|
The above link takes you to an article which talks about three women scheduled to be ordained as Catholic priests... or priestesses. That's right, I wrote it. There is nothing sexist or misogynist with using the correct English forms of gender-specific words.
Now, on to the comment I really want to make.
There is no such thing as a female Catholic priest--or priestess.
Can you be a woman and a priest? Yes, absolutely (and if your organization calls you a priest and not a priestess, then I'll follow suit).
Can you be a woman and a priest and a Roman Catholic? No, absolutely not.
I could write a ten-page post on this topic, but I'll try to digest it down to the following: if you don't like what your religious organization says or does or believes, then you have three choices:
1) Introduce a dialogue and attempt to foment change (eg. the The First Council of Nicaea; Vatican II; North Star Borough Diocese Biannual Council (my hometown))
2) Decide to believe one thing to yourself, and carry on with the facade in public.
3) Join another organization that believes the same as you (or make a new organization).
*My take--If you don't like the rules of the Roman Catholic Church, then join another church.
Discussion?
|
What if you've never heard of/been exposed to the bible? This is a slightly more academic question in our day and age, but there was a significant period of time in human history (say, 1500 years or so) where an entire hemisphere contained people who lived, grew old, and died without ever having seen the instructions contained in the bible to ensure their place in Heaven. Were they just screwed, and if so, how is that reconcilable with an all-knowing all-loving God? If they were capable of getting into heaven without knowing of the bible, doesn't that imply that there are alternate routes?
I just can't see how the one true path can be contained in a book which was not widely distributed for centuries and centuries.
In my faith we believe that all people who ever lived, who were good people, and tried to do the best they could with what ever portion of God's truth they had will be allowed to go to heaven. They will have to tip-toe past the born-again room so that the people inside won't know their the only ones there however. ;)
Edit: We also believe that there is a part of everyone's soul that retains the divine spark from the life before this and helps us live a good, what some might call a "christian" life, even if they are not Christian.
I believe there is one god.
However there are dozens if not hundreds or more differing viewpoints.
Every one has something good about them and everyone of them has something wrong about it.
Every one of us serves to show an aspect or more of what is really meant and we may never understand the full story.
But that is life.
If we understood everything what would we aspire for, what would make us get up every morning, what would make us continue in the face of adversity or in some cases give up?
Life isn't fair, for every piece of good luck there are bad ones.
All I can say is,
Take care and all the best!
So how many of you are Atheists as I am?
I was raised catholic. I started having questions and all of those questions were eventually answered with “God works in mysterious ways.” and/or “You just have to have faith.”
That seemed a con-man’s bluff to me. I became agnostic. I thought that god was not what the Catholics defined him as.
From there it seemed a logical step that there may not be a god. I consider myself an atheist, but I am open to the possibility there is a god. I can not prove that there is not one, so why not? However, since I have not seen anything to convince me there is one, I classify that as lack of proof there is a god. To me, it makes more sense that there is not one.
If there is a god, he surely does not fit any of the definitions presented by most religions.
BREAKING NEWS!
Oy, da froggy, dats me, is runnin' fo' presidunt. Ima gunna be da best runner, cause ima reallie fast froggie. You see my feets? Dey speedy quick. Ima da best, so vote fo' me fo presidunt!
-my name is Froggie Cultyst, ana I prove dis message-
|
However, since I have not seen anything to convince me there is one, I classify that as lack of proof there is a god.
Mostly rhetorical, but what would you need to "see" to "prove" that there is a God?
There seem to be two camps --
On one side are the people that seem to be looking for a "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" experience to "see" God.
On the other side, people seem to be saying -- "Don't you see that blade of grass??? That wouldn't even exist were it not for God's existence." As if the blade of grass is "proof" of God's existence.
Neither seem to be terribly logical.
I guess that I feel like most people are either looking too hard or are not looking hard enough.
I guess I am in the Holy Grail camp. I just want to see god. Why all the subterfuge? Is god afraid we will figure out his secret identity?
I'm an atheist, but I have friends of various faiths (or lack thereof) and we accept that we can't change each others viewpoints.
I don't have any problem with people having a deeply held spiritual belief and living their own lives by it if said code leads them to live in a just and kind manner. I have a BIG problem with people getting preachy about it - discussion that all participants agree to is fine but forcefully expounding one's views isn't.
I've often wondered WHY the preachy one's would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway - if you've lived a proper life by the code of your beliefs then my beliefs shouldn't matter to you one iota. In fact, getting non believers to at least partially believe your code and live by its principles gets them into heaven and thus you would need to put up with their objections to your ideas or differing ideas for all eternity.
|
I've often wondered WHY the preachy one's would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway - if you've lived a proper life by the code of your beliefs then my beliefs shouldn't matter to you one iota.
Some possible reasons:
1. Relieve guilty conscience.2. Tick witnessing box.
3. Misery loves company.
4. So they won't have to kill you. (Muslims)
5. Control. For example, so you don't kill me (murder) or sleep with my wife (adultery).
6. Donations. (Your mind is not enough, we need your money too.)
7. Ego trip. (They think they're right and want to show you the error of your ways.)
In fact, getting non believers to at least partially believe your code and live by its principles gets them into heaven and thus you would need to put up with their objections to your ideas or differing ideas for all eternity.
Not tryin' to hear that...too busy with the virgins.
I've often wondered WHY the preachy ones would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway
Some possible reasons:
8. They're so insecure in their own faith they need to make sure everyone agrees with them, as reassurance they're right.
|
|
So how many of you are Atheists as I am?
I thought of myself as an atheist for a long time (a knee-jerk reaction to growing up in the Bible Belt, surrounded by violent racist thieving adulterous professional hypocrites), but as I got older, I realized that agnostic better fits me.
I don't *know* that there isn't a God, anymore than I *know* that there is a God. I missed the memo on the whole thing. At some point (hopefully not soon), I'll die, and then, and only then, will I discover if there is an afterlife. I don't expect one, but I could very well be surprised.
I live by certain values that could be considered 'Christian' and the teachings of Jesus are generally really, really good ideas, but as the very concept of an organized heirarchical church is actually against those teachings (particularly those that concern themselves with material wealth and success), I tend to find the whole concept of churches sketchy.
About the only thing I'm really sure of, is that if there is a God, and He is any sort of being worthy of my worship, I won't find Him in a church, surrounded by gold.
As much as Christianity and Islam are 'soft targets' for religious disillusionment, the more I've studied other faiths, through reading the teachings of Gautama Buddha or the words of Krishna in the Bhaghavad Gita, or even the erotic teachings of Tantrism, the more I realize that far too much of organized religion is about control and making people feel small and powerless to change their lives or improve their situation, indeed, in many cases, to teach them that an attempt to better themselves from their 'place' or 'station' at birth is a form of heresy or sinful pride or 'bad karma.'
Even Buddhism, which seems so inoffensive on the surface (mostly), is a philosophy that was dreamt up by a rich noble to allow himself to escape any feeling of guilt upon seeing others in poverty or wracked by disease, to absolve him of any feelings of charity or empathy for his fellow men, under the justification that they were somehow working off a karmic burden from a previous life, and that any attempt to make things better for the poor man would be setting him back on his karmic progression and preventing him from 'learning his lessons' in this lifetime, which was meant to be a trial. The teachings instruct those born to wealth and priveledge that they did something (in a previous life) to *earn* that position, and that they shouldn't feel guilty or any need to share their wealth with those born to less fortunate circumstances, indeed, that they are failing their own karmic lessons for this lifetime if they refuse to live a life of excess, celebrating the 'rewards' of their supposed good deeds in previous lives.
Tantrism, far from being kinky Kama Sutra stuff, takes the *one thing* that no other religion could take in it's oppression of the female gender, the ability to produce children, and turns it around and makes the woman a passive vessel for the divine creative power emanating from the *male.* The one 'power' that other faiths could not deny women, was very cleverly redefined, so that it was *men* would channeled the divine power of creation, and *men* who could harness that power for other ends, while women remained just vessels, never able to touch the power of creation, save by 'stealing it' from men.
Every faith seemed to have elements of this, control and keeping certain classes (or sexes, or races) of people down.
I can't say that I don't believe in God, because I obviously wouldn't know one way or the other how this universe came into being, but I can say that I don't believe in the various religions created by men.
|
|
What Set said mirrors closely what I believe, although the route is different.
I'm definitely agnostic, but will tend to side more with atheists in an argument because I am deeply cynical and find most religions to have a profoundly worrying amount of control mechanisms. Faith is a wonderful thing and I sometimes feel like I'm missing something by not having it, but organised religions just look like a way to keep people under control to me.
However, many atheists are just as dogmatic, blinkered and flat out annoying as they claim religious people are (and some are). Every cause, faith and belief has zealots. Richard Dawkins is one that bugs me as much as the more militant Christians or Muslims or other religions do. In other words, most atheists, agnostics and religious people all just want to be left alone to live their lives according to their beliefs. Its the zealots on all sides who we need to shut up and let us live and let live.
Even Buddhism, which seems so inoffensive on the surface (mostly), is a philosophy that was dreamt up by a rich noble to allow himself to escape any feeling of guilt upon seeing others in poverty or wracked by disease, to absolve him of any feelings of charity or empathy for his fellow men, under the justification that they were somehow working off a karmic burden from a previous life, and that any attempt to make things better for the poor man would be setting him back on his karmic progression and preventing him from 'learning his lessons' in this lifetime, which was meant to be a trial. The teachings instruct those born to wealth and priveledge that they did something (in a previous life) to *earn* that position, and that they shouldn't feel guilty or any need to share their wealth with those born to less fortunate circumstances, indeed, that they are failing their own karmic lessons for this lifetime if they refuse to live a life of excess, celebrating the 'rewards' of their supposed good deeds in previous lives.
The religion you've just described is called Hinduism, although you've left out the gods, avatars, demons, etc. that are an integral part of Hinduism as well. The Buddha (yes, he was a rich guy once, but that's as far as it goes) taught that there is no soul, that you and the suffering people were the same, so it's your responsibility to alleviate suffering. All that karmic burden/reincarnation/caste stuff is Hindu dogma, of which Buddhism was a rejection. If you're going to bad-mouth them, at least get your Eastern religions straight.
P.S. There was a much more in-depth discussion of this a few years ago on this very thread.
I'm an atheist, but I have friends of various faiths (or lack thereof) and we accept that we can't change each others viewpoints.
I don't have any problem with people having a deeply held spiritual belief and living their own lives by it if said code leads them to live in a just and kind manner. I have a BIG problem with people getting preachy about it - discussion that all participants agree to is fine but forcefully expounding one's views isn't.
I've often wondered WHY the preachy one's would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway - if you've lived a proper life by the code of your beliefs then my beliefs shouldn't matter to you one iota. In fact, getting non believers to at least partially believe your code and live by its principles gets them into heaven and thus you would need to put up with their objections to your ideas or differing ideas for all eternity.
Actually, I should have expanded one point a little. I am an atheist but not a MILITANT atheist like Dawkins etc. Being an atheist is my viewpoint because it makes sense to me and I don't see a need to make others think as I do if they hold a different view.
I've often wondered WHY the preachy ones would WANT to convert us non-believers anywaySome possible reasons:8. They're so insecure in their own faith they need to make sure everyone agrees with them, as reassurance they're right.
I think you hit the nail on the head here Kirth.
|
|
The religion you've just described is called Hinduism, although you've left out the gods, avatars, demons, etc. that are an integral part of Hinduism as well. The Buddha (yes, he was a rich guy once, but that's as far as it goes) taught that there is no soul, that you and the suffering people were the same, so it's your responsibility to alleviate suffering. All that karmic burden/reincarnation/caste stuff is Hindu dogma, of which Buddhism was a rejection. If you're going to bad-mouth them, at least get your Eastern religions straight.
My bad for using the word 'karma' instead of samsara, the correct term for the cycle of rebirth, where the circumstances of one life reflect in the conditions to which one will be born in the next. The core tenets of Buddhism very much still believe in reincarnation, since the entire point of the exercise is to escape / transcend the endless cycle of rebirth (again, my bad for saying 'reincarnation' instead of 'cycle of rebirth').
But yeah, same thing. Obviously it's been a few decades since I studied this stuff and 'karma' stuck in my head while 'samsara' didn't.
About the only thing I'm really sure of, is that if there is a God, and He is any sort of being worthy of my worship, I won't find Him in a church, surrounded by gold.
Very wise words, I feel.
As much as Christianity and Islam are 'soft targets' for religious disillusionment, the more I've studied other faiths, through reading the teachings of Gautama Buddha or the words of Krishna in the Bhaghavad Gita, or even the erotic teachings of Tantrism, the more I realize that far too much of organized religion is about control and making people feel small and powerless to change their lives or improve their situation,
It really saddens me to hear you say that Set. I hope you don't think that much of the charitable work out there done by religious groups is done to keep people needing religion.
|
|
Every faith seemed to have elements of this, control and keeping certain classes (or sexes, or races) of people down.
Be careful not to confuse "religion" with "individuals". The teachings of Jesus pretty well do their best to put everyone (or at least attempt) on relatively equal footing. People seem to have a tendancy to miss a lot of what Jesus really said.
|
|
the more I realize that far too much of organized religion is about control and making people feel small and powerless to change their lives or improve their situation,It really saddens me to hear you say that Set. I hope you don't think that much of the charitable work out there done by religious groups is done to keep people needing religion.
Not at all. The quote was meant in the context that I used it. Most religious *individuals* are good-hearted people. Many separate congregations or missions also have nothing to do with 'controlling' agendas and do not withhold their services from those who will not convert (as some so-called charitable missionaries do, turning away anyone who won't renounce their current faith and embrace that of the missionary).
'Far too much' of 'organized religion' was meant just as I said, and, really, even *one* example of a faith being used to repress others could be considered 'too much.'
I certainly did not intend by 'far too much' to mean 'all,' which, unfortunately, seems to be how it was taken.
|
|
Every faith seemed to have elements of this, control and keeping certain classes (or sexes, or races) of people down.Be careful not to confuse "religion" with "individuals". The teachings of Jesus pretty well do their best to put everyone (or at least attempt) on relatively equal footing. People seem to have a tendancy to miss a lot of what Jesus really said.
I'm a huge fan of the teachings of Jesus.
I'm also deeply impressed, from a more practical side, of his use of parable as an instructive tool. Telling someone something all-too-often just pushes air molecules around. Planting a seed of an idea, such as a parable or a koan, into someone's head, and then letting them come to the conclusion that you want all on their own, invests them much more strongly in the idea, since it becomes 'their' idea, one they formed themselves (even if they were steered towards it) rather than just 'something someone said to me.'
It's kind of like the old 'teach a man to fish' saying, only with with 'thought' or 'belief' instead of 'fish.'
My bad for using the word 'karma' instead of samsara, the correct term for the cycle of rebirth, where the circumstances of one life reflect in the conditions to which one will be born in the next. The core tenets of Buddhism very much still believe in reincarnation, since the entire point of the exercise is to escape / transcend the endless cycle of rebirth (again, my bad for saying 'reincarnation' instead of 'cycle of rebirth').
Your terminology is now correct, but not, in my opinion, the conclusions/deeper meanings.
Those are the indeed the terms things were couched in when being taught in (Hindu) India, where Buddhism originated and where the "reincarnation" thing was so deeply ingrained it was impossible to talk religion without referencing it. Teaching to a population that was raised with the concept of reincarnation as an "obvious" universal truth, you have to use that as a starting point if there's any hope of reaching them. The calculated renaming from "reincarnation" to "rebirth" you alluded to signals an effort to shift the emphasis away from that concept, because fundamental to Buddhism is the non-existence of the soul (anatman). Indeed, the whole concept of "inter-being," possibly THE key Buddhist tenet, makes "individual" souls being reincarnated an oxymoron. So, to get things across clearly to a Hindu populace, you use a cute slogan: in essence, "get off the wheel!"Sorry to belabor this, but as a (non-reincarnation-believing) Buddhist myself, I feel that using the Hindu dogma as an entry point to Buddhism is currently obsolete, and a distraction to the deeper message.
Having resolved the minor dilemma of Lot, Wicht was generous enough to agree to help me with the following conundrum, regarding the Bible being "obviously" true, with an unmistakable message requiring no special training to interpret.
In the New Testament, I read what are supposedly the actual teachings of Jesus (as opposed to the gosel according to John, Mark, Fred, or whomever) and find no fault in them; they're all empirically useful behaviors when living in a community. Indeed, when Jesus says, "There is no way to the Father save through me" (paraphrased for brevity), that seems clear to me that he's saying (a) ignore the earlier stuff, (b) ignore the teachings of other people who claim to be "in the know," and (c) these teachings here are the "real deal." But I'm told, no, a Christian should want to follow those teachings, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his message, and are nothing but an elaborate distractor -- he's telling you you just have to "join the club," so to speak, to be saved. Try as I might, though, I cannot in good conscience interpret it that way.
Okay, My friend tells me that I'm obviously wrong to interpret things the way I do, so differently from the mainstream, and therefore I need the "higher level" of understanding -- which he attempted to supply in the form of saying, "obviously you're wrong, just accept it." But that's not obvious to me at all -- quite the contrary. And as far as a consensus indicating Truth, I pointed out that there are an awful lot of Muslims in the world (to which he replied, "They all know the Quoran is false and just choose to be evil"). Okay, so here's the rub -- what's crystal clear from the New Testament to me is not what the mainstream religion gets out of it (and is actually, I'm reading, quite close to what Thomas Jefferson got out of it, so I guess I'm not totally alone). Consensus alone doesn't spell truth. Nor am I being willfully evil. If the mainstream view is "logically and obviously correct," then why does the New Testament beguile and confuse and lead astray people like TJ and myself? (My answer: I don't think it does. Yours may differ).
I see nothing in the Bible that leads me to reject scientific evidence (much of which I've seen firsthand) of an old Earth, and of evolution of life over geologic time. I see nothing that truly requires a "brand name" recognition of Jesus, as opposed to a following of his teachings (which, by the way, are remarkably similar to the Buddha's in some aspects). I see nothing that leads me to logically conclude that Heaven and Hell are real, physical places, rather than metaphors. I reject the doctrine of original sin, as many do. But most importantly, I see nothing to lead me to the conclusion that I'm forced to accept the mainsteam view over the dictates of my own conscience and reason.
|
|
... Indeed, when Jesus says, "There is no way to the Father save through me" (paraphrased for brevity), that seems clear to me that he's saying (a) ignore the earlier stuff, (b) ignore the teachings of other people who claim to be "in the know," and (c) these teachings here are the "real deal." But I'm told, no, a Christian should want to follow those teachings, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his message, and are nothing but an elaborate distractor -- he's telling you you just have to "join the club," so to speak, to be saved. Try as I might, though, I cannot in good conscience interpret it that way.
It's back...
Quick comment on this. My feeling isn't that he is saying "ignore the earlier stuff" but rather that He is completing "the earlier stuff". I really don't think that he ever said not to believe the scriptures. In fact he quotes them often to make his points. At best he showed them how to see the law differently because (like so many other things) people forgot why the law was there in the first place.
|
|
reposting from that other thread:
To deal with Lot first, Lot was the one decent guy in town but even his actions are not above reproach. For one thing, it is clear that he put his family into a situation that was less than optimal and he did this because he was choosing material gain over spiritual. Furthermore, the angels do seem to have prevented him from making a mistake by offering his daughters as victims.
When Jesus, In John 14 says that he is the way, the truth and the life and there is no way to the Father except through him, I know of no other way to interpret that then how Peter does in Acts 4:12 that there is no other name given under heaven for the salvation of men. To accept this statement is to reject Bhudda or Mohammed or any other.* In point of fact, when Jesus is transfigured on the mountain with Elijah (representing the prophets) and Moses (representing the Law), Peter wants to build three monuments, in his mind elevating Jesus to the level of Moses the lawgiver and Elijah, the greatest of the prophets. The statement from heaven that is heard is that Jesus is the son (and hence greater than a servant c.f. Hebrews 3:1-6) and He is to be listened to above that which came before.
*This is not to say that other men besides Jesus have not taught truth. It is to say that 1) the truth Christ teaches must supercede the teachings of other men and 2) only Jesus provides spiritual salvation. It is not enough to get this life right. The goal of Christianity is to make it to the next life intact and Jesus is saying that only he can deliver in this regards. Jesus accepted heaven and hell as real places and his followers should too.
As far as what you accept, that is your own choice. Each man must make his own. While I disagree on some of your conclusions, especially as regards the teachings of Christ, I agree with you that one cannot base one's opinions on majority rules.
One final note regarding the Old and New Testament. The New Testament teaches that Law of Christ has replaced the Law of Moses (I veiw it as similar to the way that the US Constitution replaced British Law -there are similarities but they are two different Laws nonetheless) (c.f Romans 7:1-4, 8:2; Ephesians 2:15; Hebrews 8:8). Nevertheless, a student of the New Testament understands that the things written in the Old Testament help us better understand the New. And nothing that Jesus taught of morality in any way condradicts the morality that was taught under the old. That is to say, the New Testament does not make things confusing, to the contrary it can be understood to help us clarify some of the events of the Old Testament in a larger context.
|
|
And for what it's worth, I think that simply your friend just doesn't really know the answers to your questions and then comes up with the canned answers.
I for one, don't really see religion (and Christianity) as truly "logical" or "obviously correct". It is a matter of faith which is pretty much by definition at odds with logic. (And I say this as a Christian.)
As I'm trying to come up with an answer, I am having difficulty because part of the question seems to come from a "Christian" who doesn't really know what he believes. (Is it possibly to rephrase the question ignoring what he said?)
|
|
... Indeed, when Jesus says, "There is no way to the Father save through me" (paraphrased for brevity), that seems clear to me that he's saying (a) ignore the earlier stuff, (b) ignore the teachings of other people who claim to be "in the know," and (c) these teachings here are the "real deal." But I'm told, no, a Christian should want to follow those teachings, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his message, and are nothing but an elaborate distractor -- he's telling you you just have to "join the club," so to speak, to be saved. Try as I might, though, I cannot in good conscience interpret it that way.It's back...
Quick comment on this. My feeling isn't that he is saying "ignore the earlier stuff" but rather that He is completing "the earlier stuff". I really don't think that he ever said not to believe the scriptures. In fact he quotes them often to make his points. At best he showed them how to see the law differently because (like so many other things) people forgot why the law was there in the first place.
One comment on Jesus and his use of the Old Testament. A good deal of what Jesus taught was a rewording of the Old Testament doctrine. In point of fact, one can find a good bit of the Sermon on the Mount foreshadowed in the book of Proverbs.
|
|
(And I too thought I might repost from the other thread...)
Wicht, good response. There's a little bit that I disagree with, but overall it seems fairly close.
Regarding Noah -- while the passage doesn't specifically condemn Noah for his actions, it was apparently bad enough that his son was punished (rather severely) for seeing the condition and reporting it to his brothers.
Kirth -- I am finding that there really seem to be a good number of passages (especially in the Old Testament) that just say what happened and aren't really meant to make much of a point on morality. (Elijah makes an axehead float because some guy dropped it in the river and it was borrowed. Where's the "lesson" in that?)
One thing to consider was that Abraham was well before "the Law".
The main point of the Lot passage (as I understand it) is basically the decadence of society and how bad things got. The further point might be that the grass is not always greener on the other side. (Lot and Abraham split because they both were getting too wealthy and Lot chose to go where the "grass was greener" and ended up getting into all kinds of trouble because of the local communities.) I do feel that your friend may be right to some degree -- in that it was simply the culture of the time. The ease with which it was brought up as an option (to me) implies that practice was not terribly uncommon. I also wonder if Lot didn't understand more of what was really going on. The guests were perfectly willing to sleep in the courtyard, but Lot insisted that they stay with him. I wonder if he knew who these people really were and was scared of some serious consequences.
Sometimes it's hard to find true "morality" in a lot of things from the Old Testament. Jesus came from Judah -- whose son had died without an heir and who didn't do what he was supposed to do to fix it. Judah, who was walking along the road, saw a "random" woman, said "come with me tonight", sleeps with her and finds out the next day or two that it was actually his daughter in law. And the passage only really implies that what he did wrong was not* give his daughter in law to the next person in line.
There are a number of places in the Old Testament especially that are difficult to fully understand the "morality" of the passage or the time.
EDIT: *after re-reading my response I noticed I missed an all important "not".
Moff, Wicht,
Thank you both. I can't overstate how much I appreciate the perspective of Christians who can interperet these things within a theistic world-view, without spouting or condemning. That's why my participation in this thread's heyday was always a pleasure and a privilege.
As it is, I personally am a scientist, and a Zen Buddhist, and also something of an atheist when it comes to the Abrahamic view of God. In reading the Old Testament, I find a great deal of interesting historical stuff and some very, very good literature. I also find a concept of God that is so utterly repellent to what I would consider a sane standard of decency that I can't help but cringe. In reading the New Testament, I read Jesus' teachings and think, "Here's a guy who gets it. Whether you're a Christian or a Buddhist or an Atheist, there's no logical fault to be found in this stuff!" But then I'm told it's all fol-de-rol, and that the point of Christianity lies elsewhere: namely, an embracing of Jesus as somehow being the embodiment of the demon from the Old Testament, whom I am supposed to love and adore and never question.
The long and short of it is that neither my conscience nor my own reason leads me to do that, and indeed they both compel me to do otherwise. Nevertheless, I find no fault in those who do, and always very much enjoy discussions with people such as yourselves.
|
|
Moff, I agree that the passages of the Old Testament generally imply whether an action was right or wrong (though not always) but nevertheless its implicit not explicit. And so often the point is to demonstrate how one wrong action (Noah's) led to a second wrong action, which in turn led to tragedy. The Levite and his concubine is another example of this but there are many, many more.
And again, I think it important to veiw the NT as clarifying many of the issues raised in the Old Testament.
Heh, and I also agree that Kirth's friend seems to be answering partly from ignorance. A valuable tool in teaching (in any field) is the ability to say, "I don't know."
Heh, as for lessons from the floating axe-head:
:)
|
|
I also find a concept of God that is so utterly repellent to what I would consider a sane standard of decency that I can't help but cringe.
Kirth, I understand better where you are coming from, thank you. I understand your veiw point but find I must disagree with your interpretation of the scriptures a bit.
The thing is, the God of the Old Testament is a God of Love and the God of the New Testament is a God of Wrath. That is, they are one and the same. The Old Testament talks about God's Love quite a bit and the New Testament (including Christ) talks about the dangers of God's wrath. Paul pointedly begins Romans by talking about God's wrath and the reasons for it. He goes on to talk about God's salvation. God's wrath and God's salvation are not mutually exclusive.
What, if you do not mind me asking, so repels you in the Old Testament?
|
|
What, if you do not mind me asking, so repels you in the Old Testament?
I won't speak for Kirth, but if it were me, it would be when God tells his people to wipe out a city or nation and not leave even one person (man, woman, or child) alive -- and occasionally no animals or any other plunder. While the later part I can kind of get around (basically trust that God will take care of you) wiping out a people without any chance of forgiveness or repentance seems more than a little harsh. Part of that discussion goes back to the question of the "untouched peoples" question. I've heard a number of explanations or reasons for those events but few of those would be "acceptable" for a non-believer. (I'm not even sure how "acceptable" it is for me. It doesn't shake my faith. It just means that I don't know the answer.)
|
|
I love this thread, but I don't want to become involved too deeply. However, I did want to say (with tongue in cheek) that oiling someone's feet and then washing them with your hair is seriously disgusting, savior of mankind or not.
You're just jealous because you don't have enough hair to ...
I'd better stop -- I'm not far behind.
I've often wondered WHY the preachy one's would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway.
The best analogy I can think of is if you found some great, new MMORPG. You'd want to tell all your friends about it, right? That's pretty much what it's like. You get really excited about how cool your religion is, and you want to tell everyone you know so that they can experience it for themselves.
<---- Shin Buddhist, by the way.
|
|
I've often wondered WHY the preachy one's would WANT to convert us non-believers anyway.The best analogy I can think of is if you found some great, new MMORPG. You'd want to tell all your friends about it, right? That's pretty much what it's like. You get really excited about how cool your religion is, and you want to tell everyone you know so that they can experience it for themselves.
<---- Shin Buddhist, by the way.
I truly wish that it were this way. I really do. But I don't see it. I really think that people feel like they are trying to prevent a "bad" rather than promote a "good". I wonder how different things would look if we all did more promoting "good"? Even much of the terminology revolves around this -- "saved". Saved from what? I've tried to do what I can so that I am doing more of the "promoting good" but I fear that I am in the minority.
|
|
I love this thread, but I don't want to become involved too deeply. However, I did want to say (with tongue in cheek) that oiling someone's feet and then washing them with your hair is seriously disgusting, savior of mankind or not.
There are most definately some culture illustrations from the Bible that simply do not appeal to American sensibilities. The one that I most often grin to think about is from the psalms - "how good it is when brothers live in peace together. Its like oil flowing down Aaron's beard." I understand the point but...
:)
I truly wish that it were this way. I really do. But I don't see it. I really think that people feel like they are trying to prevent a "bad" rather than promote a "good".
Yeah, but I think people do this with stuff they like too. Like those crazy health nuts who try to get everyone to stop eating wheat gluten. They realize how much better it makes them feel, and they want everyone else to experience the same thing.
The problem is really in the delivery. Some health nut will say something like "Hey, you should stop eating wheat gluten because it will make you feel better!" However, a lot of us hear it as, "Hey, you're stupid because you still eat wheat gluten!" or "I'm better than you because I don't eat wheat gluten!"
Personally, I try not to go all fanb0i about my religion, because I realize how annoying it can be when someone's in your face trying to convert you. However, I definitely have much more compassion for the people that are that way. That's why, whenever the Mormons come to my door, I always offer them water and wish them luck, because I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to have door after door shut in your face for a year. But that's just me. :)
|
|
What, if you do not mind me asking, so repels you in the Old Testament?I won't speak for Kirth, but if it were me, it would be when God tells his people to wipe out a city or nation and not leave even one person (man, woman, or child) alive -- and occasionally no animals or any other plunder. While the later part I can kind of get around (basically trust that God will take care of you) wiping out a people without any chance of forgiveness or repentance seems more than a little harsh. Part of that discussion goes back to the question of the "untouched peoples" question. I've heard a number of explanations or reasons for those events but few of those would be "acceptable" for a non-believer. (I'm not even sure how "acceptable" it is for me. It doesn't shake my faith. It just means that I don't know the answer.)
I suspect that you are right. The destruction of the Canaanites is a point a lot of people seem to have problems with. There are two very good reasons for the commandment given to Joshua however. I'll put it in a spoiler as my answer is a bit long...
Most civilized people agree that certain actions should have consequences. Murderers, rapist, etc. should be punished. Most of us cannot imagine living in a society where no action went unpunished and there were never any consequences for one's actions. The debate is normally thus concerning the appropriate level of punishment.
It is not for nothing that Paul begins the book of Romans, a systematic discussion of Christian theology, with a discussion of God's wrath. If one accepts that there is a God, that there is an eternity and that actions have consequences then it is appropriate to understand what things will get one into trouble in the hereafter. The whole of Christians thought is founded on the premise that God is a God of both Wrath and Salvation. We stand guilty but there is a way out. The way out is considered the good news (or gospel). The idea of God's wrath is not the gospel itself but there is no purpose to the gospel if there is no wrath.
The destruction of the Caananites is illustrative of God's wrath, as discussed by Paul in Romans. God's judgment is not mindless. There is always a reason for it. Two things in particular, Paul suggests, are the reasons of God's wrath. A failure to believe in God and a failure to live according to the righteousness of God. Moreover, a consistant Biblical theme is that God does not just judge individuals but nations and tribes as well. The Caananites, as a society, were practicing things God condemned - chiefly human sacrifice and idolatrous practices related to their fertility cults. No society in history, I might point out, once it has begun practicing human sacrifice has been allowed to prosper. So that's the first thing. God wanted the culture destroyed. It was not chiefly about the land, it was about destroying a culture.
But a second point that I think is worth analyzing from a philisophical perspective. Many people are willing to agree that so and so should be strung up for what he did but fewer people (I suspect) are willing to pull the switch, inject the needle or otherwise insure that justice is carried out. Or to use another example, its one thing to agree that the holocaust was a terrible thing but its another to take up arms and slog through the trenches and the mud to put a stop to it. By making the Israelites carry out the command to destroy the Caananites God illustrated two things. He showed them the consequences of sin and illustrated the difficulty of justice.
In point of fact, the Israelites, by the end of Joshua's life, we are told, grew tired of the work of carrying out the command. They did not have the strength of will to see it out to the end.
Edit: And let me chime in to suggest that the best evangelist are those who are in point of fact excited about their faith or lifestyle(whatever it is). If someone is excited then I want to know what excited them. If someone is depressed, I generally don't want to be dragged into their depression with them.
Wicht, appart from anything else, as i don't really want to get into it, but i beleive there is evidence you are wrong on the statement that no civilisation in history has been allowed to prosper once they begin to practice human sacrifice.
By my understanding the cult of pallas athena is beleived to have practice human sacrifice for quiet some time, yet Athenean culture outlasted such practice.
|
|
Wicht, appart from anything else, as i don't really want to get into it, but i beleive there is evidence you are wrong on the statement that no civilisation in history has been allowed to prosper once they begin to practice human sacrifice.
By my understanding the cult of pallas athena is beleived to have practice human sacrifice for quiet some time, yet Athenean culture outlasted such practice.
I don't know that the cult of pallas athena is representative of the entire Grecian or Roman empires with regards to culture. I'm certainly not an expert, but doing a quick look for "pallas athena" on Wikipedia yields nothing about sacrifices. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it apparently wasn't significant enough to mention on Wikipedia.
|
|
Wicht, appart from anything else, as i don't really want to get into it, but i beleive there is evidence you are wrong on the statement that no civilisation in history has been allowed to prosper once they begin to practice human sacrifice.
By my understanding the cult of pallas athena is beleived to have practice human sacrifice for quiet some time, yet Athenean culture outlasted such practice.
By 'civilization', I mean the culture and practices inherent in the system. There are several instances where a 'civilization' has gone on in name only but the culture behind the civilzation has been fundamentally changed. Japan is a good modern example. Post WWII Japan carried over some baggage from Pre WWII Japan but there was a good bit of change in the culture as well.
I am not as coversant in Athenian religious practices and the cultures in which it thrived as I might be in some others but the cult that practiced the human sacrifices is gone and that would be my main point. The people got rid of it, one way or the other.
And while Athens has been continuously inhabited for quite a number of years, it has had periods of decline along with prosperity. I would not be surprised to learn that the shift in cult practices accompanied a period of decline and war. I promise though that I will do some reading on the subject.
|
|
... a nice response ...However, it is still written from the point of view of the Hebrews. If you weren't a Hebrew at the time, you were pretty much saying to yourself -- "Man, I'm screwed."
Heh. That's true and in fact the book of Joshua even makes it clear that this was what the Caananites were saying to themselves. :)
But that's always the way it is though. The guy sentenced normally has no say in his sentencing once he is caught and convicted. And Saddam in his fox-hole probably felt hard done by too, but knowing what he did, I had no real sympathy for him.
Murderers, rapist, etc. should be punished.
Disagree in cause, if not in ultimate effect. Punishment is a lame reaction meant to make the victims feel better, but other than that it is functionally useless. Prevention is a better aspiration. To some extent, I support the death penalty for murderers and rapists because it guarantees that that person will never repeat that offense. It has nothing to do with this whole twisted "punishment makes everything OK" mind-set, when, in fact, it does not. God, rather than put Adam into a no-win situation and then punish him and all his offspring when he falls for the gag, should have just set things up with more transparency. Yes, I know there's that whole "free will" argument, but if Adam and Eve didn't really understand what they were doing wrong, then punishing them and all their offspring forever is hardly moral, nor pragmatic -- and has less to do with free will than it does with blind obedience. It's just passive-aggressive. Next question: "Who am I to judge God?" Well, that's more difficult, but I feel like if He exists, and He gave me the gifts of conscience and reason, then He probably expected me to use them. If their use leads me to the inescapable conclusion that He is a nutcase, well, then, I have two options: refuse to serve Him, or simply deny the existence of such a being. Since the former leads to all kinds of contradictions that can't really be resolved, I chose the latter, and am happier for it.
I'll just be brief, I'm actually in the middle of researching and writing a Doctrine essay that I really should be doing instead of this.
Just wanted to comment on this,
God, rather than put Adam into a no-win situation and then punish him and all his offspring when he falls for the gag, should have just set things up with more transparency.
But that's exactly what God did. He clearly told Adam he could eat from ANY tree in the garden, EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. For if he ate from that tree, he would die.
Gen 2:16 - 17 And the LORD God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for on the day you eat from it, you will certainly die.”
I'm not sure how much more transparent you expect God to be.
He also put the Tree of LIFE in the garden as well.
The problem was that they listened to the serpent (Satan) who flat out lied, and got them to distrust God.
Kirth, I can't really fault you for feeling that God is nutcase, the Gospel as presented in the Bible is stupid and foolish, as the Bible itself clearly points out.
1 Corinthians 1:18 For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.
But that's exactly what God did. He clearly told Adam he could eat from ANY tree in the garden, EXCEPT the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil. For if he ate from that tree, he would die.
I'm not sure how much more transparent you expect God to be.
Dying was the least of his worries, if you subscribe to the doctrine of original sin and the whole "curse" thing. Gensis should have said something like:
17 An thou eatst from this tree, thou wilt be cursed forever, and all thine offspring will be cursed forever, yea, unto the last generation.18 And moreover I will begin to grind all of this creation I spent six days on slowly into entropy, in My rage at being disobeyed.
19 And thou hadst best not ask Me why I put the tree there, and all these punishments thereunto, because thy job is to obey, not to ask... for in even asking thou risketh My displeasure.
20 For I hath put thee here, and Eve as well, to be my slaves, for thou havest no other purpose but to adore Me for creating you.
21 Yes, I given thee free will; but it beeth a false gift, for an thou useth it, thou shalt be smitten for all eternity."
That would be transparent.
|
|
Not all of us believe in original sin.
And for the record, I think that God is extremely clear in cause and effect. :) You eat and you will die.
On the more positive side, the Bible is also pretty clear that once God cast Adam and Eve out, He did not abandon them. He clothed them, gave them a system of sacrifice and continued to watch over them. He just did not allow them to live in paradise in their present state.