clear on:
(1) Does "tolerance" in this case then mean that you don't kill Gandhi, and try to convert him? In my mind, it would imply that you'd accept the fact that, although his trappings are different, he does nothing but good, and is therefore serving the cause of good.(2) C.S. Lewis wrote that those who are virtuous, and perform good deeds even in the name of Satan, are unwittingly serving God. I'm clear on that fact that you strongly disagree with him, but not why that is. What is the basis for this large rift in thinking?
(3) What if you did a serious study of Hinduism and found that it was in all real respects identical to Christianity, but that the trappings, symbols, and names were different (I'm not claiming this is the case; this last question is a "what if"). Would Hinduism still be Satanism because of the different names? At what point does the substance matter more than the form, if ever?
See, my problem here is that you've publicly stated that I, personally, am an evil person who serves Satan. When asked why you feel that way, the answer seems to be that I fail to declare allegiance to certain names associated with a "spirit world" that you imagine one way, but that billions of people imagine in a totally different way... or even do not believe in at all. So, maybe it's not just the definition of "tolerance" that we differ on, but the definition of "good" and "evil." To you, "good" seems to mean, quite simply, anything that shouts its allegiance to Jesus; conversely, "evil" is anything that does not. To me, good and evil are about how you treat people--whether you aid them, or hurt them and cause them suffering instead. Am I totally off the mark here?
|
And here is a biblical quote which seem to me (and some scholars) to be an example of Jesus casting a spell. Italics mine:
"I must work the works of him who sent me, while it is day. The night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world." When he had said this, he spat on the ground, made mud with the saliva, anointed the blind man’s eyes with the mud, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which means "Sent").
So he went away, washed, and came back seeing. (John 9: 1-23)"If the miracle came from God then what's with the material and somatic components? What's with bathing in the sacred pool? Why didn't Jesus just touch the man on the chest like a modern healer?
First of all -- I have a problem with "modern healers" in that I feel that they have a tendancy to take glory away from God and generally consider a good majority of them to be con artists.
In pretty much every account of a miracle of Jesus, the recipient of the miracle had to actually do something. I don't think that it was ever the same thing twice. It was always something specific to the individual. And it was typically something rather simple. I feel that this is generally a showing of faith that it would work. If the person thought that it was just stupid and didn't believe that it would work then they wouldn't "wash in the pool" or something similar. I have a feeling that the mud and spit was something much more symbolic as well. I could guess on it but I really don't know that much of the culture of the time.
Of course it stills seems a bit "magical", but then that is kind of what a miracle is supposed to be like, isn't it?
Another example is when the crowd was stoning Magdalene and Jesus drew a mysterious mark in the dirt which made them stop so he could have his say. If the mark wasn't an important part of the story then why would the gospel writer have included it? I don't know about you but that sounds like a magic ritual. Especially in the gnostic gospels, many of Jesus' miracles seem to be spells. I personally think Jesus was a magician, which is not to say that I think he could do magic, but that I think he and his followers thought he could.
This story is found in John 8. A number of corrections first. It wasn't Magdalene. It was a "woman caught in the act of adultery" (sounds like a set up to me). I don't know that Jesus was drawing a "mark". Also, they weren't stoning her at the time.
Here's the paraphrase by Moff -- The religious leaders brought this woman caught in the act of adultery (basically suggesting that she was definately guilty) before Jesus and asked him what they should do with her. Jesus bent down and started writing in the dirt with his finger. Frustrated, the religious leaders kept bugging him until he gave an answer. Eventually he stood up and said "He who is without sin, cast the first stone". No one wanted to be that arrogant in front of all the religious leaders and eventually left while Jesus continued to write on the ground with his finger. With only the woman and Jesus left, Jesus basically told her to go in peace and stop sinning.
Not a lot of magic. There is of course a lot of speculation as to what he was writing on the ground. I wonder if he was writing down everyone's names and listing sins that they had committed. In either case (whether it was a "mark" or just words) there really wasn't that much "magical" about this meeting -- it was just a really wise thing to say to get out of being trapped by the religious leaders.
I also just read while researching the above bible quote that in many early representations of Jesus he is shown performing his miracles (the loaves and fishes, Lazarus, etc) using a magic wand.
I don't know about these early representations. Nothing like it is mentioned in the Bible. It seems like someone(s) took some serious artistic licenses.
Basically, I might buy into the "spell" concept a bit more if there was more rhyme or reason to it. Sometimes he healed people from a great distance. Sometimes he touched them. Sometimes he told them to do something. Sometimes he prayed. And sometimes he seemed to do it just to piss off the religious leaders of the time. He healed many blind people and this was the only account of him spitting on the ground and applying mud to a person's eyes (probably why it was written down). It was probably just to make a point, but I don't know precisely what that point might have been.
The term 'supernatural' is as meaningless as the word 'natural' - everything we can conceive exists: the question is how something exists.
I use the term metaphysical to describe something whose physical existence differs from our conception of it. This is technically everything, but we can safely exclude things that are asymptotic to objective reality, like the visible manifestations of matter, energy, and force. Metaphysical objects are things that exist in our minds, and express themselves in the abstract and/or in art, and not 'in the flesh' so to speak. Metaphysical objects can be quantified (but not physically): we can define 'love' and 'not love', 'democracy' and 'not democracy', etc. (we don't always agree on definitions, but that's true of most things).
The question then is not does God (angels, demons, etc) exist (because clearly they do in that they affect our lives), but does God (et al) exist external of humanity or emergent from humanity?
|
|
I'm frustrated a bit because feel as if we're not communicating at all clearly. For one, evidently our definitions of "intolerance" are totally dissimilar. What I'm reading, I think, is that anyone performing good deeds, but refusing to fly your proverbial Jesus flag is an evil person who serves Satan. If that's true, then there are a few things I'm not clear on:
(1) Does "tolerance" in this case then mean that you don't kill Gandhi, and try to convert him? In my mind, it would imply that you'd accept the fact that, although his trappings are different, he does nothing but good, and is therefore serving the cause of good.
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote that those who are virtuous, and perform good deeds even in the name of Satan, are unwittingly serving God. I'm clear on that fact that you strongly disagree with him, but not why that is. What is the basis for this large rift in thinking?
(3) What if you did a serious study of Hinduism and found that it was in all real respects identical to Christianity, but that the trappings, symbols, and names were different (I'm not claiming this is the case; this last question is a "what if"). Would Hinduism still be Satanism because of the different names? At what point does the substance matter more than the form, if ever?See, my problem here is that you've publicly stated that I, personally, am an evil person who serves Satan. When asked why you feel that way, the answer seems to be that I fail to declare allegiance to certain names associated with a "spirit world" that you imagine one way, but that billions of people imagine in a totally different way... or even do not believe in at all. So, maybe it's not just the definition of "tolerance" that we differ on, but the definition of "good" and "evil." To you, "good" seems to mean, quite simply, anything that shouts its allegiance to Jesus; conversely, "evil" is anything that does not. To me, good and evil are about how you treat people--whether you aid them, or hurt them and cause them suffering instead. Am I totally off the mark here?
Let me see if I can help a little. (Probably not, but here's a shot at any rate...)
I think that what Mevers is trying to say is the (rather dogmatic) view that if you are not going to heaven, then you are going to hell. It really doesn't matter how "good" you are. "Good" and "evil" are pretty much irrelevant. We've talked a bit about who is going to hell before so I won't go into that much. The thing is that no one is "good" enough to get into heaven. Not Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Mormons, or anyone else. If you really think about what heaven epitomizes, I don't know of anyone that even comes close. The only reason why Christians believe they are going to heaven is because of the concept of grace.
Here's the problem. If the way to get into heaven is by saying something like "Hey God -- I really don't deserve to get into heaven, but I know that the only way in is if you allow it, so please let me in and I will do my best to live by your standards", and something else (other religions, etc.) says things differently, and the Christ message/heaven is actually right, then even if the other religion is doing really "good" things, in the end it really doesn't matter. If this is true, is the other religion "evil"? Not really, but unfortunately the end result is the same.
You had a few bullet points...
(1) I wasn't really sure what you are saying here. I can comment, but I would want a little clarification.
(2) Ah yes. C.S. Lewis. This idea of Lewis' has generated quite a lot of debate among Christians the last few years. I'm not sure where I stand on it. First of all, I think that Lewis' point had much more to do with Sebastian's 30 million dollar question -- in that it has more to do with the "untouched" peoples or people that haven't heard the gospels. I don't think that this should be looked at as a "well, I'm going to turn my back on God, but still do good things and that way I'll be covered" concept. The overall problem with this is that there is very little Biblical support for this Lewis concept -- but there is very little or no support Biblically against it either.
(3) This is really related to the Lewis point. I don't know for sure and I am glad that I don't have to be the judge. The thing is that most religions that I have seen pretty much teach that if you are "good" enough, you will make it (to whatever they teach). Christianity starts off saying that you aren't good enough and that you never will be. This seems to be a fairly significant difference.
|
|
Kirth -- back to Buddhism a little bit...
Is suffering not also an illusion? I don't see how another person's suffering hurts the greater "being" if this is all just a temporary "illusion" and we all get reabsorbed into the greater "being" whether we are "good" or "evil" anyway. If I am part of the greater "being" and I was "evil", wouldn't that mean that at least part of the greater "being" was "evil" to begin with as well? A lot of this stuff (Christianity included) feels a lot like "rats in a maze". With Buddhism (for better or worse) it feels like I put myself in the maze. Just not sure why.
Is suffering not also an illusion?
Excellent questions! First answer: you could see it that way, maybe, but suffering is an emotion, not an intellectual construct... so it's maybe more accurate to describe suffering as a symptom of being trapped in the illusion. This is the classic "vicious circle" of suffering you've led us to: that the more we suffer, the more we are blinded to the greater reality by it, and hence the more we suffer.
I don't see how another person's suffering hurts the greater "being" if this is all just a temporary "illusion" and we all get reabsorbed into the greater "being" whether we are "good" or "evil" anyway. If I am part of the greater "being" and I was "evil", wouldn't that mean that at least part of the greater "being" was "evil" to begin with as well?
From the Threavata Buddhist tradition that Kahoolin mentioned (the oldest surviving school of Buddhism, still predominant in Laos, Thailand, etc.), one could interpret you as being right on the nose about one person's suffering not affecting others; that school focuses on personal enlightenment only, and leaves the rest of the world out of it. Most Buddhists are now of the Mahayana tradition ("Great Vehicle," of which Zen, which I personally follow, is a branch). As a gross simplification, Mahayana pretty much holds the view that if you get lung cancer, the rest of you suffers, too, right? In that view, you're not so much reabsorbed into a greater being as refusing to accept that you're a part of it right now. In that tradition, "evil" would be that which causes suffering; "good" is the alleviation of suffering (those terms have a lot less meaning in the strict Theravata tradition).
Unlike your remarks on Christianity ("none of us are good enough"), Mahayana holds the concept of Universalism: that all things have the "Buddha-nature" and can free themselves (or be freed) from the cycle of suffering.
A lot of this stuff (Christianity included) feels a lot like "rats in a maze". With Buddhism (for better or worse) it feels like I put myself in the maze. Just not sure why.
Maybe because a lot of it is counterintuitive, like steering INTO a skid (if you've ever driven on ice, it instinctively seems like exactly the wrong thing to do, but it works).
Some religions are fueled by the language of recruitment. Such systems often observe that their own magic is a miracle, while all other magicks are baaaaaaaaaaaaad. When I was seven I knew a nine year old who would speak in that language of competitive slogan. This megalomaniac with all the answers wanted me to be in his club and pay dues and go through an initiation whereby I'd ride his old Hot Wheels (green The Hulk one though) into a busy intersection. Guess I failed that test of faith. I didn't question his mission or his reasoning but I did punch him in the eye and tell his mother on him.
Magic is neither god nor bad (not a typo). It's non-existent. That ruins a lot of childhood fantasies for me but at least all those Voodoo dolls folks fashioned in my image aren't operational because lemme tell ya, I'd be a quivering clot o' goo by now.
Not a lot of magic. There is of course a lot of speculation as to what he was writing on the ground. I wonder if he was writing down everyone's names and listing sins that they had committed. In either case (whether it was a "mark" or just words) there really wasn't that much "magical" about this meeting -- it was just a really wise thing to say to get out of being trapped by the religious leaders.
OK fair enough. I have two problems when debating Christianity, the first of which you may have noticed!
Everything I know about other religious tradtions I either learnt at university or from my own reading out of interest, so my knowledge in these areas is alot more accurate as I was interested in the subject matter. Everything I know about mainstream Christianity I half-remember from before I lapsed from Catholicism (17 years ago at age 12). I apologize for this, it puts me in the same boat as most Christians I have met, that is with huge gaps in my knowledge (please note I am not accusing you or anyone else on this board of this). The only things I've read since then out of interest have been about the early church, the medieval church and heretical sects. Which leads me to the second problem I have.
I always feel as if there are giant pieces of the puzzle missing in the texts of Christianity. The four synoptics seem to me to be incomplete, especially when you consider the number of gnostic gospels and Christian mystery cults which were effectively destroyed at the council of Nicea. You can say that the Bible doesn't mention a magic wand, which is fair enough, but then why was he depicted this way at all? Obviously some Christians thought he was a magician. Sure, maybe they were using artistic license. Or maybe he WAS a magician and the synoptic gospels cover it up because those particular writers didn't want Jesus depicted that way. Or not. Either way we can never know, and we definitely won't know if we deliberately ignore most of the evidence.
My basic feeling is that we are more likely to find the truth if we examine every single thing we can get our hands on about Jesus (including for example the Koran, the gospels of Thomas and Magdalene, art works from the early church) rather than taking the dark ages view that the synoptics are the truth and any story that isn't in them or which contradicts them is a complete fabrication.
More than any other religion, I always feel when talking about Christianity with a Christian that I am playing cards with a person who isn't using the full deck, and when I point to the pile of cards next to them they say "oh, this game only uses 2s, Aces, Kings and 8s." There seems to be so much more to it than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and I feel as if it would make alot more sense if we at least entertained the possibility that some of the Nag Hammadi library for example may be more accurate than the synoptics. It must be a common feeling, look at how much money Dan Brown has made ;)
Anyway I don't think I can really have a meaningful discussion with someone who discounts any evidence I might bring to the table as automatically untrue, and whose evidence I think is woefully incomplete, which is why I am more at home talking about other religions. With things like Buddhism and Islam what you see is what you get, thre's no "I think that book wasn't actually written by the Buddha" or "when Muhammad wrote that Sura it wasn't Gabriel talking to him it was Satan."
Sorry, the above is kind of unrelated to what we are talking about specifically, but I felt I should get it out there as it sums up the problem I feel I am banging my head against every single time I get into a discussion about Jesus.
|
|
... A lot of good points...
Are you referring to me? I will do my best to look at other things and do some research into it if it would help. I've learned from the "origin of the earth" debate that there are some things where I really don't know what I am talking about, but I am willing to look into it. (I have a long apology on the origin of the earth that I will be posting soon...)
I can look into the "Jesus and the magic wand" if you would like. I'm not sure what it would accomplish one way or the other. It wouldn't surprise me if he carried around a staff on his journeys. I don't even know where the concept of a "magic wand" originated from. I always picture it (wands) in a medieval setting. Even if he did carry around a stick and pointed it at people to heal them, I don't know what difference it would make. In many ways, he probably would have been seen as a magician.
What is "most of the evidence" that you are looking at? If there were 87 pictures of the feeding of the 5,000 and 60 of them didn't show Jesus holding a wand and none of them were drawn during Jesus time, what would that show? I guess that I feel that a lot of the "evidence" can be used to help understand some things, but it isn't any more or less "gospel" than C.S. Lewis', Billy Graham's, or James Dobson's works.
You say that the gospels are incomplete. What would make them "complete"? I guess that I'm not sure what you are looking for in the Bible that isn't there.
As far as other religions are concerned -- There apparently are (at least) two very different views on Buddhism. There are at least that many very different views on Islam. So, I don't think that other religions are nearly as clear-cut as you are making them out to be either.
Don't bang your head. I want to get the whole picture as well. Let me know what you think is out there that would help towards this and why and I will do my best to look at it with an open mind.
Maybe because a lot of it is counterintuitive,...This is the second time you said this. I think that a lot of people here would say that Christianity is "counterintuitive". The following is probably a rhetorical question -- Is religion in general "counterintuitive"?
Probably they all are; but the Rinzai school of Zen in particular is infamous for its "koans": seemingly nonsensical questions that cannot be resolved by intellectual study (like the much-misunderstood "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"). Early in my study, my teacher gave me the koan "does a dog have a Buddha-nature?" I wracked my brain for 2 weeks, considering every aspect of the philosophy I'd studied; I even dreamed about it; it became a total preoccupation. I'd occasionally suggest answers, and he'd tell me to keep thinking about it. One evening I was out walking and I looked up at the moon past a tree and all of my mental static--not just about the koan but everything else--sort of fell away and left me with a moment of total clarity about the "oneness" I spoke of earlier. When I met with my teacher again and he demanded the anser to the koan, I replied, "I saw the moon last night." He smiled very serenely and gave me another one.
Are you referring to me? I will do my best to look at other things and do some research into it if it would help. I've learned from the "origin of the earth" debate that there are some things where I really don't know what I am talking about, but I am willing to look into it. (I have a long apology on the origin of the earth that I will be posting soon...)I can look into the "Jesus and the magic wand" if you would like. I'm not sure what it would accomplish one way or the other....
I was talking to you, but I was also making a general point, so parts of my post aren't directed specifically to you. Sorry for any confusion :)
Look into the wand thing if you like, but I also don't think it will accomplish much. I am not trying to convert you to gnosticism or anything. I don't think Jesus walked around with a magic wand any more than he rose from the dead. I have just learned over my short life that when there are two different versions of an event, the truth is nearly always a mix of both versions. Rarely is it so clean cut as total lie/complete truth.
You say that the gospels are incomplete. What would make them "complete"? I guess that I'm not sure what you are looking for in the Bible that isn't there.
To be honest, neither do I. If I did it wouldn't be missing! What I do know is that from my knowledge of classical religion, and the gnostic gospels I have read, it seems to me that Christianity at the time of the Council of Nicea (which incidentally is where the Nicean Creed comes from) had many sects, and two main approaches. One is the approach we are familiar with today: Christianity is for everyone, spread the good news, yadda yadda yadda. The other, which was thrown out for obvious reasons to do with the survival of the religion, was as a collection of widely varying mystery cults. Christians of this kind (gnostics) went through a series of initiations to discover the secret truth about reality which Jesus supposely revealed to his disciples. So yeah, the synpotics say Jesus wanted the message to go to everyone. But in the gospels of Thomas, Magdalene, etc Jesus flat out says "only those in this room may know the truth."
Now this is pure speculation on my part, but the pagan Orphic and Mithraic mystery cults (also around at the time) had different "levels." My guess is that the early church had public gospels for the new initiates (the synoptics), and as they grew in spiritual knowledge Christians were initiated into the mystery gospels of Thomas, Magdalene, and the rest. At the council of Nicea the bishops of Rome made a cold-blooded decision to exclude the mystery gospels and declare the public gospels the only "true" version of Christianity. They didn't want to fragment their market.
That is why the synoptics seem incomplete to me. I think Christianity is a mystery cult that has forgotten it's mysteries and only the basic forms are still practiced. The difference is that an early Christian would know that what they were learning from the synoptic gospels was not the whole truth and more was to come. Christians post-Nicea think the New Testament is all there ever was to the story of Jesus.
As far as other religions are concerned -- There apparently are (at least) two very different views on Buddhism. There are at least that many very different views on Islam. So, I don't think that other religions are nearly as clear-cut as you are making them out to be either.
Yes but in Buddhism it is understood by all sects that, officially at least, Buddha's words are no more valuable than anyone elses; He was one man who found one solution to the problem of suffering, and put it out for others to learn from if they could or wanted to. In this sort of environment you get wide interpretations, yes, but they are all equally valid officially (if not always in practice).
Likewise in Islam you get splits like Sunni and Shi'ite, Sufi, Dervishes, etc but they all come from the Koran, which is by definition inviolate. I mean it's not even considered to be the Koran if it's not in Arabic so when I say I've read the Koran I actually haven't: I've read a translation. There are no competing words of Muhammad floating around to muddy the waters. All the sects of Islam differ soley in their interpretations of this one text.
Christianity on the other hand... we know for a fact that at the council of Nicea there were many many gospels examined, I think somewhere 80 and 200. They varied wildly in their recorded words of Jesus, his identity, his miracles, the story of his life and even in cosmology. The four synoptics had the most in common with one another and were targeted towards evangelism, sort of Christianity Basic. All of the other gospels (what we now call "gnostic" gospels) had elements of mystery religions in them or conflicted directly with the words of the synoptics, which themselves give different versions of the same event.
These gnostic gospels were deliberately suppressed, though some have since come to light in places like Nag Hammadi, which to my mind just goes to show that you can't cover something up forever. They are still dismissed by mainstream Christianity now as being false or even satanic, but often the argument used is circular: The early church decided that only the synoptics were true, therefore anything that conflicts with them is false.
As I said, I am not a Christian. I am a scholar of religion (though by no means an expert - I'm not a professor or anything). I'm not saying that these gospels that were thrown out were true and the synoptics were false. I'm saying that Christianity at Jesus' time and at the time of the early church is nowhere near as cut and dried as is commonly assumed.
Don't bang your head. I want to get the whole picture as well. Let me know what you think is out there that would help towards this and why and I will do my best to look at it with an open mind.
I hope I've shown some other views above. When I first came up with the idea that early Christianity was a msytery religion, I went to the internet to see if anyone else had thought of it first. Of course people had, some of them nearly a century ago. One person had even written an undergraduate essay on the subject: Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr.
Don't know why I mentioned that. Maybe just to show you that I'm not a crazy, my view puts me in good company! Christianity is very fertile ground for historical detective work...
Heh, I just got issue 221 of Fortean Times and it had an amazing synchronicity.
Right after I wrote that long post above about gnosticism I sat down with my new magazine and read an interview with the religious scholar Prof. Bart Erhmann where he explained everything I just said only much more clearly and effectively!
This is from the article:
"It's quite clear that the practice of Christianity in the mainstream denominations has very little in common with early Christianity, and from time to time over the centuries groups of Evangelicals say: "Let's throw all these traditions and accretions of history out and go back to pure New Testament Christianity." Perhaps the most important thing to come out of all Erhmann's books is that there never was such a thing. There was no single "New Testament Christianity", but instead a huge variety of beliefs in the early Christian melting pot. "Discoveries of new texts simply show us how murky, rather than clearly delineated, the religious world of the Christian 2nd century actually was", Erhmann writes...
...The hardest thing for his new undergraduates to understand, says Erhmann "is that what they grew up with as Christianity isn't what the historical Jesus taught. There is an automatic connection; getting them to make the disconnect is quite the hardest thing...
...The students who do know a good deal about religion have been taught it from an Evangelical point of view. There are very few people with anything like an enlightened understanding of religion and Christianity going into the class.""
Wierd that I read that right after writing my post this morning. Maybe it's a miracle ;)
I'm frustrated a bit because feel as if we're not communicating at all clearly.
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer.
For one, evidently our definitions of "intolerance" are totally dissimilar.
Well, not sure what your definition of Tolerance is, but I'll give you mine.
Basically tolerance is not forcing your beliefs / ideas onto others, and allowing them to hold their own beliefs / ideas without discriminating against them on the basis of their beliefes / ideas.
It seems these days tolerance is defined as the idea that ALL ideas are equally valid, regardless of their truth.
Under my definition it is entirely possible to disagree with someone, but still show tolerance. However, under the prevailing view our society likes to use, this is impossible by definition. If I disagree with someone, I am by definition being intolerant.
Now, with someone like Ghandi, I can definently respect that he did a lot of good things in his life, mostly for others. Seems to have been a very virtuous and moral man. However, I think his world view was wrong. Does that mean I believe he should be persecuted? Of course not. But I do want the freedom to be able to say I think he is wrong, and why, and likewise allow responses that disagree with my statements. Does that help?
What I'm reading, I think, is that anyone performing good deeds, but refusing to fly your proverbial Jesus flag is an evil person who serves Satan.
Pretty much right on the money. However, those who have been saved, and are on the "Jesus Ship" (so to speak) have been saved TO DO good deeds (among other things). It is not about WHAT we do, but WHO we serve. (ie Its not WHAT you know, but WHO you know).
If that's true, then there are a few things I'm not clear on:
(1) Does "tolerance" in this case then mean that you don't kill Gandhi, and try to convert him? In my mind, it would imply that you'd accept the fact that, although his trappings are different, he does nothing but good, and is therefore serving the cause of good.
As I said above, that is just about right. It is not about "serving the cause of good" but it is about "bringing Praise and Honor and Glory to God" which Ghandi does not do as he does not do his good deeds in the name of God.
As I side note, I am a little perplexed by our modern fascination with "tolerance" as if it is the most significant virtue. I think it is much better to LOVE someone than merely tolerate them. And from my point of view, if I think you are going to hell, how is it loving of me to say nothing and let you go without telling you how to avoid that aweful eternal reality.
(2) C.S. Lewis wrote that those who are virtuous, and perform good deeds even in the name of Satan, are unwittingly serving God. I'm clear on that fact that you strongly disagree with him, but not why that is. What is the basis for this large rift in thinking?
I am afraid that I will have to disagree with C.S. Lewis then. The Bible says
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
Nothing we do can please God, if we are not serving Him. He doesn't care how good a sailor you are if you are on the wrong (pirate) ship.
(3) What if you did a serious study of Hinduism and found that it was in all real respects identical to Christianity, but that the trappings, symbols, and names were different (I'm not claiming this is the case; this last question is a "what if"). Would Hinduism still be Satanism because of the different names? At what point does the substance matter more than the form, if ever?
I'm not sure of your question here, but I'll try to answer. It is not the name of the religion that is the issue. Any person that trusts, not in their own actions, but in the blood of Jesus shed on the Cross is saved. That is what it boils down to. Who are you serving, Jesus, or someone else.
In one sense it is possible to serve Jesus under a different name, (Actually, I am reasonably confident that the name "Jesus" would be rendered differently in other languages). The point is, are you serving the living God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), (regardles of the names), or are you serving a different God?
See, my problem here is that you've publicly stated that I, personally, am an evil person who serves Satan. When asked why you feel that way, the answer seems to be that I fail to declare allegiance to certain names associated with a "spirit world" that you imagine one way, but that billions of people imagine in a totally different way... or even do not believe in at all. So, maybe it's not just the definition of "tolerance" that we differ on, but the definition of "good" and "evil." To you, "good" seems to mean, quite simply, anything that shouts its allegiance to Jesus; conversely, "evil" is anything that does not. To me, good and evil are about how you treat people--whether you aid them, or hurt them and cause them suffering instead. Am I totally off the mark here?
I think you are pretty accurate in depicting my position. Although I think "Good" and "Evil" maybe too strong (not sure, need to think on it more). I think I am more comfortable with "Right" and "Wrong" instead.
As I have said a number of times, it is NOT about what you do. For noone can be good enough to reach God's standard, we all fall short of his standard of perfection. It is about who you follow, and who you are trusting to save you. Do you follow Jesus and trust in His blood shed on the cross, or do you follow someone (thing) else, and trust your own abilities and deeds?
The Bible tells us that those who aren't for Jesus are against him.Where?
Many places in the Gospels accounts. Here is one
Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.
But see also Luke 11:23.
Excellent questions! First answer: you could see it that way, maybe, but suffering is an emotion, not an intellectual construct... so it's maybe more accurate to describe suffering as a symptom of being trapped in the illusion. This is the classic "vicious circle" of suffering you've led us to: that the more we suffer, the more we are blinded to the greater reality by it, and hence the more we suffer.
I'm not sure, but I'm beginning to believe that I'm anti-Buddhist.
For one thing, I don't feel like I'm suffering. It's a lot like when I used to go to church with my folks as a kid and everyone would say a recitation in unison grieving over being sinners and how awful it was--and I would just get mad and be like "but I'm not a sinner!"
With Buddhism there's this sense that I should be suffering because of my cruddy way of viewing the world. I'm not. I'm fine. Really.
Then there's the part about ascending beyond the wheel of reincarnation and getting annihilated. Eeek! I don't want to join a big gestalt consciousness! If at all possible I would like to insure I don't ever ascend. I would love to just keep living and living life after life. Granted if this means I come back as a polyp or something I'd like to plan around that, but as far as another human life pretty much like the one I have now? Sign me up!
This is not to say that I don't appreciate the wisdom of koans and the beauty of eastern philosophy. I just am dead set against a lot of its goals. I don't wanna' go join the big collective. I find that creepy.
So yeah...where's that put me?
...This is not to say that I don't appreciate the wisdom of koans and the beauty of eastern philosophy. I just am dead set against a lot of its goals. I don't wanna' go join the big collective. I find that creepy.
So yeah...where's that put me?
Within shouting distance of wherever the hell it is I am...
For one thing, I don't feel like I'm suffering.
On a day-to-day basis, most of us are not. The First Noble Truth says, "There is suffering in life," not "Life is suffering." I think there's an important distinction there. What if your home and family were destroyed in a tornado, or you lost your vision and hearing in a tragic accident, or were wrongly imprisoned for life in a maximum-security penitentiary full of murderers and rapists? Vietnamese monks during the war there set themselves aflame to protest the war, and calmly burned to death with serene expressions. Think of Buddhism as buying insurance against such a time as I've mentioned. If such a time never comes, you've lost nothing but a few hours of meditation, which give you the benefit of better concentration, so no net loss.
If you're the kind of guy who doesn't get health insurance and lives in flood zones, more power to you. I'm not here to convert anybody; we all have our own road to walk. Moff asks me questions; I'm happy to answer them--but if they're not for you, that's OK-- I respect you as a person anyway. Mevers scoffs at this "tolerance," but that's his choice.
See, my problem here is that you've publicly stated that I, personally, am an evil person who serves Satan.
I think you are pretty accurate in depicting my position.
I'm honestly sorry to say that there seems no point in continuing our discussion, then. It's been civil enough, and I appreciate that a great deal, but it can apparently lead nowhere but in circles. You've stated an unwillingless to accept that I'm not some sort of degenerate subhuman, and I'm clearly not willing to convert to your viewpoint, so there you have it. For what it's worth, please accept my thanks for taking the time to reply, and to answer so carefully.
|
|
Look into the wand thing if you like, but I also don't think it will accomplish much.
I did a quick research into it and found a few odd things about it. This was done mostly around the 3rd and 4th centuries. Generally, when Jesus was doing healing, he was shown laying on of hands and touching people. When he was doing other miracles he was wielding a wand. In addition, when he was healing, he was shown as long haired, bearded, hippy type person. When he had a wand, he was generally clean-shaven and had short hair.
I don't know how they know that this wand wielder was supposed to be Jesus, but I trust that they know what they are talking about. I just find the different images -- often found side by side -- interesting.
Again, not sure that it really shows anything, but still interesting -- thanks for the information.
|
|
This is from the article:
"It's quite clear that the practice of Christianity in the mainstream denominations has very little in common with early Christianity, and from time to time over the centuries groups of Evangelicals say...
There is no doubt that the practices of Christianity today are going to be different than they were at the time. For that matter, if Paul's writings are to be believed, the churches at the time had quite a lot of different practices.
I am not terribly up on the different gnostic writings. I will try and look into it a bit.
Early Christianity was murky. I think that it needed to be cleaned up a bit. I guess that I don't fault the council of Nicea for attempting to do that. I still don't think that it is "clearly delineated", but I also don't think that including the other texts that you mentioned would make it more "clear" either.
And I appreciate it... And feel the same way about my faith...
That's why our discourse has been so profitable, for me at least. Thanks, Moff!
|
Look into the wand thing if you like, but I also don't think it will accomplish much.I did a quick research into it and found a few odd things about it. This was done mostly around the 3rd and 4th centuries. Generally, when Jesus was doing healing, he was shown laying on of hands and touching people. When he was doing other miracles he was wielding a wand. In addition, when he was healing, he was shown as long haired, bearded, hippy type person. When he had a wand, he was generally clean-shaven and had short hair.
I don't know how they know that this wand wielder was supposed to be Jesus, but I trust that they know what they are talking about. I just find the different images -- often found side by side -- interesting.
Again, not sure that it really shows anything, but still interesting -- thanks for the information.
CONSPIRACY!
CONSPIRACY!It's not a conspiracy. It is clearly the work of aliens trying to get the inhabitants of this planet to fight about stupid things and wipe each other out so that they can claim the planet. But now that we are on to their plan...
FOOL! Why did you let on that we know? Mr. Shiny is the LEADER of the aliens!!!
Here's a thought about wands. Not researched in any way, just a shot from the hip. In the days of monarchial power it was concidered that the person of a lord was of such dignity that he could not touch the peasant masses. Here you have the King of all the earth touching what are clearly commoners and beggars, something that would be unthinkable to people in the kind of near caste system you saw in Europe at the time. Possibly the wand was a depiction of how Jesus might touch the untouchables without actually touching them. Like I said, I have nothing to base it on, but it feels like the right direction to me.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
It seems these days tolerance is defined as the idea that ALL ideas are equally valid, regardless of their truth.
Ah, the irony in using the word truth in this context...
Now, with someone like Ghandi, I can definently respect that he did a lot of good things in his life, mostly for others. Seems to have been a very virtuous and moral man. However, I think his world view was wrong. Does that mean I believe he should be persecuted? Of course not. But I do want the freedom to be able to say I think he is wrong, and why, and likewise allow responses that disagree with my statements. Does that help?
That's fine. Just be prepared to hear me say that you worship a false god and its beyond absurd that you would judge others based on that criteria.
Pretty much right on the money. However, those who have been saved, and are on the "Jesus Ship" (so to speak) have been saved TO DO good deeds (among other things). It is not about WHAT we do, but WHO we serve. (ie Its not WHAT you know, but WHO you know).
Which conflicts with the earlier response regarding the person not exposed to the bible. If it matters who you serve and not what you do, I guess that person's screwed. Some might also wonder as to those who aren't capable of "correctly" interpreting the bible. I'm not very smart - what happens if I read the bible myself (a laughable accomplishment given my 5th grade reading level) and determine that all that vengence stuff in the old testament is the true message of God. So, being the faithful Christian I am, I go out and start killing heretics. I'm flying the old Jesus flag, do I get off?
As I side note, I am a little perplexed by our modern fascination with "tolerance" as if it is the most significant virtue. I think it is much better to LOVE someone than merely tolerate them. And from my point of view, if I think you are going to hell, how is it loving of me to say nothing and let you go without telling you how to avoid that aweful eternal reality.
Me too. I feel as though we should be entirely intolerant of a backwards cult that has perpetuated itself for two milenia and interferes with our lives, our well-being, and our happiness. My children shouldn't have to be taught fairy tales, whether they are written by the Brothers Grimm or Luke, John, and all those good old boys. I shouldn't have to tolerate tax breaks being given to organizations that perpetuate these myths. I shouldn't have to tolerate money from these cults interfering with our political process, resulting in decisions effecting my life based on the best selling work of fiction of all time.
I agree. We go too far in tolerating falsehoods in our culture, and in tolerating irrational nonsense that has no place in the modern world.
But, I could be wrong. Not having a magical book and special supernatural best friend, I'm forced to admit my human frailty. But believe me, tolerance is a virtue, and it can be very difficult for me to remember that when I read your posts.
If you're the kind of guy who doesn't get health insurance and lives in flood zones, more power to you. I'm not here to convert anybody; we all have our own road to walk. Moff asks me questions; I'm happy to answer them--but if they're not for you, that's OK-- I respect you as a person anyway. Mevers scoffs at this "tolerance," but that's his choice.
That's an interesting take on religion. It feels kind of like total utilitarianism. Don't get me wrong too--it's not like I don't enjoy Buddhism and the discussion of it. I'm really not trying to stomp you so much as get my foot in the door of a really interesting conversation. I just wonder about blanket claims like the apparently misquoted "life is suffering". Buddhism always has been kind of an enigma to me because it seemed very fatalistic and nihilistic. I've always found the idea that everything will be fine when it returns to wu wei (basically--though from what I understand wu wei is a taoist term) and basically ceases to exist a fairly somber sort of happy ending.
Also if I might for a second step in and mediate...I don't think the breakdown in the other conversation here has been about mevers thinking you're a degenerate subhuman--or even evil. In fact, I don't even think he would say you're a bad person. I think the entire scope of his thesis is that good doesn't cut it and that anyone who doesn't accept Christ is treated the same--good or evil. I'm not sure that this isn't more worrisome than if he thought you were subhuman, but there it is. Good people burn right along with the bad. Bad people get saved right along with the more bad (since in Christianity no one is good--just flavors of damnable). The worst thing about this whole thing is that it's so downright antiscriptural--weird for a religion that venerates the Bible so exclusively and so highly.
|
|
Here's a thought about wands. Not researched in any way, just a shot from the hip. In the days of monarchial power it was concidered that the person of a lord was of such dignity that he could not touch the peasant masses. Here you have the King of all the earth touching what are clearly commoners and beggars, something that would be unthinkable to people in the kind of near caste system you saw in Europe at the time. Possibly the wand was a depiction of how Jesus might touch the untouchables without actually touching them. Like I said, I have nothing to base it on, but it feels like the right direction to me.
That was kind of mentioned, but whenever the wand is pictured, it doesn't ever seem to be in direct reference to people. And as I said before, whenever he was shown healing people (from art during this time period) he was shown touching them.
The thing that I find most interesting is not that he was shown holding a wand, but that he was shown clean-shaven with short hair. Based on what little I know about Jesus' time and the fact that he was a Jew, this seems rather hard to believe as being an accurate image of Jesus. (Of course I don't really know where we get our current image of Jesus either.)
That's an interesting take on religion. It feels kind of like total utilitarianism. Don't get me wrong too--it's not like I don't enjoy Buddhism and the discussion of it. I'm really not trying to stomp you so much as get my foot in the door of a really interesting conversation.
I don't dispute your feel there; my brother tells me that my entire morality is based on self-serving pragmatism. Sometimes I feel like the most important thing I've learned in my adult life is that, in a large, cooperative society, altruism is self-serving. Don't worry--I don't feel that you're "stomping" at all; quite the contrary. Your disagreement is clearly with some ideas I've discussed, not with me personally, and free discussion is what makes this thread so enjoyable.
I'm not sure that this isn't more worrisome than if he thought you were subhuman, but there it is.
The breakdown is that he doesn't merely disagree with my point of view (it's fine to disagree)--or with Gandhi's or Sexi's for that matter--what breaks down communication is the idea that anyone who disagrees with him must therefore automatically be "wrong," the implication being that he himself is clearly omniscient. And if he already knows eveything, clearly I cannot possibly have anything at all to contribute.
|
|
Good people burn right along with the bad. Bad people get saved right along with the more bad (since in Christianity no one is good--just flavors of damnable). The worst thing about this whole thing is that it's so downright antiscriptural--weird for a religion that venerates the Bible so exclusively and so highly.
There are a few things in here that I don't go along with and not sure where it comes from.
What is "good" enough to make it to heaven? At what point is a person "good" or "bad"? In that case, I guess that there are "flavors of damnable". My problem has to do with the "bad people get saved right along with the more bad" comment. While it might be possible for a psychotic killer to totally repent on his deathbed, I don't know how likely this is to happen. Also, by my understanding of the Bible, planning to do evil thinking that God will bail you out later doesn't really count for "repentance".
I'm not sure about the "antiscriptural" comment. From Romans 3:9-12
What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written, there is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.
What do you think is antiscriptural?
I don't understand the question. Are you asking if "God" only exists in our minds?
Actually, it was more of a rhetorical question. I think I'm justified in saying God is a creation of our minds, until someone can show otherwise. Not that that's a bad thing; lots of of wonderful stuff is "all in our heads" (we're on the Paizo message board, so I can safely assume you already knew that).
My post was in response to the question: "Do you believe in the supernatural?" Assuming the asker means "extra-physical" than, my answer is no, because the question is ridiculous. If something affects me and is affected by me (and I know this because it's quantifiable), then that thing must have physical reality. Its physicality may be invisible (metaphysical, if you will), it might even be a different kind of physical (though I think that is unlikely), but if something 'is' then it is part of the universe, and can be understood as such.
My problem has to do with the "bad people get saved right along with the more bad" comment. While it might be possible for a psychotic killer to totally repent on his deathbed, I don't know how likely this is to happen.
A more liberal interpreter of Christianity would likely agree with you, but to paraphrase Mevers as I understand his version of the Gospel, it doesn't matter the slightest bit if someone is a serial murderer or a philanthropist. The murderer doesn't need to repent, he just needs to fly the correct flag while murdering. Or am I missing something? The whole argument, as I understood it, is that "good" is totally irrelevant, because NO ONE is "good enough." Therefore, Jonas Salk and Ted Bundy, for example, are completely equal unless one has sworn allegiance to Our Savior's Blood on the Cross and the other has not. God cares ONLY about votes, in this world-view.
What is "good" enough to make it to heaven? At what point is a person "good" or "bad"? In that case, I guess that there are "flavors of damnable". My problem has to do with the "bad people get saved right along with the more bad" comment. While it might be possible for a psychotic killer to totally repent on his deathbed, I don't know how likely this is to happen.
This is pretty much what I meant. You can't be good enough to get into heaven by protestant thinking--because in fact, everyone is horribly flawed in comparison with the Absolute Good and thus bound for hell based on their own merit. Flavors of damnable. Everyone is bad to one mortal degree or another. I really didn't have the psychotic killer in mind. More the "bad" guy who prays and reads his scriptures all the time and really tries to repent and the "more bad" guy who is saved, but drinks and smokes and sleeps around and cheats on his taxes but relies entirely on the miracle of grace to save him. But yeah, pretty much what you said is what I meant.
Also, by my understanding of the Bible, planning to do evil thinking that God will bail you out later doesn't really count for "repentance". I'm not sure about the "antiscriptural" comment....What do you think is antiscriptural?
Well there's a lot of these--basically any of the many places where you get the brimstone threats of "if you do this, you will go to hell" that seem to fly directly counter to the idea that you cannot be damned once you accept Christ.
Matt 5:22 Whoever says "thou fool" shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matt 5:29-30 Better to gouge out offensive eyes and cut off offensive hands and feet and be maimed in heaven than whole thrust into hell.
Matt 19: 17 To get into heaven, keep the commandments.
James 5:9 Don't swear oaths by heaven or earth so as not to be condemned.
I mean really there's a lot of this stuff. I tried to pick a few of the most telling examples--clear if/then statements, just New Testament stuff, and things aimed pretty specifically at believers.
It seems like people want to strip the Bible down to "accept Christ and be saved" when the gospel message seems to be "accept Christ and obey the commandments, and do these things, and don't do these things and be saved" It seems like a fair bit of what the Bible is about gets tossed out in the process.
It seems like people want to strip the Bible down to "accept Christ and be saved" when the gospel message seems to be "accept Christ and obey the commandments, and do these things, and don't do these things and be saved" It seems like a fair bit of what the Bible is about gets tossed out in the process.
If your take is correct, I could accept (stomach?) it a lot better than the "join the club" view. It just makes sense that God wouldn't be so petty as to care for nothing at all except how many people sign his petition (or whatever).
My post was in response to the question: "Do you believe in the supernatural?" Assuming the asker means "extra-physical" than, my answer is no, because the question is ridiculous. If something affects me and is affected by me (and I know this because it's quantifiable), then that thing must have physical reality. Its physicality may be invisible (metaphysical, if you will), it might even be a different kind of physical (though I think that is unlikely), but if something 'is' then it is part of the universe, and can be understood as such.
Though to define something in such a way that it can't exist is hardly helpful. If I could make a stab at defining "supernatural" in a bit more helpful way it would probably be:
Events that are part of a higher organizational reality that we aren't familiar with or frequently exposed to that challenge our regularly assumed beliefs about the world.
Supernatural ideas like ghosts or UFO's don't point toward a strange non-world world where things exist beyond nature--they suggest facts so challenging to the day to day ideas of how the world operates that we would have to change basic assumptions in order to accomodate them.
It is in this sense that religious ideas are considered "supernatural". If God really did create the universe in six days and there really are angels and demons around, then we would have to seriously change a lot of our commonly accepted ideas about the world in order to accomodate all of that. Likewise if we are all shattered shard-avatars of Brahman--or if the continents are just seafoam stirred up by the warspear of a Kami being dipped into the ocean--or if the sun is actually a barque that a giant dragon tries to eat every night in a titanic battle.