Mystically Inclined wrote: I don't allow the IRS to exist in any of my games. Therefore I don't have to pay taxes in real life. Begging the question; requires accepting the conclusion (The IRS exists) as a premise. But "The IRS exists because the IRS exists" is not useful, especially for proving your implied analogy.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms. Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Sure you can, bugleyman. You could despise the way He runs (or doesn't run) things. You could, like many today, find the concept of worshiping another being, even Being Himself, absolutely abhorrent, whether you believe in Him or not. You could just be so preoccupied with rollin' the way you roll that you don't even think about Him other than to acknowledge His existence.
We all have our reasons for what we do. If there's a God, He'll probably have an insight into whether those were valid or complete BS.
Jaelithe wrote: Sure you can, bugleyman. You could despise the way He runs (or doesn't run) things. You could, like many today, find the concept of worshiping another being, even Being Himself, absolutely abhorrent, whether you believe in Him or not. You could just be so preoccupied with rollin' the way you roll that you don't even think about Him other than to acknowledge His existence.
We all have our reasons for what we do. If there's a God, He'll probably have an insight into whether those were valid or complete BS.
Despising the way He runs things means you don't accept His omniscience. Since omniscience is a defining characteristic of what most people in western society mean when they say God, I'd argue that *not* accepting His omniscience fundamentally means that don't believe in God.
But this sounds like a topic for another thread.
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms. Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Doesn't believing mean accepting the claims of infallibility and omniscience, in which case how could one not worship?
Probably getting off topic, but I'm not sure I can picture how that might work. From own experience of my youth: I believed in God, because everybody told me he exists, but I always feared him. He was presented to me as a spiteful, easily angered old man who would put me into hell and generally hate me if I'll touch myself in all the "wrong" places, he'd send thunderstorms if I didn't behave well (I feared thunderstorms) and he would punish me for everything I do wrong. For all eternity and beyond. I feared him and I hated him. So I believed in God but I never worshipped him, opting for staying under the radar and never praying, never going to church, in generally trying to avoid his awareness of me with all possible means.
Wow, what a messed up thing. I'm just glad I'm over it now.
Apologies Jaelithe, I caught your response to my older post before everything was erased. I didn't mean to offend you.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms. Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Doesn't believing mean accepting the claims of infallibility and omniscience, in which case how could one not worship?
Probably getting off topic, but I'm not sure I can picture how that might work. Damned if I know.
I guess it depends on which bits of the "modern, western sense" you swallow. If, for example, various fundamentalists are shown to be right about what kinds of things God hates, I'm not going to worship Him, because I can't agree.
Think of Huck Finn's "All right then, I'll go to hell".
Normally, this doesn't come up because people pick religions that correspond with their core beliefs and/or gain their beliefs from that religious upbringing. When there is a conflict, it's generally resolved by renouncing belief or changing the nature of the God they believe in, not continuing belief but disagreeing.
Ceres Cato wrote: From own experience of my youth: I believed in God, because everybody told me he exists, but I always feared him. He was presented to me as a spiteful, easily angered old man who would put me into hell and generally hate me if I'll touch myself in all the "wrong" places, he'd send thunderstorms if I didn't behave well (I feared thunderstorms) and he would punish me for everything I do wrong. For all eternity and beyond. I feared him and I hated him. So I believed in God but I never worshipped him, opting for staying under the radar and never praying, never going to church, in generally trying to avoid his awareness of me with all possible means.
Wow, what a messed up thing. I'm just glad I'm over it now.
How does one "avoid the awareness" of an omniscient being? :P
I guess I'm presupposing a certain level of rationality (which, in fairness, most of us -- certainly myself included -- didn't possess in our youth).
Yuugasa wrote: Apologies Jaelithe, I caught your response to my older post before everything was erased. I didn't mean to offend you. No apology necessary. I wasn't offended, Yuugasa.
I'll PM you.
bugleyman wrote: How does one "avoid the awareness" of an omniscient being? :P
I guess I'm presupposing a certain level of rationality (which, in fairness, most of us didn't possess in our youth).
Yeah, that's the key, I think. The rationality I didn't have back then. I guess I just thought if I don't call for his attention while others do, he won't notice me. Or something like that.
Or maybe his wrathful persona was emphasised more than his omniscience to me. Who knows.
bugleyman wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Sure you can, bugleyman. You could despise the way He runs (or doesn't run) things. You could, like many today, find the concept of worshiping another being, even Being Himself, absolutely abhorrent, whether you believe in Him or not. You could just be so preoccupied with rollin' the way you roll that you don't even think about Him other than to acknowledge His existence.
We all have our reasons for what we do. If there's a God, He'll probably have an insight into whether those were valid or complete BS.
Despising the way He runs things means you don't accept His omniscience. Since omniscience is a defining characteristic of what most people in western society mean when they say God, I'd argue that *not* accepting His omniscience fundamentally means that don't believe in God. I don't think omniscience means that at all. All-knowing doesn't mean he runs things morally. It doesn't have anything to do with morals at all.
omnibenevolence would be more what you're talking about, I think.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaelithe wrote: bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms. Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Sure you can, bugleyman. You could despise the way He runs (or doesn't run) things. You could, like many today, find the concept of worshiping another being, even Being Himself, absolutely abhorrent, whether you believe in Him or not. You could just be so preoccupied with rollin' the way you roll that you don't even think about Him other than to acknowledge His existence.
We all have our reasons for what we do. If there's a God, He'll probably have an insight into whether those were valid or complete BS. I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ceres Cato wrote: bugleyman wrote: How does one "avoid the awareness" of an omniscient being? :P
I guess I'm presupposing a certain level of rationality (which, in fairness, most of us didn't possess in our youth).
Yeah, that's the key, I think. The rationality I didn't have back then. I guess I just thought if I don't call for his attention while others do, he won't notice me. Or something like that.
Or maybe his wrathful persona was emphasized more than his omniscience to me. Who knows. That's unfortunate, considering that His omniscience means that he knows your every move before you make it, and why. I tend to think such makes God pretty darned compassionate. Others see it differently, I suppose.
As I like to say, "God's omniscient, which means He's well aware if you're full of sh!t."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: It's possible to believe in God, but not worship Him. A concept somewhat obscured by the constant use of faith and belief as near synonyms. Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Doesn't believing mean accepting the claims of infallibility and omniscience, in which case how could one not worship? Not really. Unreliable narrator, and all that. I believe in Washington, but not the story of his chopping down the cherry tree. I believe in Charles Darwin, but not the story of his deathbed conversion. I believe in London, but not in Harry Potter. And I, personally, disregard the idea from Genesis of photosynthetic plants before a sun to provide light. ("Wait!" you say. "Genesis may be metaphorical!" That's right. Which, in this context, is a fifty dollar word meaning "not actually true.")
There is no single "modern, western sense" of God; there are legion -- "hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin," as it was so memorably put. It's very easy for a believer to disregard specific aspects of (some versions of) the narrative.
And the problem of omniscience is one that's very easy to disregard, since better minds than mine have pointed out that, in a universe that contains an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, evil would not exist. Ergo, one of those attributes must be wrong.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
It is. But worship doesn't necessarily mean bowing and scraping, and a whole bunch of, "How great Thou art!" I'm sure God often thinks, Yeah, I'm aware of that. [Yawn.] Now show me something. And the "something" He's looking to see is far more about righteous and generous living than it is paeans to His glory.
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.
Jaelithe wrote:
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.
C.S. Lewis would back you up on that. But a number of televangelists would not.
Orfamay Quest wrote: And the problem of omniscience is one that's very easy to disregard, since better minds than mine have pointed out that, in a universe that contains an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being, evil would not exist. Ergo, one of those attributes must be wrong. And even better minds than that have provided excellent answers to the problem of theodicy. Whether or not one finds those answers adequate is another matter entirely.
Jaelithe wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
It is. But worship doesn't necessarily mean bowing and scraping, and a whole bunch of, "How great Thou art!" I'm sure God often thinks, Yeah, I'm aware of that. [Yawn.] Now show me something. And the "something" He's looking to see is far more about righteous and generous living than it is paeans to His glory.
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon. Which is far from a common opinion. Now or ever. And sort of removes the need for religion entirely.
Which is why religions often emphasize the need for faith over works. And sometimes for ritual over either.
Of course it also matters exactly what is meant be "righteous and generous living". Righteous often includes apparently arbitrary restrictions. Depending on who's talking about it, of course.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Jaelithe wrote:
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.
C.S. Lewis would back you up on that. But a number of televangelists would not. I'll take the Professor over the preachers six days a week ...
... and you know the rest.
But now we're a long way from any unified "modern western understanding of God".
thejeff wrote: Jaelithe wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
It is. But worship doesn't necessarily mean bowing and scraping, and a whole bunch of, "How great Thou art!" I'm sure God often thinks, Yeah, I'm aware of that. [Yawn.] Now show me something. And the "something" He's looking to see is far more about righteous and generous living than it is paeans to His glory.
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon. Which is far from a common opinion. Now or ever. Scholarship is a democracy now? Shall we vote on the mass of the top quark?
Quote: And sort of removes the need for religion entirely. I wasn't aware that the world had a teleological basis. I don't think there's a "need" for Leonidas chocolate, either, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it, or even that I don't appreciate it.
thejeff wrote: But now we're a long way from any unified "modern western understanding of God". No further away than we were in 300 CE, or indeed at any point between then and now.
thejeff wrote: Jaelithe wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
It is. But worship doesn't necessarily mean bowing and scraping, and a whole bunch of, "How great Thou art!" I'm sure God often thinks, Yeah, I'm aware of that. [Yawn.] Now show me something. And the "something" He's looking to see is far more about righteous and generous living than it is paeans to His glory.
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon. Which is far from a common opinion. Now or ever. And sort of removes the need for religion entirely.
Which is why religions often emphasize the need for faith over works. And sometimes for ritual over either.
Of course it also matters exactly what is meant be "righteous and generous living". Righteous often includes apparently arbitrary restrictions. Depending on who's talking about it, of course. Well, we're not going to solve universal versus relative morality, here, so ...
Whether it removes the need for religion depends largely on one's definition of "need" and the underlying purpose for religion.
I mean ... come on. I'm Catholic. We're the kings of ritual! :)
Remember, you're approaching this from an anthropological and sociological angle as a nonbeliever and I from a theological perspective as one of the faithful, so the twain is unlikely to meet.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: But now we're a long way from any unified "modern western understanding of God". Now is the time I talk about One Truth and begin frothing at the mouth, right?
"Send in the nuns!"
Orfamay Quest wrote: thejeff wrote: Jaelithe wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't find freely given worship inherently abhorrent.
I find the concept of worship in exchange for not being punished absolutely abhorrent.
It is. But worship doesn't necessarily mean bowing and scraping, and a whole bunch of, "How great Thou art!" I'm sure God often thinks, Yeah, I'm aware of that. [Yawn.] Now show me something. And the "something" He's looking to see is far more about righteous and generous living than it is paeans to His glory.
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon. Which is far from a common opinion. Now or ever. Scholarship is a democracy now? Shall we vote on the mass of the top quark?Quote: And sort of removes the need for religion entirely. I wasn't aware that the world had a teleological basis. I don't think there's a "need" for Leonidas chocolate, either, but that doesn't mean I don't believe in it, or even that I don't appreciate it. Huh? I think you're reading something into what I said that wasn't there.
I meant, as the following lines that you cut should have made clear, that under that theory, religion isn't particularly important to pleasing God. Be a good person and you'll be rewarded (over simplified, I know.)
And that most religions, for reasons that seem cynically obvious to me, don't follow that line of argument.
Orfamay Quest wrote: thejeff wrote: But now we're a long way from any unified "modern western understanding of God". No further away than we were in 300 CE, or indeed at any point between then and now. Of course, but wrapping back to where this bit of derail started, I was told "Is it really? At least in God in a modern, western sense? Doesn't believing mean accepting the claims of infallibility and omniscience, in which case how could one not worship?"
If the modern western sense either doesn't include many modern western believers or is broad enough to include both the fundies and Jaelithe's "Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.", then I don't think the objection really applies.
thejeff wrote:
I meant, as the following lines that you cut should have made clear, that under that theory, religion isn't particularly important to pleasing God. Be a good person and you'll be rewarded (over simplified, I know.)
And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants and even more so, the Anabaptists.
The issue, of course, is what constitutes being a good person. At the far end of the Anabaptist path are the Amish who define "good person" in such narrow terms (buttons on your coat? Sinful vanity!) that they appear comical to outsiders. But despite the uniformity of their religion, it's almost entirely a personal thing.
thejeff wrote:
If the modern western sense either doesn't include many modern western believers or is broad enough to include both the fundies and Jaelithe's "Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.", then I don't think the objection really applies.
There is no "THE" modern western sense. There is only "A" modern western sense, of which, as I wrote earlier, there are legion.
Orfamay Quest wrote: And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants .... Needless to say, this Catholic disagrees.
But that's a whole other argument entirely.
Orfamay Quest wrote: There is no "THE" modern western sense. There is only "A" modern western sense, of which, as I wrote earlier, there are legion. Yeah. About as many as there are Westerners.
Jaelithe wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants .... Needless to say, this Catholic disagrees. I had managed to work that out by myself, funnily enough.
Jaelithe wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: There is no "THE" modern western sense. There is only "A" modern western sense, of which, as I wrote earlier, there are legion. Yeah. About as many as there are Westerners. If you restrict yourself to a single time. Since people's views change over time, I think there are more senses overall than there are people.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: I don't think omniscience means that at all. All-knowing doesn't mean he runs things morally. It doesn't have anything to do with morals at all.
"The ability to make a universe does not presuppose moral superiority." -- Niven/Pournelle, _Inferno_
Orfamay Quest wrote: thejeff wrote:
I meant, as the following lines that you cut should have made clear, that under that theory, religion isn't particularly important to pleasing God. Be a good person and you'll be rewarded (over simplified, I know.)
And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants and even more so, the Anabaptists. Saying that's the line of reasoning followed by Protestants in general is just silly. Maybe, in a very loose sense, historically at the point of the Reformation. I'm not enough of a scholar of the period to know - nor for the present topic, do I really care.
In the modern world, Protestants vary so widely they could fall on either side of the basic faith/works divide to greater or less extent than the Catholics.
Orfamay Quest wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants .... Needless to say, this Catholic disagrees. I had managed to work that out by myself, funnily enough. Very droll. I just tend to respond when a statement sets off my BS detector.
Christopher Dudley wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't think omniscience means that at all. All-knowing doesn't mean he runs things morally. It doesn't have anything to do with morals at all.
"The ability to make a universe does not presuppose moral superiority." -- Niven/Pournelle, _Inferno_ Yeah, but it's a more likely place to start than Ned down the street.
thejeff wrote: Saying that's the line of reasoning followed by Protestants in general is just silly... In the modern world, Protestants vary so widely .... Yep, 41,000 denominations and counting.
Jaelithe wrote: Christopher Dudley wrote: thejeff wrote: I don't think omniscience means that at all. All-knowing doesn't mean he runs things morally. It doesn't have anything to do with morals at all.
"The ability to make a universe does not presuppose moral superiority." -- Niven/Pournelle, _Inferno_ Yeah, but it's a more likely place to start than Ned down the street. But is it a more likely place to start than myself?
Should I subjugate my moral sense to His without question?
Mind you, I'll accept that He's smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. I'd gladly listen to His arguments. But not to flat moral pronouncements.
Of course, as you said above, it's hard for me to avoid my non-believer's anthropological and sociological angle when so many of the moral pronouncements and arguments of the Bible make much more sense to me as philosophical developments of their time and culture than as Universal Truths.
Jaelithe wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Orfamay Quest wrote: And that's actually the line of reasoning followed by a number of religions, most notably (in the Christian traditions) the Protestants .... Needless to say, this Catholic disagrees. I had managed to work that out by myself, funnily enough. Very droll. I just tend to respond when a statement sets off my BS detector. The thing is, you're both right. The need for birds of a feather to flock together is something much older than Christianity and probably than the human race itself. Religious ritual serves a very important psychological and anthropological purpose. It's the same purpose served by groups such as Weight Watchers and Alcoholics Anonymous -- when you're trying to do something difficult (like, say, be a Christian in a world full of at best unbelievers and at worst lions), mutual support is helpful.
Necessary? No. One can quick drinking entirely alone. It's just much harder than to do it that way than it is with the help and support of a group that understands what you are trying to do, recognizes how hard it is, and is willing to provide approval for when you are doing well, encouragement when you're not, and understanding and support regardless.
You don't need to take weekly communion to be a Christian if you are steadfast enough to be able to hold on to your beliefs despite the fact that no one else in your circle of friends shares them. And you don't need to take an airplane to get from New York to London if you're Superman.
thejeff wrote: But is it a more likely place to start than myself? In a word, no.
I think we all in a certain sense start with ourselves, thejeff. It's where we go from there that matters.
Quote: Should I subjugate my moral sense to His without question? I would say no ... and so would God.
Though I don't often do this, because most non-believers find it irritating, I'll answer with a Scriptural quote, Isaiah 1:18:
"'Come now, and let us reason together,' says THE LORD. 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be made white as snow.'"
Of course, there's also Job (written much earlier, and perhaps the first Biblical book ever written) where He pretty much says, "Watch yourself, you little pissant. I created the freakin' cosmos. What did you do?"
There is a marked difference between, "Lord, I'm just not getting this; could you do me a solid and help me?" and, "THIS IS 'EFFIN' BS, DUDE! You're a layin' the smack down! EFF YOU!"
In my time, I've done both. :)
Quote: Mind you, I'll accept that He's smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. I'd gladly listen to His arguments. But not to flat moral pronouncements. God gave you your intellect. Why would he want you to wholly disregard it?
But dialogue has to be about openness, and accepting that your position may change if you're presented with a superior viewpoint. Not everyone manages that.
A person of faith, in addition, may be called on at times, to accept, "Because I said so." That's very difficult for an intellectual to do.
Quote: Of course, as you said above, it's hard for me to avoid my non-believer's anthropological and sociological angle when so many of the moral pronouncements and arguments of the Bible make much more sense to me as philosophical developments of their time and culture than as Universal Truths. Alternately, they can be seen as God being unchanging, but man's understanding of Him evolving towards a sensibility utterly lacking in times past.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I don't believe in dice. I don't think they exist.
I have a LOT of trouble playing tabletop RPGs.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote: Jaelithe wrote:
Living your life compassionately is a life of worshiping Christ even if you're not much for church on Sunday ... and even, in my opinion, if you just think He was either a smart-ass rabbi or a loon.
C.S. Lewis would back you up on that. But a number of televangelists would not. Michael Moorcock would pretty much chuck Lewis along with Tolkien and the Teleevangelists. Lewis' famous three "Space" trilogy beginning with Out of the Silent Planet starts with the trappings of sci-fi, but ditches it for what is essentially a religious narrative, before the first book even finishes.
Jaelithe wrote:
Quote: Of course, as you said above, it's hard for me to avoid my non-believer's anthropological and sociological angle when so many of the moral pronouncements and arguments of the Bible make much more sense to me as philosophical developments of their time and culture than as Universal Truths. Alternately, they can be seen as God being unchanging, but man's understanding of Him evolving towards a sensibility utterly lacking in times past.
That's a very difficult view to take, precisely because so many of the moral pronouncements and arguments of the Bible are so typical of Bronze Age cultures.
Now, of course, to some extent, this is the fundamentalists having dug themselves into their own hole; by insisting that the words of the Bible are to be taken literally, they exclude the possibility that "man's understanding of Him" can be more accurately expressed in different words today than they were 2500 years ago.
But it's difficult to justify "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" as anything other than barbarism when taken and applied literally. Similarly, the idea that soldiers should kill all the women and children when they take a city as commanded by God in 1 Samuel 15, is a war crime today.
So one has to ask.... what's the difference between the moral pronouncement of 1 Samuel 15, which we can safely disregard in a more enlightened age, and the various other moral pronouncements about, for example, catering a same-sex wedding?
Orfamay Quest wrote: The need for birds of a feather to flock together is something much older than Christianity and probably than the human race itself. Religious ritual serves a very important psychological and anthropological purpose. It's the same purpose served by groups such as Weight Watchers and Alcoholics Anonymous -- when you're trying to do something difficult (like, say, be a Christian in a world full of at best unbelievers and at worst lions), mutual support is helpful. We disagree on none of that. I'd just hold that it serves another and higher purpose, in addition, than those organizations, worthy though they are.
Quote: One can quick drinking entirely alone. I'll bet you can, you lush, you. ;)
Quote: You don't need to take weekly communion to be a Christian if you are steadfast enough to be able to hold on to your beliefs despite the fact that no one else in your circle of friends shares them. And you don't need to take an airplane to get from New York to London if you're Superman. Few people are that stalwart.
To extend the metaphor, there's kryptonite everywhere, and even Superman can use a break in a lead-lined room once in a while, or regularly.
Of course, the common sense Catholic, even Christian, response is, "Why make your life harder when it doesn't have to be?"
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote: Lewis' famous three "Space" trilogy beginning with Out of the Silent Planet starts with the trappings of sci-fi, but ditches it for what is essentially a religious narrative, before the first book even finishes. Shrug. So did Herbert's Dune series. That's not a reason to disregard either one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Leviticus 10:9 - you're not allowed to drink anything fermented in the "tent of meeting", or the tabernacle. This was essentially the "house of God" while Moses wandered the desert with his people.
Basically, you're not allowed to drink wine in church according to God.
Of course Jesus says to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Him. He doesn't exactly say to do it in church though. He also says if you do it the wrong way, you're guilty of sin as if you had put Christ on the cross anew.
It's all super clear and to me speaks of a level of consistency only possible by an omnipotent and omniscient being.
Also, you're going to hell if you have a rip in your clothes.
LazarX wrote: Michael Moorcock would pretty much chuck Lewis along with Tolkien and the Teleevangelists. Lewis' famous three "Space" trilogy beginning with Out of the Silent Planet starts with the trappings of sci-fi, but ditches it for what is essentially a religious narrative, before the first book even finishes. Not really sure why you brought Moorcock up, but ... I am familiar with his dislike of both Tolkien and Lewis, for reasons ranging far beyond their Christianity. He despised a great deal about their writing, loathing Tolkien's pastoralism, for example. (Of course it's entertaining to note that in many ways, Moorcock bought into that cosmology, at least for a time, when writing The War Hound and the World's Pain.)
Never really enjoyed Lewis' fiction. He can't carry Tolkien's jock in a literary sense—though 'Til We Have Faces is astoundingly good.
But Moorcock's disdain of both, insofar as their prose is concerned, is nigh-legendary and long-established. (On a personal level, he liked them both, and felt embarrassed that he couldn't gush to Tolkien about how much he liked LotR, because he didn't at all; I salute his honesty. He also says that Tolkien encouraged him to write, for which he is grateful.)
I read "Epic Pooh" long ago, and was wildly unimpressed. It reads like a clever teenager who'll realize forty years later that his elders were a lot smarter than he knew.
Moorcock's a great writer, and Elric is a tremendously important character in the history of fantasy ... but he's no Tolkien. Really, no one is.
Irontruth wrote: Leviticus ... You know the discussion's gone south when someone trots out Leviticus.
Jaelithe wrote: LazarX wrote: Michael Moorcock would pretty much chuck Lewis along with Tolkien and the Teleevangelists. Lewis' famous three "Space" trilogy beginning with Out of the Silent Planet starts with the trappings of sci-fi, but ditches it for what is essentially a religious narrative, before the first book even finishes. Not really sure why you brought Moorcock up, but ... I am familiar with his dislike of both Tolkien and Lewis, for reasons ranging far beyond their Christianity. He despised a great deal about their writing, loathing Tolkien's pastoralism, for example. (Of course it's entertaining to note that in many ways, Moorcock bought into that cosmology, at least for a time, when writing The War Hound and the World's Pain.)
Never really enjoyed Lewis' fiction. He can't carry Tolkien's jock in a literary sense—though 'Til We Have Faces is astoundingly good.
But Moorcock's disdain of both, insofar as their prose is concerned, is nigh-legendary and long-established. (On a personal level, he liked them both, and felt embarrassed that he couldn't gush to Tolkien about how much he liked LotR, because he didn't at all; I salute his honesty. He also says that Tolkien encouraged him to write, for which he is grateful.)
I read "Epic Pooh" long ago, and was wildly unimpressed. It reads like a clever teenager who'll realize forty years later that his elders were a lot smarter than he knew.
Moorcock's a great writer, and Elric is a tremendously important character in the history of fantasy ... but he's no Tolkien. Really, no one is. Tolkien's no Moorcock either. They're both great influential writers in the genre, but they're from different eras with very different approaches.
I'm quite fond of Lewis's SF series (and Narnia as well) despite them being more religious fiction than genre SF (or fantasy).
What this, or Moorcock's opinion of Lewis and Tolkien's work has to do with anything is completely unclear to me as well.
thejeff wrote: Tolkien's no Moorcock either. Agreed. I also agree they're both great.
I just hold Tolkien quite a bit greater.
Jaelithe wrote: Irontruth wrote: Leviticus ... You know the discussion's gone south when someone trots out Leviticus. Your God wrote it.
|
