The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => People & Places => Topic started by: misterqueue on July 05, 2006, 01:33:26 pm
-
If your planned middle name is Otto that would be a Very Sad Thing.
One of my friends changed her last name to Dzieciolowski when she turned 18 (her family had Americanized it earlier). But the when she got married at 28 took her husband's name. Which just seems pointless to me. But apparently his family is insanely catholic and is kind of making her jump through some hoops. Like they had to pretend that they hadn't been fuck*ng for 5 years and she had to go to some classes and shit.
No no.. Octavius would be the middle name. Man, I am not going to go get a bowl cut and some metal arms any time soon. Think more along the lines of GMr. Wonderfuls Octavius. My Roman Emporer facination is well documented.
Oh dear dog those Catholic classes! I think, IIRC, in most Catholic churches you have to do them if you want to get married in the church. Least that's the way it was back when I was sort of bumming around that side of the fence.
-
No no.. Octavius would be the middle name. Man, I am not going to go get a bowl cut and some metal arms any time soon. Think more along the lines of GMr. Wonderfuls Octavius. My Roman Emporer facination is well documented.
Oh dear dog those Catholic classes! I think, IIRC, in most Catholic churches you have to do them if you want to get married in the church. Least that's the way it was back when I was sort of bumming around that side of the fence.
At my church the classes were 12 months minimum. And that was assuming that both people were "provably" catholic. Where provably = having turned in offical pre-printed tithing evelopes for at least a year prior.
-
I really need to find out if the churches are that harsh over here too. I'm theoretically catholic and my girlfriend is anglican but neither of us would be bothered to do such a thing. Really Vegas seems the best option.
-
I really need to find out if the churches are that harsh over here too. I'm theoretically catholic and my girlfriend is anglican but neither of us would be bothered to do such a thing. Really Vegas seems the best option.
IIRC Anglicans are pretty well laid back. I mean this is Church of England we're talking about, where it's much more of a social club than a belief system per se. Depending on the church (in my ex-catholic experience mind you, so basically I'm speaking out of my ass), Catholic churches come in two flavours:
- Nice to see you on sunday, now eat this wafer.
- You are a terrible wretched thing, flog yourself and sing in latin!
(My early schooling all came from the latter. On the plus side I know a little Latin, but I don't know how often they use Tu illum adiuva for SCIENCE!)
-
- Nice to see you on sunday, now eat this wafer.
"This wafer is actually the flesh of a dude named Jesus. We call this transubstantiation. What, you don't believe me? To the stake with you!"
-
"This wafer is actually the flesh of a dude named Jesus. We call this transubstantiation. What, you don't believe me? To the stake with you!"
More in the second vein, but not that far from my experience.
Fun Fact: I got beaten with a yardstick once in 2nd grade by a nun who called it her "friend" and was notorious for performing this in a dark closet of her classroom. This was apparently the more toned down, PC version since my Mother went to the same school and saw kids get worse than that from this same nun. Apparently, just getting out with 1 of these incidents was a feat.*
* Note: Clearly, not all Nuns/Catholics/Belief Systems are this way, I'm just saying. I was a surprisingly amicable kid, so she was really just one pissed off Nun, and it was a rather rough area of town so you know, stuff happens.
-
Regarding transubstantiation - for a science experiement in Catholic elementary school once I took pictures of what the cells of a piece of human skin looks like, and then a blow-up of the consecrated wafer that I palmed from mass looked like under a microscope, and was punished.
When I presented them with the scientific evidence that the host does not actually become the physical, actual body of Christ, they countered that it becomes his spiritual body and therefore cannot be measured with a microscope.
I think that they meant that it was his bullshit body, but had I known then what I know now would have pointed out that what they are referring to is not actually transubstantiation, then, but rather metempsychosis.
-
An amusing story!
Ha! Story Time:
Once a week in grade school they would bring in a Priest who would talk to us for an hour about various bible stories and what have you. We had a pretty cool priest who would act out all these things in a funny way so as to entertain/inculcate us good and proper. One day we got on the topic of creation and the likes thereof.
"Well you see god's love for you was like a kettle that is boiling over, he loves you so much!" I remember him saying and even making all these bubbly noises/hand signs. I guess there's a particular hand sign for bubbles? Anyway, I was confused by this statement as something had been bothering me for weeks. (I was a pretty pious kid).
I raised my hand, to ask a question, "If god loves us so much that he's bubbling over, then why would he send us to hell without a chance at redemption?" (It was phrased differently, but I don't remember my exact words.)
I was then taken out into the hall and "talked to" for a while. I was afraid, thinking that I was in trouble, so I just sort of nodded and listened to what they said without offering too much persistance. After a time, the priest said something that dinged a little light in my head:
"Well, you see, maybe there isn't a Hell. Maybe it's just a concept that we use to show people what it's not like to live without god. Maybe the church just isn't ready to accept it that way."
'But..' thought little 8 year old me, 'this is the place they've been warning me about for years as an actual physical place with horrors and devils and the like! This is one of their basic tennets! If they're not sure about this...."
I'd kind of like to thank that priest for being honest with me if I ever could find him again. He certainly gave me a chance to make up my own mind, even though it didn't turn out as he would have hoped I imagine.
(And now I will shutup before I get further off topic or set off a flamewar or some such.)
-
I've found by talking with priests over the recent years that most of what I was taught in school really has nothing to do with actual tenets of the Catholic faith. No wonder so many of my former parochial school classmates are agnostics or atheists today.
Of course, the BIG ONE (Jesus was GOD, died and rose again, etc.) seems to be the one thing that is patently ridiculous, and the one that even the best analytical thinkers of the church seem to believe.
The basic foundation of Christianity is so absurd that I couldn't believe that ANYONE believed it. Seriously, when I was a kid I thought that people were fuck*ng with me. Santa Claus was more plausible than the resurrection.
-
The basic foundation of Christianity is so absurd that I couldn't believe that ANYONE believed it. Seriously, when I was a kid I thought that people were fuck*ng with me. Santa Claus was more plausible than the resurrection.
But jough, what about the stone! They said no one man could've moved that sto-
No, even in sarcasm I fail. I pretty much agree. Cue the flamewar!
-
inculcate
I have never seen this word before, and both you AND the newspaper decide to use it on the same day. Carry on.
My RE teacher would not tell me how priests didn't go crazy due to lack of sexual gratification. While my good lady friend said (very quietly) "it's because they have small boys", the one pious person in the class who is not my lady friend said that the 'love of God gratifies them sexually'. With a very straight, holier-than-thou face. Then the RE teacher told us all to shut up. Good call.
Also, my very religious science teacher (who was crazy; possibly due to lack of sexual gratification) told us that God made invisible 'holy atoms' to explain transubstantiation. The holy atoms are made up of God, and therefore make the bread holy. Thank god it wasn't him who taught us evolution. He was crazy.
I've found by talking with priests over the recent years that most of what I was taught in school really has nothing to do with actual tenets of the Catholic faith. No wonder so many of my former parochial school classmates are agnostics or atheists today.
Of course, the BIG ONE (Jesus was GOD, died and rose again, etc.) seems to be the one thing that is patently ridiculous, and the one that even the best analytical thinkers of the church seem to believe.
The basic foundation of Christianity is so absurd that I couldn't believe that ANYONE believed it. Seriously, when I was a kid I thought that people were fuck*ng with me. Santa Claus was more plausible than the resurrection.
Yeah, I can't help but echo that view. To be fair however, if I did believe that God did exist in the way the Bible describes, then the Resurrection is peanuts. If this guy could supposedly create the whole dang universe, then bringing someone to life again seems like child's play.
(I am agnostic so I accept that God MIGHT exist but equally feel that he MIGHT NOT.)
(I'm also sorry for bringing this thread even further away from sanity/on-topicness.)
-
My compliments on your restraint AD. I picture you, while reading this thread, sitting in a hard chair, sweating profusely, rocking back and forth and repeating over and over again, "Must not smite heathens....Must not smite heathens..."
Also, Jough's microscropy of the host is hell of funny.
-
My compliments on your restraint AD. I picture you, while reading this thread, sitting in a hard chair, sweating profusely, rocking back and forth and repeating over and over again, "Must not smite heathens....Must not smite heathens..."
He hasn't been active much lately. He'll get round to smiting us sometime.
-
Yeah that was pretty much the smiting for which I was waiting.
But I'm a big boy, I can take it.
-
um, to go way way back...
Hobot-- I am trying soo hard to pronounce "bot" with a circumflexe, and it is not working.
Nor did it really work with your for-real last name. Hm.
also: for further discussion of The Host, look further down on the page Q linked to. "How does Jesus Come to us?" from the series "Religion for the Retarded."
-
also: for further discussion of The Host, look further down on the page Q linked to. "How does Jesus Come to us?" from the series "Religion for the Retarded."
That entire 365 days thing is fuck*ng gold for the record.
The "Religion for the Retarded" in particular made me, I am sad to admit, chortle with glee. If you download it you will see why.
It is hardly a coincidence that said album was recorded in Missouri.
-
It's a fact: Guys named Carl are cool. Guys named Karl are dicks. This is ALWAYS true.
Sorry, not entirely at any rate. Or maybe the Carl I knew who was a colossal dick was the exception to prove the rule, but I'm never sure what the fuck that's supposed to mean! Surely if it's a rule...
He really was a fuck*ng asshole though. And continued to be, when a friend of mine bumped into him lnog after we all stopped having anything to do with him.
Never met a Karl...
-
Regarding transubstantiation - for a science experiement in Catholic elementary school once I took pictures of what the cells of a piece of human skin looks like, and then a blow-up of the consecrated wafer that I palmed from mass looked like under a microscope, and was punished.
This is so excellent that I can almost forgive you for saying that you'd never marry a woman who wouldn't take your last name.
-
My compliments on your restraint AD. I picture you, while reading this thread, sitting in a hard chair, sweating profusely, rocking back and forth and repeating over and over again, "Must not smite heathens....Must not smite heathens..."
Also, Jough's microscropy of the host is hell of funny.
The challenge is reconciling the content to the thread name.
I hope I've said all I'm gonna say ever to y'all on this particular topic but you never know. I'd hate to offend anyone by turning this into a 'religious' thread, although surprisingly, apparently it's fine for this to be a 'religious' thread as long as no one actually defends religion.
I thought after the last 'problem' that this topic was going to be avoided or clearly labeled. I guess only threads with some pro-religion content need to be labeled? I didn't get the memo.
Of course I'm disturbed by some of these comments, but it's no longer worth a shitstorm with my name on it to say anything. I wouldn't even make this post except that half of me feels like you really are surprised I'm not all over it and half of me feels like I'm being baited.
Not telling which half responded, although your characterization of me above could be interpreted as pretty mean-spirited (I don't take it that way, but lots of people could read it) and that could refect on you.
Carry on.
-
AD, I thought Aug's description of his mental picture of you was affectionate and amusing.
But you are right, someone totally ought to split this thread. Someone who is a mod of this forum, like, say, AlohaDawg?
-
It doesn't seem necessary to mod it to that extent. No one's getting hurt and no one's complaining. Unless you're complaining, of course.
-
Apologies, 'Dawg. I certainly did not intend to bait you with my post, and you're completely right to mention that it's unfair that religion can be part of the thread when there's only one side of the issue being pushed (a kind of immature side on my post as well). I think this can similarly be applied if there was a thread with only pro-religious views; obviously it's when people conflict that a debate/flame starts, and it's hella awesome of you to 1) Not argue with us when I reckon you have the right to, and 2) At the same time make me realise that I was being pretty much a dick.
My post earlier in this thread was pretty pointless, and while being rude wasn't on the agenda it still turned pretty dickish, so basically I should wrap this up by saying I'm very sincerely sorry.
(Also, please no-one say that I shouldn't be sorry to AlohaDawg. I am not expecting this from anyone, but if being 15 has taught me anything, that thing is to take precautions.)
-
Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.
The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.
-
Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.
The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.
Well put! Everyone believes something they can't prove scientifically.
Apologies, 'Dawg. I certainly did not intend to bait you with my post, and you're completely right to mention that it's unfair that religion can be part of the thread when there's only one side of the issue being pushed (a kind of immature side on my post as well). I think this can similarly be applied if there was a thread with only pro-religious views; obviously it's when people conflict that a debate/flame starts, and it's hella awesome of you to 1) Not argue with us when I reckon you have the right to, and 2) At the same time make me realise that I was being pretty much a dick.
My post earlier in this thread was pretty pointless, and while being rude wasn't on the agenda it still turned pretty dickish, so basically I should wrap this up by saying I'm very sincerely sorry.
(Also, please no-one say that I shouldn't be sorry to AlohaDawg. I am not expecting this from anyone, but if being 15 has taught me anything, that thing is to take precautions.)
I'm going to be the one to say you shouldn't be sorry. Judy, it's OK to say what you want in most cases as long as you are being honest and not intending to hurt someone. I wasn't thinking about any individual person or post in my response, I was thinking about the last time this topic came up and what happened. People got unhappy and we kind of came to a convention about certain topics. That's all. I'm taking nothing personally here.
-
Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.
The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.
Ben shoots and scores without being a dick even!
See people? Discussion.
Let us move on now, or if not, then I concur with womby that this thread should probably be split. (As I believe I yelped about being off-topic anyway earlier.)
-
Not telling which half responded, although your characterization of me above could be interpreted as pretty mean-spirited (I don't take it that way, but lots of people could read it) and that could refect on you.
Please don't take it that way. It certainly wasn't meant to be mean spirited, just a little self-referential jibe about our traditional board roles. It was meant to be affectionate.
Anyway, I know you have better things to do these days than smite the heathens hereabouts. The baby's coming and you've got to get the grill ready!
Damn! That probably didn't help anything, did it. Sorry for that too.
-
But then why not faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What's to separate one ridiculous absurd belief from another? Just which one you like the best? Is that what religion is about? Having a preference for one wacky idea over another?
Also, I wasn't baiting anyone and wasn't really thinking of "What would ______ think of this?"
Also, I would tend to want to split this thread, but I am not a moderator of this forum so I'll leave that to AD or V.
-
But then why not faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What's to separate one ridiculous absurd belief from another? Just which one you like the best? Is that what religion is about? Having a preference for one wacky idea over another?
It can be interpreted that way if you like. It comes down to which one you believe. There's a difference between that and which one you like.
For example, to make things even less spiritual, let's say you and I have bet ten bucks on the flip of a coin. We both know the coin to be perfectly fair. If you have a preference for which to call - even a meaningless gut hunch that says "Call tails, it worked last time so why not?" - that is faith in action. You have called tails, not because you prefer the fine engraving work on the tail end of a quarter, but because of an irrational belief, although perhaps one of very faint strength.
I hope this clarifies the difference between "the one I believe" and "the one I like best". Although of course there can be significant overlap between the two.
-
Yeah, the resurrection is pretty ridiculous from a logical standpoint. That would be why they call it an article of faith: either you have faith that it happened, or you don't, and there's no logical argument that will sway you from one side to the other.
The same is also true with regard to the existence of God.
Well put! Everyone believes something they can't prove scientifically.
And I think we can all agree that it's just fine and dandy for you to believe whatever you choose. It only becomes a problem when you become indignant because people start mocking the absurdity of it. Many people on this board don't believe in the story of the resurrection (hell, even the bible disagrees with itself on how these events allegedly transpired) and have given testimony of events from their real lives where they were chastised or disciplined for calling bullshit on these "tennents of faith." When religious people start saying that "God creates invisible Atoms" or "God exist because the bananna fits perfectly in the hand" they are really opening themselves up to ridicule. Maybe I believe as the Hindus (I think) that the Earth sits on the back of an elephant who is standing on the back of a turtle (or some cockamaimie nonsesense like that). And if I, tried to offer you some basis of proof that this was fact wouldn't you want to just laugh in my face? Wouldn't you? It's no different what we are doing here with the story of the resurrection, laughing at something that is absurd.. So when we have a chuckle over these sorts of things why don't you just let it go? Unless these threads are somehow shaking your faith, I can't see how this should be a problem for you.
~Paul
-
It's turtles all the way down. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)
-
Unless these threads are somehow shaking your faith, I can't see how this should be a problem for you.
I have no problem with the absurdity of my articles of faith from a logical standpoint being pointed out. However, it bothers me when people I like start claiming that articles of faith are invalidated as articles of faith because they have been invalidated as articles of historical or scientific fact in much the same way that it bothers me when people I like start claiming that heat is the product of molecules rubbing together and producing friction - and in both cases, I explain why it doesn't work that way and answer questions that are offered.
Note that the "answers" I'm offering are about the distinction between faith and logic. I am not saying that any of the answers of my belief are the right ones; obviously I believe that many of them are, but as I have stated there is no logical way to prove it. My beef here is solely about a misunderstanding (and a common one among rationalists and religious types alike) about what faith is and what purpose it serves.
Plus it kind of bugs me when people start saying that having irrational faith is itself something worth mocking. I don't have a pu$$y but I don't mock people for having them.
(p.s. I hear a spelunking party tried to map out the interior of Dawg's irrational faith in an omnipotent creator and got lost for a week.)
(p.p.s. if it's not clear, that was a repurposed Gina's Hoo-Hah Joke.)
-
And I think we can all agree that it's just fine and dandy for you to believe whatever you choose. It only becomes a problem when you become indignant because people start mocking the absurdity of it.
I think it's fine and dandy to be black, or gay, or disabled but I think it's perfectly legitimate to be indignant when anyone mocks what they perceive as the absurdity of these states of being.
Paul, you are proceeding from the premise that it's a given that faith is absurd. And you don't know that, you've said as much in previous posts. If you aren't willing to acknowlege the possibility that there is a REASON behind faith, at least ponder the possibility that there is a PURPOSE to faith being a part of many people worldwide's 'human condition'.
-
I think it's fine and dandy to be black, or gay, or disabled but I think it's perfectly legitimate to be indignant when anyone mocks what they perceive as the absurdity of these states of being.
The problem with your argument here is that, well I suppose some would argue gay is a choice, being black or "disabled" is not something you choose to be. Having a belief is, generally, something you choose (or at least seek to refine).
I'll argue against Scientologists' beliefs all day long for example and not feel bad about it. Would I not help a Scientologist? Would I not befriend a Scientologist? No.. because they are people and I do not judge people themselves on what they believe.
Maybe jough put it in a certain humor context, but I don't think there really was "mocking" going on. It does bother me a little bit that when you post something (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,2898.0.html) no one gets all uppity about it, but when we're discuss our viewpoints you play the victim card. Maybe I'm misreading into this, but man, "we was discussin'" your viewpoint is always welcome.
-
While I can understand AD's point of view on discussions like this given previous happenings and goings on I think the religious content of this thread has had more to do with the humour and irrationality in the system more than in any particular religion itself. I mean we came from the hoops one has to jump through to get married in a particular church and ended up mainly with stories of the weird knee jerk reactions people were exposed to in religious schools.
Even Jough's science experiment is funny because of how his teachers reacted to it rather than a mocking 'haha see the host does not look like skin cells'.
Summary: Be cool, we all love y'all and we can talk of human foibles caused by spiritual beliefs without attacking the beliefs themselves.
Now that that's out of the way I've got some brilliant Toaist jokes...
That holy atoms thing makes me want to bring on my own righteous fire though, talk about abusing a position of trust.
-
That holy atoms thing makes me want to bring on my own righteous fire though, talk about abusing a position of trust.
Yeah, here we are trusting God to make the universe observable and quantifiable and that fuck*ng guy pulls out invisible fuck*ng atoms!
-
WHAT KIND OF A GOD WOULD ALLOW INVISIBLE ATOMS?
I do try to understand faith and do sometimes wish that reason and believability did not interfere with my ability to believe in all sorts of crazy shit that makes no sense and seems to have no basis for making sense to anyone other than the reason that "it's the way I was raised."
I honestly did not think that anyone could possibly believe the shit they were teaching us in Catholic school. I kept thinking "Oh come on. There's no way you believe that! Seven days? So God isn't all powerful - he's just faster than the rest of us? Three beings in one? Why not seven?"
-
I do not have scientifically-tested proof that Catholic schooling has destroyed more people's faith than any other single institution on the planet, but empirical observation has put it pretty far up a posited ladder.
-
I honestly did not think that anyone could possibly believe the shit they were teaching us in Catholic school. I kept thinking "Oh come on. There's no way you believe that! Seven days? So God isn't all powerful - he's just faster than the rest of us? Three beings in one? Why not seven?"
This is a perfect example of Catholic schools teaching non-dogma. As I understand it the dogma is that the 7 days of creation is a metaphor, as days didn't even exist yet. But so many people are taught that it's literally 7 24-hour periods.
-
Maybe jough put it in a certain humor context, but I don't think there really was "mocking" going on. It does bother me a little bit that when you post something (http://touamb.com/index.php/topic,2898.0.html) no one gets all uppity about it, but when we're discuss our viewpoints you play the victim card. Maybe I'm misreading into this, but man, "we was discussin'" your viewpoint is always welcome.
What are you talking about? I haven't made a comment about the religious content of anyone's posts in this thread yet. And I don't think I've said anything about being a victim either. I just want people to be somewhat considerate because some posts come across as hostile.
My point to Paul, and those who do not include their faith as a core element of their identity have difficulty understanding this, is that it is not, as you say, a choice. It is, in my case, WHO I AM. So general mockery of these things is generally mockery of me. I realize this is difficult for some people to understand. Please consider this. Maybe I'm extra-sensitive about this but some of the wordsmithing around here goes beyond playful jabs at religion.
Now, this time around, I was more concerned about the fact that the original thread strayed into what we mutually agreed was not supposed to appear in threads without some kind of indication, due to the fact that it's unpleasant for some people. So the thread is split and play continues. And I'm doing my best to avoid specific commentary on religious points made here.
-
My point to Paul, and those who do not include their faith as a core element of their identity have difficulty understanding this, is that it is not, as you say, a choice. It is, in my case, WHO I AM. So general mockery of these things is generally mockery of me. I realize this is difficult for some people to understand. Please consider this. Maybe I'm extra-sensitive about this but some of the wordsmithing around here goes beyond playful jabs at religion.
Well then I apologise if I misconstrued your statements. These things happen with text only communication.
It sure is who you are, and I respect that feeling. However, at the same time you made a choice of that on some level. I can assure you however, that (and again I don't think we were "Mocking" anything really) criticism (even playfull criticism) is not directed at you personally, but at the general idea. I have, in all honesty, tried to walk eggshellish on this issue really because I think you're a good guy and I don't want you to feel like I'm attacking you personally. Hell, we'd probably never ever be on the same side of a picket line but that doesn't mean I like you any less.
So, to conclude, sorry if I misconstrued.
-
My point to Paul, and those who do not include their faith as a core element of their identity have difficulty understanding this, is that it is not, as you say, a choice. It is, in my case, WHO I AM. So general mockery of these things is generally mockery of me.
Yeah, this is pretty much bullshit. You may be a Christian, but you are not Christianity. Just because you believe in something doesn't make it part of who you ARE. No one is born with a religious belief. It's not part of your being.
Now whether it's a *choice* or not is of course debatable. You may feel that you could not be anything but what you are, which of course isn't really true either - but that's a long "nature vs. nurture" debate that is beside the point here - but again, beliefs are malleable and changing for most people, yourself likely included (if you have always believed the same things without any question then let me know).
I can't help but believe that anyone who says they've never ever questioned their faith is just flat-out lying to me, because I can't believe anyone lacks any kind of sense of wonder or curiosity that they would blindly follow anything that was prescribed to them.
Maybe I'm extra-sensitive about this but some of the wordsmithing around here goes beyond playful jabs at religion.
Oh, I wasn't trying to be playful. I am genuinely interested in the subject, though, and am not going to discount any possibilities no matter how ridiculous they seem to me. However, I'd be very much surprised if there was a God who was just like the one described in the Judea-Christian bible (either testament).
And I'm doing my best to avoid specific commentary on religious points made here.
Why is that? I think we can discuss religion without trying to force our views on each other.
However, if you equate "disagreement about the nature of God" with "a personal attack against me" then the religion tag in the subject line is probably a good indicator of threads you should stay away from. No reason to read things and bite your tongue just to get upset at us heathens, Dawg.
Plus, isn't passing judgment on people who don't believe in the same things you do a little anti-Christian anyway? ;)
-
It's all good Q, I'm just amazed this kind of ruckus comes out while I'm trying specifically to NOT make overtly religious statements or to respond directly to the religious statements of others. I'm not mad at anyone, I'm not pissed off, I'm not feeling particulary self righteous and I haven't reached for my smitin' stick. I just want people to put themselves on my side of the fence for 30 seconds and understand why I have gotten that way in the past.
<><>
Jough, it's bullshit for you to dictate to me how I identify myself as a person. It's assy. I'm me and you can argue with that until you fall over; it won't change who I am. If there's nothing on the other side and you're there I'll tell you you were right.
As for why I'm avoiding commenting - Why should I? Something you want to hear? Or just itching for a chance to give me some shit about my life and my faith? It's interesting that I am only defending myself in this thread. I haven't said anything that needs defending. No general statements, no challenges, just a statement about what I think about me. Sorry you don't like me. Take a number.
You've left me no incentive whatsoever to share anything else about what I believe; you've already rejected me as a person with the above statement. That I haven't made a religious statement or responded to others and still get abused is more than enough. Thanks.
-
Jough, it's bullshit for you to dictate to me how I identify myself as a person. It's assy.
You can say you're a tugboat but that doesn't make it so, Dawg. Your argument is like the right-wingers who say that if you criticize Bush then you must hate America. It is a bullshit argument regardless of how you define yourself as a person.
If there's nothing on the other side and you're there I'll tell you you were right.
I'll take you up on that. But keep in mind that if I'm right we're both fucked, so let's hope I'm wrong, huh?
As for why I'm avoiding commenting - Why should I? Something you want to hear?
You're just making a big fuss about NOT commenting. You're not going to comment. Gee. You want a cookie or something? I don't do all sorts of things, but I don't post to the board every time I don't take a trip to India.
Subject: Trip to India
"Nope, NOT TODAY."
It's interesting that I am only defending myself in this thread. I haven't said anything that needs defending.
Well, it is interesting that you're being pre-emptively defensive. No one's attacking you but you go out of your way to be a victim. WTF?
Sorry you don't like me.
I never said I didn't like you! See what I mean? Every chance you get you take the martyr stance.
-
I think it is a sound general rule that once people are breaking posts into that many separate quotes to reply to them, things are on the way to degenerating beyond reasonable discussion....
Reasonable people can differ on whether this messageboard is a place to discuss religion but this is really no longer a discussion of religion. I'd lock it but you both can unlock it so I guess I just have to trust to your good judgment.
-
I find the disconnect between faith and the status quo disconcerting, to say the least. Christianity evolved as a small, peaceful sect and then hundreds of years later it had become the largest organized religion that was hellbent on oppression (see Spanish Inquisition, Dark Ages, etc.).
The sheer volume of history behind the church is staggering. And I don't deny that dogma has been refined and perverted for centuries. But the specific case of Christianity and violent dogma is really no different from any other faith or belief system or religion.
Personally, I am an Episcopalian. My pa was raised Roman Catholic and endured 12 years of nuns in Catholic School. My mom was raised Southern Baptist. As a result, they raised me with very little religion. I only went to church when I went with friends from school. Through the years I've looked at various faiths and tried my hand at several dozen. When I had to drop out of grad school, I was literally struggling with hell (when I was horribly depressed, my fiance had been shipped off to Iraq, etc.), something crazy/miraculous happened. I had a personal visitation.
I'm not going to go into it, but lot of my friends derided it as shrinks fuck*ng with me, or my depression, or whatever. But I do know that I was a staunch athiest who was well beyond my wit's end. As they say, there are no athiests in foxholes. Life has not been easy or sweet since then (see the events leading up to my move to Alaska) but at least I feel like my life has purpose. Having faith doesn't immunize me from shitty things happening to me, but it gives me focus and meaning like nothing else has. Are other people focused and at the top of their game without faith? I don't know, because I can only speak from experience. My life has changed drastically since then.
And also, for the first time in my life, I've found something spiritual that I've stuck with. I chose to be baptized as an Episcopalian on January 6, 2003. We have a gay bishop and women leaders in the church. Personally, I refer to Jesus as "Baby Jesus" because it sounds a little more lighthearted and less "scary" than making a bold statment such as, "I love Jesus." I am not a saint. I'm not perfect, but I try to live a good life. I go out to the bars with my friends, and I cuss like a sailor and I sometimes repeat small town gossip. I've never been married. However, I volunteer about 10-20 hours per week doing Fire/EMS and caring for patients, and more time than that being involved with my community. I give money to progressive causes that I feel are worthy, such as women's organizations and Planned Parenthood. I volunteer on several boards, such as our local domestic violence shelter, our local library committee, and our local public broadcasting station. I feel like I am doing work for Baby Jesus when I try to help others. I go to church regularly and try to support our mission in Alaska and help our community. When disasters happen, like Hurricane Katrina, our church community dug into our own pockets to send some of our most experienced personnel to the Gulf coast for humanitarian work. Same thing for the mudslides in the Phillippenes and the earthquakes in Afghanistan and everything.
I am sure that there are righteous athiests who have also banded together to help in similar manners, but having an organized group like a church gives us focus to serve Christ's mission in the world, which is to help those less fortunate than us and to work for peace. Shit, your mileage may vary. You might not care about stuff like that. But I do, and my faith is a big part of it.
I'm not going to deny that weird arguments like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin are sheer folly. I don't care what other people think about the church or its history. There are lots of weird metaphors to describe the relationships between God and Humans. Such as God being the Father and we are his children but Christ is his only begotten Son; Christ being the Bridegroom and the Church his bride; or the Church being made up of the Body of Christ; the metaphor of Christ being the Good Shepherd and we are his flock; the trifecta nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit, etc. There's a lot of them. They all illustrate the fact that God loves us despite our constant failures to uphold the covenant.
Still, the religion debate all boils down to one thing: Humans are fallible. Although we are supposed to maintain the church as the body of christ, it is still made up of individuals and organizations that are prone to human error, just like athiests, Hindus, Muslims, born-agains, Dan Savage, or burned ex-Catholics.
-
Linnea, I enjoyed reading that a lot.
A question that I find worth discussing, from my own religious-ness (or lack of it) is the exact question y'all are discussing. The issue of where faith comes from.
It is obvious, of course, that there is a basic human impulse to faith-- whether it's a faith in the forces of nature, or the Judeo-Christian God, or just that everything will turn out OK in the end. Personally, I have been raised to be essentially irreligious-- my parents are both the classic Bitter Lapsed Catholics, and I am the only child in my family who was baptised. The only reason I even was baptised was pressure from my grandparents.
So, raised to be irreligious, holidays like Christmas and Easter and such have always been about a big dinner with the extended family, exchanging gifts, etc. My parents are not anti-religion, and they have always told us to respect the Faith of others. however, it seems that the effect of being raised without any religion leads to, big surprise, a lack of faith. And so, while my parents both have a vague faith in "something" God-like, my siblings and I don't really have anything. I don't feel any great loss at this. Earlier in my life, I rejoiced in it. But, without some kind of Spiritual Awakening-type moment, like Linnea just wrote about, how does faith grow? No matter how reasonable a specific faith may sound-- Judaism, for me, makes so much sense that... I almost believe all of it-- I cannot let myself have Faith. It is just not how I'm wired. So, do I pretend to believe it, and hope that one day I will? Do I keep reading, keep questioning, and maybe never find it? There was a point, a month or two ago, when I thought I had it all down. It was all making so much sense-- and then I got to a passage in the book I was reading about The Big Guy. "Who is this? God? What?" I thought-- and then I remembered. I don't believe in that guy! (obviously I did not literally forget what God meant. I am trying to illustrate my moment of recognition.) And there went that. If I don't believe in the guy, why should I follow all of his rules? Especially if I was following a lot of them anyway.
This has kind of petered out. I was trying to get it to a question-- the question of where Faith comes from. Of course, the answer that is easiest is "From God."
and I had some great concept to end this whole diatribe/statement, but I forget it. Sorry if this was rambling and non-sensical. My writing style is basically that I pretend I'm writing a paper... and then I remember that this is an Internet Message Board, and I try to be funny or something.
-Dan
-
WARNING: I'm going to say some stuff about faith and Judaism. Jough may think it is ridiculous, but I think Jough usually thinks I'm pretty ridiculous anyway. Also, what is said below may or may not reflect the opinions of any given Jewish congregation or organization. Very possibly not, although I think most of it can be supported by a reading of the teachers. Also, I'll probably ramble. This is brought on by theinevitable's post, so I suppose it cannot be prevented, only prepared for.
So you may be aware of Will Eisner's A Contract With God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Contract_with_God). It's one of the classic graphic novels, often considered the first true graphic novel (rather than "comic book"), and the title story is possibly the finest work of short Jewish fiction produced in the second half of the twentieth century.
Anyone who reads the story will see the titular contract; it is written on a stone by Frimme Hersh at the beginning of the story. This is not the only contract with God to which the title refers, however. Judaism itself is, in fairly literal and doctrinally-accepted terms, a contract with God. You've probably heard the term "the Ark of the Covenant". A covenant, as you probably know if you stop to think about it, is essentially a notarized contract. The Ark was the stamp of authenticity on the contract between God and the Jews.
(As a possibly-interesting and relevant note, "The Ten Commandments" is a bit of a mistranslation. Jews often translate it as "The Ten Utterances", but it could just as validly be called "The Ten Contractual Terms". The very first is "I Am The Lord Your God" - hardly a commandment, but a pretty clear statement of who exactly the party of the first part is.)
Here's the part where it gets into the matter of faith: None of the terms of the contract demand a belief in God, His absolute power, or the truth of the Torah's stories about the creation of the world and the history of Israel. Obviously, someone who follows the 613 terms of contract presumably has at least a faint belief that they are in some way valid, but there is no demand of unshakeable faith in God or unswerving love thereto. I only believe in God sometimes myself. He is a better Jew who follows the commandments constantly without ever believing that God exists than he who is blind with religious ecstasies and fails to put forth the slightest effort towards the commandments.
Sometimes Christians, who typically put more weight on faith than Jews, are offended by this and think of it as lip service or materialism. To a Jew, lip service is claiming to love God but not following His commandments, while someone who does not believe in God but dutifully follows the mitzvot is much more devoted to the covenant than anyone who is certain of his final reward could be said to be.
I don't know if this is interesting or useful to anyone, but theinev's talk about almost believing Judaism but not having "Faith" made me want to type this up. If all that's stopping you is not being Certain Of God, well, don't let that get in your way. Of course, if you just don't want to or don't feel comfortable with it, then obviously don't. I'm just saying, while a Religious Experience may be nice, it's not everything. (But you'd probably want to stick with "New Reform" or Reconstructionist congregations. Despite my feelings about among the commandments being to learn and question the commandments so we can understand them better, the Orthodox would probably give me long disapproving glares.)
-
I've been avoiding this thread, although reading it avidly, as I tend to feel I would come across like a huge jackass here. I dug into the old religion threads we had, but... That was then. And Linnea's post brought up so many thoughts on the subject.
My parents are of the scientific side of the gamut. I have enough arguments with my father trying to teach him about quantum entanglement, that's how rooted to scientific evidence he is! And so i was brought up an atheist, but spent an awful long time as an agnostic. And yet now I find it more and more difficult to comprehend religion, hence my growing interest in this thread. As others here, I just want to understand.
I had an... acquaintance who believed she was being spoken to by Jesus and God constantly, that they instructed her as voices in what to do. She knew she heard other voices, those that told her to do bad things, and she could never give me an answer as to why these two sets of voices were distinguishable, other than by the things they told her to do. Now, I'm not by any means claiming that all religious people are clinically insane, but those who hear voices in their head? Apparently a certain crazy President?
And I can't help but think that kind of religion is very dangerous. I personally don't believe certain choices based on religious belief are what I would call rational.
I had chosen to leave this out, but it makes it back in based on my last point.
I heard an argument recently (trite but interesting nonetheless) that this guy who was an atheist, should be elligible to not sign up for a Draft because he was an atheist. He wanted to claim that as he believed he would not exist after death, that his life was more important to him than a religious person's is to them. As I say, it's certainly a greatly flawed, and trite argument, don't get me at all wrong here! But, consider suicide bombers. Is it a rational decision to blow yourself up, for any reason, because you believe you will die a martyr and be rewarded in your heaven? I'd say clearly not.
I want to understand religion, I even would like very much to have faith in something. I would like most to have faith that the human race could set up social standards based purely on morals and ethics, but then I guess that's the kind of thing that would mean disproving the existence of a god first.
I could go on, but I am trying not to say things that would frustrate anyone. 'Cause I care about y'all, and more than anything I do think it's a prerequisite moral to allow anyone to think or believe whatever they want. That said, I think it's important to be able to discuss these things openly, as otherwise it becomes a minefield, and if there
s anything the subject of religion needs less of, it's scary backlashes.
Now, here's my cartoon of Mohammed...
-
I'm with inev that the more I hear about Judaism the more sense it makes to me and what Ben-san just described really re-inforced that, they seem like a people who have managed to figure out how to incorporate rational thinking into religion so that they are not governed by faith alone and that is really cool.
While we are sharing...
Though I wouldn't have described myself as such at the time for my generation and my country I was a fairly religious kid. During high school I (voluntarily) went to a short mass every other week (about 20 minutes before school), I used to say the Hail Mary literally every day when I passed a statue of the blessed virgin by the entrance to my school. It was a catholic school (christian brothers actually) but not exactly the type of place that crams the religion down your throat, after year 9 I think it was religious lessons were voluntary and even before that they weren't particularly full on or anything. Suffice to say that going to mass once a week and praying regularly would qualify you as unusually religious.
The thing I wanted to talk about was the Hail Mary: Basically that felt to me like a moment in my day when I could talk to God or Mary or whoever and as much ask them to look out for the people in my life as to get my own thoughts in order. I never believed in a literal interpretation of the bible and I was quite fascinated by the historical figure of jesus (as opposed to the guy in the books) but I enjoyed this feeling of just talking to someone who understood me and who I could just speak to.
Anyway like Linnea I had this weird moment of spiritual awakening in my case it was during my first year of uni when I was filling out a survey for the evangelical society and realised how totally irrelevant to faith and living a good life everything they were concerned with was (generally literal interpretations of the bible).
I'm not going to pretend like I suddenly realised I'd been being an idiot my whole life, rather it gradually dawned on me that the things I thought were important about religion were things that were part of my core values anyway and they would continue to exist whether I was religious or not. Basically it came down to accepting that without any evidence for G-d etc. being religious seemed to me like trying to find an excuse for living a good life and I didn't need that because I thought I should be doing that anyway.
I still go to midnight mass at christmas every year and I still feel in the atmosphere what I used to but now I think it's coming from the people around me not from a beard in the sky.
Yeah, becuase you all needed to read that.
-
I think I'm going to become an Epicurean (http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm)!
(Man that is a different meaning of that word than I knew. Education!)
I'm not certain how accurate those numbers are but as far as fast facts go it's vaguely interesting. (this is only mildly related, I just happened to run across it today.)
-
WARNING: I'm going to say some stuff about faith and Judaism. Jough may think it is ridiculous, but I think Jough usually thinks I'm pretty ridiculous anyway.
Dang, I never said you were ridiculous! What is it with people thinking that I DO NOT LIKE THEM lately?
Anyway, just work with me for a second. Putting your own beliefs aside for a second, if someone came up to you and said that they believed in an invisible being who always watched over them and that same being also made the universe in like, a week, you would think that they were being silly. That's all I'm saying. The very idea of God is akin to something a child would invent when he felt lonely. It's a grand idea, but it's an idea with no basis in anything. It was pulled completely out of someone's ass a long time ago and somehow lots of other people said "Sounds good to me!"
Judaism itself is, in fairly literal and doctrinally-accepted terms, a contract with God. You've probably heard the term "the Ark of the Covenant". A covenant, as you probably know if you stop to think about it, is essentially a notarized contract. The Ark was the stamp of authenticity on the contract between God and the Jews.
But what do you do if God doesn't keep up his end of the bargain?
He can smite your ass, because he's all-powerful, but we're not, so the contract is one-sided.
The very first is "I Am The Lord Your God" - hardly a commandment, but a pretty clear statement of who exactly the party of the first part is.)
Isn't the commandment "...and you shall have no other gods before me?" I see your point, though, that the first commandment definitely defines Party the First.
He is a better Jew who follows the commandments constantly without ever believing that God exists than he who is blind with religious ecstasies and fails to put forth the slightest effort towards the commandments.
This brings up the difference between actions and intentions, though. Is someone a good person only because they fail to do bad or hurtful things out of fear of otherworldly punishment? Wouldn't the person who felt compassion and concern for his fellow man and who WANTED in his heart to be honourable be "more good" than someone who was acting good because he was afraid of some big guy beating the shit out of him?
To a Jew, lip service is claiming to love God but not following His commandments
This is true for Christians too.
I'm just saying, while a Religious Experience may be nice, it's not everything.
Well, without the faith you don't have religion, you have human morality. You don't have to believe in god to Do The Right Thing and lead a good life.
While I don't believe that Jesus was god, I still wouldn't discount his teachings (or at least, whatever teachings are attributed to him - it's not really clear that he actually ever said the things that were written in the chrsitian bible many decades after his death - and when you take into account the discrepencies in the books of the bible that were conveniently left out by a VOTE by Catholic bishops, well, it starts to look less like a holy book and more like a work of competent fiction).
Jesus was a Jew and found that his brethren weren't living up to their contract with god. He dumbed it down for the fast-living jetset of his time by offering up two new commandments: love god with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.
I don't know how the first one has any meaning to the second, but the second one is a pretty good idea (neighbour in this case just meaning "other people"). You'd have a hard time breaking the original commandments if you keep that ONE in mind.
-
Dang, I never said you were ridiculous! What is it with people thinking that I DO NOT LIKE THEM lately?
Anyway, just work with me for a second. Putting your own beliefs aside for a second, if someone came up to you and said that they believed in an invisible being who always watched over them and that same being also made the universe in like, a week, you would think that they were being silly. That's all I'm saying. The very idea of God is akin to something a child would invent when he felt lonely. It's a grand idea, but it's an idea with no basis in anything. It was pulled completely out of someone's ass a long time ago and somehow lots of other people said "Sounds good to me!"
But what do you do if God doesn't keep up his end of the bargain?
Dude, God is faithful and he loves us. That's the point, is that he always holds up his end of the bargain. He's not the one who keeps fuck*ng up. We're the ones who wage war and do other terrible stuff.
-
q-- as of that pronouncement, you are the exact person my Latin teacher warned us we would meet out in the "real world."
epicureanism... man. talk about an idea that everyone in the Roman Empire totally screwed up. Am I right? Am I right?
Ben-san-- that is reallly, really interesting. I can't really say it any better than that. I will certainly keep up my inquiries into Judaism.
Jough-- if you believe in an "invisible man in the sky who loves us," it isn't that much of a leap to imagine that he's perfect and will not break a contract.
-
Yeah, I guess once you believe in an invisible magick being you'll believe in fuck*ng anything.
Still, no one has ever been able to answer this simple question: why believe in God/Allah/Whatever and not in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)? They all make about as much sense as the other. Why choose? How do you choose? Everyone believes that their God is the One True God but of course not everyone can be right.
What if you're a Christian and Islam is really the true religion? You're pretty much fucked then, right, heathen?
-
What if you're a Christian and Islam is really the true religion? You're pretty much fucked then, right, heathen?
This is the problem I have with "religion" as opposed to "faith" or "spirituality". I don't think they are all the same thing.
To me, "faith" is the feeling that there is a higher power or higher order of existence and the desire to learn more about and become closer to that higher power or order. I believe faith of this sort is innate in human beings.
"Religion" is a human social construct. It's a set of rules, practices or ideas designed to enhance faith. Relgions are cultural institutions. Relgions can be a way for people to join together to enhance their faith. Relgions can be a way for elites to control the thoughts and actions of the masses of their culture.
To be religious is to say "I believe this is the set of rules that will lead me to God." I don't think there is a single set of rules/practices/actions that will lead one closer to God. I do think there is a higher power. I do think that it's vital to try to get learn more about/live in harmony with/get closer to that higher power. But I don't count of religion to be of much help to me in that quest, so I don't put my faith in it.
-
q-- as of that pronouncement, you are the exact person my Latin teacher warned us we would meet out in the "real world."
epicureanism... man. talk about an idea that everyone in the Roman Empire totally screwed up. Am I right? Am I right?
Heh.. man, I believe I already said that all the Latin I know came through vigorous beatings at the Catholic church.
(http://www.misterqueue.com/talked.gif)
-
Still, no one has ever been able to answer this simple question: why believe in God/Allah/Whatever and not in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://www.venganza.org/)? They all make about as much sense as the other. Why choose? How do you choose? Everyone believes that their God is the One True God but of course not everyone can be right.
Because you don't choose what you believe. When you choose a religion, you choose the one that most closely matches what you already believe, however you have come to believe it.
I can't wake up one morning and decide to believe with absolute faith that God exists, or that meat is murder, or that the Patriot Act really has my best interests in mind. At best, I can try to convince myself of these things by appealing to evidence (the practices of much of the meat industry) or to things I already believe more strongly (I believe that sheep and chickens are cute, so if I think about that I'm less likely to want to eat them).
As to why I think you think I'm ridiculous, it's either (a) because I am strongly espousing a point of view that you have repeatedly stated in this thread that you believe to be ridiculous, or (b) because I always assume you are thinking somebody to be ridiculous in much the same way I always assume Bobby is drunk when he's in the chat channel. Take your pick.
-
As to why I think you think I'm ridiculous, it's either (a) because I am strongly espousing a point of view that you have repeatedly stated in this thread that you believe to be ridiculous, or (b) because I always assume you are thinking somebody to be ridiculous in much the same way I always assume Bobby is drunk when he's in the chat channel. Take your pick.
I think, and I'm only jumping in because I concurred with Herr Jough earlier, that one can hold a belief to be ridiculous and yet still feel that the believers of said belief aren't ridiculous. I mean, back in High School I wore some ridiculous things. My Dad might have said "that is a ridiculous outfit" but I don't think he would've thought me a "ridiculous person" simply for wearing the outfit.
There is an exception to this rule of course, I will never understand people who can eat cheesecake and I hate the stuff and by extension hate all cheesecake eaters. Death to cheesecake eaters!
-
Q hates cheesecake eaters. Hates them to hell!
-
There is an exception to this rule of course, I will never understand people who can eat cheesecake and I hate the stuff and by extension hate all cheesecake eaters. Death to cheesecake eaters!
You and your cheesecake-not-eating ways will Learn in the end.
Also, going through the thread there's some stuff I didn't address, so MORE INCOMING
God holds up His end of the contract. He's omnipotent, so what motivation does He have to welch?
God also does not smite people for failing to uphold the contract. He offers the contract, and it's up to the individual to accept or decline it. Declining the contract, or even breaking it off, does not get you smited, it gets you ignored; you are no longer favored or disfavored by God. Traditionally, an actual smiting would involve actually pissing God off rather than just quitting the contract.
-
I was raised Protestant -- my father's family (though not him, necessarily) was STRONGLY Methodist, my mother grew up Episcopalian, and I went to a Presbyterian school from kindergarten through 12th grade.
Basically, when I look back on the way I thought the world worked then, it felt really good to have everything settled for me. Having a Religion to answer all your questions is really comforting. There's no uncertainty -- good or bad, the events that surround your life occur due to God's will.
Late in high school, some events changed my perspective on the benevolence of Religion and those who speak with God's authority. I typed out all the details, but I'm not sure everyone needs/cares to read them, so I have colored them the same gray as the background and left them at the end of my post. You can highlight it if you want to read it, but it really has very little to do with the discussion so there's not a whole lot of point to discussing it further. Anyway, I started thinking about the role of humanity in the practice of religion, and started learning about stuff that was never taught in my school -- how the Bible has changed over the past milennia, for example.
Basically, my conclusion was that people are inherently selgiraffe, and this is bad for humanity as a whole. We as a species need to consider our society to be more important than our individual needs in order to achieve whatever it is we're ultimately capable of. Organized religions are good tools for this, and most of them have the same general principles at their heart, which basically want us to stop being greedy idiots and work together. This is good.
The problem I have is that Organized Religions are run by people, who are still greedy and selgiraffe, and some of those people use the power of their position within the organization for their own benefit. Most of the horrible things that have been done in the name of religion have had some person's greed at their heart. The treasures in Vatican City aren't there because The Lord Blessed Them, they're there because humans in the organization convinced other humans that there would be an Eternal Reward for supplying those treasures. Pat Robertson's suits are not paid for by The Lord's Bounty, they're paid for by his corporation who gets money from advertisers, syndicators, and people who send him money because they think he'll do The Lord's Work with it. The gilt statues of Vishnu were paid for by thousands of people who believe that their sacrifice helps their souls.
And the thing is, I don't believe that it's a bad thing for people to want to give money to causes they believe in. Organizations need money in order to achieve their goals, and it's really exceptionally rare that an entire organization is full of people who allow their own wants to supersede the values of the organization as a whole. But there are enough, and they're in enough religions for me to be skeptical of all of them.
So what are the Beliefs at my core? I Believe that the greatest evil is entropy, and the ultimate purpose of all life is to stave off entropy for as long as it can. Working for purely selgiraffe desires doesn't achieve this goal. Subsuming your desires in order to help others achieve does. I Believe that religion is an invention of humanity, but not necessarily a bad one. I Believe there are forces that shape the world that we don't necessarily comprehend or even have guessed about yet. I Believe that what we think of as God is the whole of existence, and our inquisitiveness about the world is how we get closer to comprehending it. These Beliefs aren't the ones I held as a child, or even necessarily ten years ago, but they define how I act and are part of who I am. I certainly don't feel as warm and fuzzy about the world as I did when I was 15, but now I'm absolutely certain that my own actions and choices are what determine my future.
I think my personal worldview is compatible with religions, but people in those religions don't tend to believe that. I'm not sure what the answer is there.
So, the story. It's basically some people being human but hiding behind God's Will. It really isn't worth discussing further, so let's not drag these events into the thread as a whole.
There was this guy at school who did some bad stuff as a freshman and sophomore but settled down and was allowed to stay. Last semester of our senior year, though, some yearbook photographer was taking his picture in the hall and he grabbed his crotch for one. Despite the fact that only the yearbook staff saw it, this "lewd act" was enough to get him expelled. We weren't happy -- almost everyone in our class loved that guy -- and we tried to voice our feelings. The principal and superintendent allowed the first few appointments with students, but refused any others. We tried to get everyone the chance to sign a petition supporting him, but teachers kept confiscating it. They called a Special Class Meeting where our principal told us how God's Laws mandated that they expel him for this lewd act, and lied to us about what our peers said in those meetings and on the petition.
Earlier that school year, several members of the football team (who went deep in the playoffs) were found to be hazing freshmen in ways that would have been called sexual assault had charges been filed. The only people who were suspended for it were the second string players. The ringleaders, all starters, were "warned" and faced "disciplinary action" which basically consisted of working out before and after school under supervision of the coaching staff. Strangely enough, none of the information about this incident was published in the monthly parental newsletter, was never acknowledged by anyone official, and wasn't ever spoken about.
The same people under the same authority made these decisions, and continued to preach that they were following God's will in doing so. God, judging by their words, wanted the football players, who actually sexually abused other human beings, to continue playing sports and bringing Glory to the school, but didn't want the student who had a non-publicized photo taken of him making a rude gesture to be allowed to graduate, because he was a "bad influence."
-
Dude, God is faithful and he loves us. That's the point, is that he always holds up his end of the bargain. He's not the one who keeps fuck*ng up. We're the ones who wage war and do other terrible stuff.
What then, does God do?
Only love us? I have animals for that...
What you said has honestly just brought up a brick wall for me.
-
I think I'm feeling the same as Slink here, thinking 'So what does God do with the rest of His time?'
I know the normal answer (at least the one I've been presented with) is that He is unknowable and we can't expect to comprehend Him etc. but that's not really an answer, just an excuse for ignoring the question. The idea of God just seems to create more problems than it solves that's what I'm saying. I know this doesn't necessarily mean it's not true but when we have exactly 0 evidence either way I'm just the type of person that leans towards the simpler explanation.
-
this is the one thing I've never gotten.
Either "there was a singularity, but then for some reason it exploded, and all of the matter in the universe came from there. we do not know where it came from, or why it exploded. it was just random. everything that has happened since then has been due to chance, the laws of physics, etc"
or
"there was God. and then he created the universe, the earth, mankind, etc. we do not know where he came from, or why he created us/the universe/etc. He/She/Diety just is. Everything that has happened since then is the result of his creation, of the laws which he created for the universe, etc."
both of these seem pretty far-fetched. Even if you can prove everything back to the Big Bang or what-have-you, the Big Bang is still a pretty out-there idea. At least, to me.
I thought of this because I was in a science class where half the class was saying "God just made everything? that makes no sense!" and the other half was saying "everything just came from a big bang? that makes no sense!"
-
I think I'm feeling the same as Slink here, thinking 'So what does God do with the rest of His time?'
I know the normal answer (at least the one I've been presented with) is that He is unknowable and we can't expect to comprehend Him etc. but that's not really an answer, just an excuse for ignoring the question.
That's essentially what every discussion I've gotten into with a faith oriented person has ended up being. In my mind it's the "..a wizard did it." Defense of Xena on the Simpsons.
(The reference being that a bunch of Xena nerds were asking about discrepencies in the episodes and she said "Any time you see something that doesn't make sense or is a discrepancy, a wizard did it."
To them, faith is that wizard. That's what it boils down to as far as the difference between the believer and saaaay myself.
-
I think I'm feeling the same as Slink here, thinking 'So what does God do with the rest of His time?'
You think it's easy making sure gravity keeps pulling every mass in the universe towards every other mass? Dude's got plenty to occupy his time.
-
Yeah but by definition an omnipotent being must have some downtime.
I'm not saying I can rule out the existance of a higher power just that I don't see any evidence for one now and the ones we come up with seem to have some pretty big logical holes in them so it just makes more sense to me to assume there isn't one.
-
Yeah but by definition an omnipotent being must have some downtime.
I'm not saying I can rule out the existance of a higher power just that I don't see any evidence for one now and the ones we come up with seem to have some pretty big logical holes in them so it just makes more sense to me to assume there isn't one.
Sure, if that's how you feel. Faith is, as I've said earlier, not something that can be established or dispelled by logic.
Although an omnipotent being doesn't have to have downtime if he doesn't want to, more or less by definition.
-
OK, to get back into this after deep breaths and etc.
I feel it's bullying for anyone to call bullshit what I feel the core of my identity is. I'm a Christian, raised that way since before I remember - no choice involved. My beliefs and my values have impacts on many decisions I make, on things I do, on how I deal with my kids and my troubles. For one to call my core beliefs bullshit is not only plainly wrong from my point of view but belittling, bullying and belying ignorance of what Christianity can and should be about. Casting disparaging commentary on something that important is basically telling me you don't like me. Certain it's telling me there is no respect for my values and feelings.
On the other hand, Jough, as a friend (that's the category I leave you in) I'm interested by your statement that you'll take me up on meeting on the other side and hearing me tell you you were right if there is nothing there but you said "I hope I'm wrong".
That's a seed of faith. If you take that hope and give it the right things it needs to grow, you could find a faith in your life. It's not up to me to decide what kind of faith it might become but if you want it it's there for you.
You can call me a superstitious moron or whatever you like, but I pray for you guys sometimes - I feel bad not always remembering to - Paul's had his share of troubles, when you were posting about eye problems a while back and about more current things, I said some words for you guys. And others, too, AsherDan for his wife and baby, and for their peace and comfort during the tragedy they endured before, Mel's health troubles, Linnea when she first decided to take a huge risk and move off to the distant outskirts of nowhere. Prayer never hurt anyone, and I know in my Christian heart that the prayers of others have carried me through some tough times. There's enough negativity in the world about so many things, so many people saying things that are untrue, unwise, uncomforting and unkind. Say some kind, supportive and caring words. Prayer is good.
Linnea and Ben have some really wonderful posts in here and I'm enjoying them. One thing that I try to do with my faith life is to keep it uncomplicated. I think seeking explanations for everything and rationales for everything, trying to hold God accountable to human standards, thinking that we have a 'deal' or a 'bargain' with God makes things overly complex and allows us to pour too much of our human, fallen selves into the mix.
Edit: the next statement is biased toward very simplistic Christianity - but of course there are a myriad of faith paths from which you may choose
'God is love' is a good place to start. It's easy and it's true. Love as an emotion has no real value to us from a biological standpoint. But it's real and it allows us to do things we might never imagine. Love is a pretty great gift from God.
I love you guys especially when I'm at my insanest irrational angry incomprehensible silly posting stage. And if it seems like a good idea, I'll be praying for you too.
-
I feel it's bullying for anyone to call bullshit what I feel the core of my identity is.
But what if they honestly think that something you believe is bullshit? I agree that using words like "bullshit" isn't the most tactful or respectful way to proceed, but the bullshitters have as much right to their opinion as you do.
I think this is a problem that our society is facing on a lot of fronts these days. We tend to dehumanize people if we disagree with them in a particular area. This is most obvious in the political arena, but it crops up other places too.
It's a very fine line. To a very great extent, what you believe determines who you are. As you say, if I disrespect your beliefs I am disrespecting you. On the other hand, I can know, respect and love a person and not understand or agree with everything they believe. I may not understand what God means to you or exactly how God fits into your life, but I can still like the final product.
-
Better than I could've said it.
I think this was exactly what I was trying to say, only put more eloquently. Thank you for this AW.
-
I think seeking explanations for everything and rationales for everything, trying to hold God accountable to human standards, thinking that we have a 'deal' or a 'bargain' with God makes things overly complex and allows us to pour too much of our human, fallen selves into the mix.
I am going to endeavor not to take offense here, because I know none is intended, and just say that I'm glad stripping it down to "God Is Love" works for you. It doesn't for me; Judaism is a religion that holds studying, inquiring, and analyzing as high virtues, both in terms of the spiritual and ordinary world. That works better for me than "God Is Love" or any other expression of faith as blind emotion.
(Maybe this will seem incompatible with my previous statements about the dividing line between faith and logical proof, but it's not, in a way that would make this post way less concise to explain.)
-
I think this was exactly what I was trying to say, only put more eloquently. Thank you for this AW.
He always does.
~Paul
-
It is true, I think, that Israel actually means something like "he who struggles with G-d", No?
My own personal faith certainly extends beyond "G-d is love" but I think that Christians do have a fundamentally different relationship with God than that of Jews - would it be correctly characterized as somewhat confrontational? - and Christianity is less analytical in general, the scholarly tradition is certainly deeper in Judaism and of course, Christians believe that Christ was G-d's gift of love and redemption to the world.
I certainly appreciate the differences and to be sure, Judaism is to my mind more complex than Christianity in terms of Scripture interpretation and Law...so I should probably amend my post slightly to reflect that it's a biased concept toward Christianity (although clearly most regular posters here are all-too-aware of my bias toward Christianity)
(And I did)
-
He always does.
~Paul
Gosh, thanks. I...I...Don't know what to say...
-
My own personal faith certainly extends beyond "G-d is love" but I think that Christians do have a fundamentally different relationship with God than that of Jews - would it be correctly characterized as somewhat confrontational? - and Christianity is less analytical in general, the scholarly tradition is certainly deeper in Judaism and of course, Christians believe that Christ was G-d's gift of love and redemption to the world.
I would not characterize it as confrontational. It's hard for me to be specific about the differences because any terms I could use with regard to the Jewish religious experience would, I think, be very easy to misinterpret from a Christian perspective, and it is the kind of thing where a misunderstood word could cause a lot more confusion than a lack of statement. I think that in this regard we are speaking seperate languages which are largely but not entirely mutually intercomprehensible.
-
For clarification, after reading over my original post in this thread I didn't state my position as clearly as I had hoped. I never intended to call anyone (AD and Ben in particular) who has faith full of shit, it's only when you try to provide proof of something that is unprovable do you become subject to mockery in my opinion. Both AD and Ben have been clear that their is no proof for their faith and I respect that. It's people who conjure up invisible holy atoms to explain transubstantiation that give me a good chuckle. I mean really, can't we have a laugh at things that are patently absurd? Have we become that sensitive here? Do you support this invisible holy atoms theory Dawg? Do you believe that the bananna being a nice fit for your mitt is proof of intelligent design (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5479410612081345878)? Do you believe that evolution is science fiction (http://www.paulmcrae.com/images/Miscellany/Misc/DSCN8426-ES500.jpg)? I'll reiterate, I have respect for people of faith, but these examples aren't faith, it's trying to pass off hogwash as proof which is really the antithesis of faith.
~Paul
-
Although an omnipotent being doesn't have to have downtime if he doesn't want to, more or less by definition.
This just goes back to where I have trouble with the whole concept, if G(totha)D exists in any way we understand the term then it is a being many orders of magnitude beyond our ability to comprehend and so all these stories we've come up with relating to that being (I say stories because even if they are based on truth a few thousand years of being handed down means there must be a decent dollop of creative interpretation in there) just don't ring true to me because they involve trying to represent something that should be basically incomprehensible by human standards.
And Paul is right as usual, this thread had more to do with laughing at the silly things people do because of their faith than mockery of faith itself. I don't think AD (sorry to single you out man but you did the splitting) was offended by this but just split it off as a pre-emptive move in case it went somewhere more controversial which had the effect of people thinking he was offended and feeling the need to justify their position which ended up sapping all the humour out the whole situation.
-
This just goes back to where I have trouble with the whole concept, if G(totha)D exists in any way we understand the term then it is a being many orders of magnitude beyond our ability to comprehend and so all these stories we've come up with relating to that being (I say stories because even if they are based on truth a few thousand years of being handed down means there must be a decent dollop of creative interpretation in there) just don't ring true to me because they involve trying to represent something that should be basically incomprehensible by human standards.
Well, they're attempting to represent the interactions of such a being with humans. Nowhere in the Torah, at least, is there any attempt to inform us of how God's mind works or why God wants the things He does. A human's motivations might be incomprehensible to a dog, but the dog will (or at least can) learn that the human does want the stick fetched and doesn't want the rug pooped on even if he doesn't understand why.
Also, Paul, I agree those dudes are hell of wacky. They do not understand the distinction between faith and science.
-
After reading this thread, Ben-San, you're right - you are kind of ridiculous. Happy now?
AlohaDawg - of course we're friends and I still don't "get" people's (blind) faith in God, but I'm of course also a human and therefore not completely faithless. I believe in gravity even though I can't see it. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, etc. I believe in love and vendetta.
But I can't trick myself into believing something that makes no sense to me. Some people can. I can't. I tried. I would like to know what the TRUTH is but I fear it's unknowable. And some of you may be right. Maybe everybody's wrong. My point is that we don't know, and we can't know (maybe, or else we just don't know YET) and I have to admit I get a little angry and annoyed at people who claim that they DO know something that is inherently unknowable.
I will however continue to keep an open mind to new ideas about the nature of my existence. Maybe one of them will make sense to me some day.
Of course, since I'm overweight I don't have the right to exist in your mind anyway, so the point of an afterlife is moot, no?
-
After reading this thread, Ben-San, you're right - you are kind of ridiculous. Happy now?
I am indeed ridiculous but not for the reason you think. Most of the posts I've made in this thread, I typed with no ##### on.
But I can't trick myself into believing something that makes no sense to me.
Holy shit is that ever not what you should be doing. Believe what you believe, that's cool. Like I said.. you don't choose what you believe, I didn't either. Trying to force yourself into believing something is a dysfunction of faith.
-
you typed all of this with no *****s on? man. that is intense. I never have any *****s on.
did you formerly have a tattoo of a *****?
-
Of course, since I'm overweight I don't have the right to exist in your mind anyway, so the point of an afterlife is moot, no?
Oh, that one. Talk about a thread out of control. I think you won't be that way forever. You're a stubborn SOB.
Paul, I don't subscribe to any theories like that because I don't believe we are meant to understand such things, and also because I believe that transubstantiation is sort of 'theatre of the mind' type stuff. Our Pastors taught us that there are mysteries of faith and we should accept some things as simple truth.
The whole concept of tricking oneself into believing is really interesting to me. I would have to be tricked out of it! Some believe that is the role of evil in the world - to get people away from G-d. There are also many people who believe Hell isn't actually some hot stinky burny place with demons and Friendly's and Subaru Brats, but actually the state of being wholly separated from G-d.
-
You know I think you're an awesome guy AD, and if religion is even partly responsible for that, great. I am certainly not attempting to bully in disagreeing with your belief about an omnipotent deity however. I just don't believe in it and have an inquisitive mind.
What I do find scary is the extent to which religious people do feel victimised by atheists. Not merely christians. Look at the reaction to apostates in the muslim world. Hell, look at the reactions to heretics a couple of hundred years ago in christianity. From the outside, the US seems still like a christian-centric country, and for atheists to not be allowed to air their views based on the reactions... The atheists in the US media I know of have all received death threats merely for admitting they are atheists, let alone those who discuss religion as I do. If we're supposed to be all loving each other unconditionally, well, surely the religious right should be following that one to the letter?
As I say, particularly here, this is not about you AD.
It doesn't feel comparable really, but when strongly religious people tell me I'm insane for being an atheist, it has little to no effect on how I feel. But I can understand why it would be worse the other way around. I think...
As an agnostic (and even still really), I didn't have any problem with religion, merely the organisation of religion. Since at that point it clearly stops being about the religion for those in control. It's things like this religious leadership (for me religion was, and seems more personal than that anyway) and the reaction to non-believers that scares me about religion. A religious person is going to make decisions based on different criteria to an atheist in certain circumstances, and yet there's no distinction (I agree for very good reasons) when people take the reigns of power. A religious person is most likely going to make a decision based on very different criteria about say abortion. Now that's a doozy I admit, but how about wars. Are you going to feel worse letting people die, believing the way they lived their lives will dictate whether they go to Heaven or Hell? Or in believing that that's it? Once they're dead they're dead.
And certainly, if I see you waiting at the pearly gates before I ship on down to Hell, like Jough, I will perfectly gladly admit how wrong I was. I am proud to have my own beliefs, and to be sure of them, but I am not proud of the fact that I believe there to be no God. I have oft times desired to be able to have faith in a god.
So basically all this rambling was from me wanting to say, I think religious people need to start not being bothered by atheists denouncing their gods. It seems like a slippery slope towards partisan everything (religious peoples drinking tap, non-religious peoples drinking tap, I jest). That and do I need to even mention how many wars have been started by religion? I guess, if atheists can be thick enough skinned to live knowing they are all on their own, why can't religious people be thick enough skinned to ignore other people's beliefs and be sure in their own?
And not try to make us feel like dicks for speaking about our beliefs in earshot, kind of like how it has to be the other way round at the moment.
-
I feel it's bullying for anyone to call bullshit what I feel the core of my identity is. ... Casting disparaging commentary on something that important is basically telling me you don't like me. Certain it's telling me there is no respect for my values and feelings.
I can totally understand that. I'm not seeing that as a two way street these days. I know you are not an example of this, but many in your faith use statements of your faith to belittle anyone who disagrees. There's a lot of "persecuted majority" behavior coming from Christians. I know some of the blow back you'll see from me comes from that.
Is it fair? Not really.
I don't speak of my religion openly, and I've been looking at why. I've told myself that it's because it's no one's business. It isn't, and I've been happy with that. But after some introspection, it is because if no one knows my core beliefs, they cannot be held suspect, or belittled.
Currently my employer is a staunch Christian, I'm certain that he would not extend to me, the same courtesy that I've extended to him in regards to his beliefs.
That's just not right.
-
Dude, God is faithful and he loves us. That's the point, is that he always holds up his end of the bargain. He's not the one who keeps fuck*ng up. We're the ones who wage war and do other terrible stuff.
Swing by the Children's Hospital, and tell me what's going on with all those sick kids then.
Slink raises good points, and they are echoed by a blogger whose work on religion I greatly enjoy.
http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2006/07/down_on_a_muffi.html
In America, you are free to decide that God (or L. Ron Hubbard, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) wants you to wear a burka. Those of us with a more egalitarian view of gender roles are free to disagree with this choice,*** but we cannot compel you to stop wearing your burka. You have the freedom even to restrict your own freedom voluntarily.
But illiberal evangelicals are rarely satisfied with voluntarily restricting their own freedoms, they want to make such restrictions compulsory for everyone.
"What good does it do me," they ask, "to choose to wear my burka if I am still to be confronted by all those non-burka-clad females every time I go out in public?" Thus, they argue, their own religious freedom demands that others who do not share their beliefs must also submit to them -- that all women be forced to wear a burka**** so that they are free to maintain their own fragile sensibilities undisturbed by any reminders that there are alternatives.
Once you decide that your own freedom can only be secured by compelling everybody else to live according to your choices, then you cease to be a Very Nice Person.
-
Those of us whose barrier to faith include the presence of suffering in the world are, in my humble opinion, forgetting that we live in a world where evil (and therefore sin) were allowed to enter through the device of temptation. This world is, unfortunately, a fallen one where the presence of our living creator is unfortunately mitigated by the presence of evil. And no, I am not saying that kids suffer because of things other people did - it's not punishment. It's the state of the world we live in.
You can choose to acknowledge only the suffering in the world or you can choose to seek God (and therefore good) by seeing that there is also joy - there is redemption - there are cures - and there are miracles. If there was no suffering in the world there could be no joy either, I think - we would simply exist in a neutral state of being. We can choose to work in either direction - moving towards decreasing or increasing the amount of joy here on earth. Everything we say or do moves the balance one way or the other, regardless of if you believe in a religion or how strongly you believe.
Isn't it better to be positive than negative? Doesn't it feel better to people generally happy than generally mean or sad? (You may do this already, but) Go to that hospital and do what you can to make those kids happier, or healthier or both. Or find a cause that suits you. I hypothesize that some agnostics or atheists might find some grain of faith in doing these kinds of works...and if they don't, the works still stand on their own merits.
-
Those of us whose barrier to faith include the presence of suffering in the world are, in my humble opinion, forgetting that we live in a world where evil (and therefore sin) were allowed to enter through the device of temptation. This world is, unfortunately, a fallen one where the presence of our living creator is unfortunately mitigated by the presence of evil. And no, I am not saying that kids suffer because of things other people did - it's not punishment. It's the state of the world we live in.
Aren't you presupposing that the tale of the Garden of Eden is true, then?
I actually agree with a lot of what you say here, AD. Part of the appeal of Buddhism to me is that it doesn't attempt to gloss over the evil in the world; it's part of existence. Embrace the good and the beautiful that you find; try to reduce your attachment to material pleasures and you'll alleviate your suffering.
So that's all well and good. What I find untenable is the notion that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent being who will intervene in human affairs if we ask Him nicely. There's just too much crap in the world for that to be true.
-
So much of the crap in the world is caused by the people, though - and only the people are going to solve that problem. Buddhist people, Muslim people, Jewish people, Christian people, Agnostic people and Atheist people can all increase the general amount of good.
I love Buddhists for a funny reason: good Buddhists are what good Christians should be (and possibly vice versa) in terms of their interaction with a world filled with both good and evil.
I think that the creation story and the story of the Fall is largely allegorical but I do teach it to my kids because they learn very well from allegory (and much of the Bible is meant to teach people broad concepts through story) and will later develop intellectually and make decisions about "how" to believe once they have an understanding about "what" to believe (if that makes sense).
-
So cancer is caused by free will? Tsunami and earthquakes?
It seems the big G is pretty laissez-faire.
What's the difference between faith and superstition?
-
I am trying hard to find a way to articulate "Deism" that does not involve a Clock, or a clockmaker, or a watch.
-
A ton of cancer is caused by free will if you consider the choices people make. Smoking is a biggie. The chemicals in the environment that got there due to human industry are another. The rate of cancers would be much, much lower without many of the human interventions that have occurred. This is not to say that these things are "bad" but you can't deny the causation factors. Cancer is a pretty poor argument. Sure there is some random smiting, but many many cancers are unfortunately absolutely traceable to human factors (without a moral agenda - just being their industrial, creative or needy little selves).
Tsunamis and Earthquakes have been happening forever - that's a part of how the Earth works. It's nothing to do with the people on it or the Creator.
My discernment between Faith and Superstition probably won't work for you. (Linnea and/or Ben may want to answer this question as well, I'd be interested in their response.) To me, superstitions like, say, avoiding walking under ladders or breaking mirrors have no bearing on my life or experience. Those 'beliefs' are meaningless in the context of my whole life. However, my abiding belief in a loving God who has purchased redemption from sin and death by sending his Son to die for the sins of the world is real; it has demonstrated real transformative power in my life and the life of others; and prayer has demonstrated real results in my life.
You may be able to try to argue that the effects of my faith in my life are psychological and not real manifestations of some power working in, around and through me - but you know, it doesn't really matter to me because it is working for me and my life, and that of my family and children, and that of my friends in the church, and that number of people with positive, real energy working in the community is so powerful and such a mechanism of good that really, there is no reason to argue at all. The results speak for themselves.
-
But, if evil in the world, people, are responsible for the bad, then what of the good?
Cures for diseases you mention, but they were created by people. Or are you supposing that because the ability to make the cures is there it means God is responsible? I don't see any distinction between the ills and the joy caused by people. If the people bringing joy to others are religious, it's still the people who are bringing the joy. I see no evidence for God giving us anything, whatsoever, and I can't go by blind faith. It's just not who I am, and I see no reason to believe people, so many of whom are mistrustful, that I should put this faith in a God, as it's only the word of people we have to go on.
I guess maybe one could argue God only chooses to enlighten certain people with the feeling of true belief, but not only does that seem to go against the tenet of christianity, but, well the other part is one of those statements I leave out of these discussions.
-
Tsunamis and Earthquakes have been happening forever - that's a part of how the Earth works. It's nothing to do with the people on it or the Creator.
Your logic fails here. It has everything to do with the creator since S/He/It created HOW it worked.
I'm not saying your feelings aren't valid, but saying that a creator has little to do with how the general functions of a creation operates doesn't jive.
-
There is the concept of Grace - that is, G-d sends us grace constantly. We can choose to use that grace in our lives and our works - so the good, a lot of it, can be considered to proceed from G-d through His grace. Some may say that the non-good things that happen happen either in the absence of faith or in the presence of evil. So people are responsible for both the Good and the evil, either through G-d or in the absence of Him.
I would never say that only Christians do good, nor do only Christians benefit from Grace. There are many, many people in the world who aren't Christians but are clearly people of G-d. And there is no monopoly on enlightenment or belief.
Do you feel different - function differently, treat people differently, when you are happy? How about when you are in love? Or with the person you love? What if you felt that way all the time...loved and loving....and engaged in a mutual relationship that makes you happy and more productive and able to feel like you are a good, attractive, and worthy person? This sounds so hokey and so seventies, but a relationship with G-d (or a trusting and abiding faith) can make you feel unique and special and important and even help you understand that you needn't feel lonely or scared because something important is there for you and with you.
Your logic fails here. It has everything to do with the creator since S/He/It created HOW it worked.
I'm not saying your feelings aren't valid, but saying that a creator has little to do with how the general functions of a creation operates doesn't jive.
Well, logic is not nearly as important as faith in a discussion like this. We would both have to get into G-d's head to understand the true answer to the question. I don't think Tsunamis and Earthquakes are punitive nor are they meant specifically as a method of population reduction. I think they are part of the environment. They simply are. Perhaps they are just the effects of other necessary forces required for the whole system to work correctly. Assigning them a moral value, which I think is sort of the genesis of the original reference to them, doesn't make very much sense ro me.
-
That's my point, though. I'm not suggesting that God is causing the earthquakes just to fuck with us - I'm saying that he allows them to happen because he either a) doesn't give a shit b) finds them exciting to watch, or c) doesn't exist and therefore has nothing to do with the earthquakes.
I understand that God allows Free Will and therefore manmade evil, but what about God-made evil? Would you push one of your kids down a flight of stairs because you love them? Is that how God expresses his love? But hurting us and fuck*ng with us?
Keep in mind that the angry, asshole God is mostly in the Old Testament/Torrah. Did God's therapy help him to be less smiteful by the time his son was born? Maybe the little nipper softened the old man's rough edges...
-
This is the exact problem I've always gotten down to with any rational discussion on this. It's the whole "We do not understand god hence..." that I equated to "a wizard did it". It's kind of a catch all. In my book, I would say if he's god, well he defines the way those laws work doesn't he? I mean if he has to answer to something else then he's not exactly omnipotent.
But yes, it comes down to faith at this point and here is where my part of the discussion falls off. Thanks AD for the interesting viewpoints. I'm glad everyone was basically pretty good natured here in the end.
I love you messageboard... awwww.
-
But yes, it comes down to faith at this point and here is where my part of the discussion falls off. Thanks AD for the interesting viewpoints. I'm glad everyone was basically pretty good natured here in the end.
Yeah, that pretty much sums up the long post I was working on before. A good discussion though and actually worked some things out for me.
And indeed, as ever, such a great board.
-
*Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuugs*
-
um, the comment some of you are making about earthquakes/tsunamis assumes that God is focused on people. I mean, yeah, people die in earthquakes and tsunamis. that doesn't mean that they're evil, or good, or have any moral value whatsoever. they're just how the world works. death, too, is part of how the world works.
You could just as easily ask "if there's a God, why don't we all live forever? Doesn't he love us?"
as usual, I am articulating my beliefs poorly.
and using the word "articulating" to explain this.
-
um, the comment some of you are making about earthquakes/tsunamis assumes that God is focused on people.
Dude, the whole point is that God is focused on fuck*ng EVERYTHING all the fuck*ng TIME.
-
no, that's not what I meant. I mean, God's priority isn't necessarily to make people have happy + healthy lives.
I don't know. Maybe there's some other planet that's the one he really gets into. We were just a phase.
-
I don't know. Maybe there's some other planet that's the one he really gets into. We were just a phase.
Dang, now that would explain a lot...
-
As much as we might wish one of the terms of the contract was "God will bend or break the rules of physics and causality so that nothing miserable happens to you", it's not.
Incidentally, read "A Contract With God". I say this as much as a comics fan as as a Jew.
(It really bothered me to have two "as" in a row but there it is.)
-
You're talking about bending or breaking the rules of physics like God didn't *invent* the rules of physics, though, right? God isn't this dude who sits outside the universe. He *is* the universe, or at least created it. With purpose. Since God must be all-powerful (albeit not all-knowing because he gave that part up for free will, right?) then he surely has control over earthquakes and diseases and such. If he gave *that* control up, too, then he's starting to look less and less like God and more and more like just "someone more powerful than us."
If you saw someone you loved about to be hit by a bus, wouldn't you try to save them? At least a little "Look out!" ahead of time?
-
OK, from this thread I now think I understand something I never understood before. When bad things happen, religious people often respond that they must be part of God's plan for us. That the earthquake is somehow part of God's long-range good intentions even is we can't understand why, because he works in mysterious ways and all that.
Someone earlier in this thread said something along the lines of - we can know that God wants us to do something without understanding why, like a dog can understand that you want him to do something without understanding why.
This being obviously the kind of simile that I can understand, it made me think... I took my dog to the dentist the other day. She likes going to vets, so she didn't expect anything bad to happen. But then they anesthetized her and did nasty things. She woke up confused, uncomfortable and fearful. And totally uncomprehending.
I'm sure she wonders why I took her to that terrible place if I have good intentions for her. She doesn't understand that in the long run, I saved her from the pain of a rotten tooth and even possibly dying from an infection. My ways are often totally mysterious to her even though I have only her best interests at heart.
So, now I think I understand what it might mean to say that God is so far above us that the earthquakes and cancer and so on might be part of a plan that we can't understand.
I think that I still think that it is bullshit. But now it makes sense. It seems like bullshit, but not complete nonsense, and that seems like a big difference to me.
-
what she said.
imagine that my last several posts have been replaced by "what Wombat is about to say."
-
Actually, it would be more akin to someone about to bash your dog's head in with a baseball bat.
You have plenty of advanced warning, and the ability to stop him.
You just don't.
-
OK then. Maybe God is like my Mom. and we are like my dog.
my dog thinks my mom loves him. because, just like the rest of the family, she takes care of him, feeds him, etc.
but really, she is just waiting for him to die. She thinks he is disgusting and stupid. She wishes we had never gotten him.
(I love him though.)
-
but really, she is just waiting for him to die. She thinks he is disgusting and stupid. She wishes we had never gotten him.
Funny, that's exactly what your mom said she thought about you... last night! </jough mode>
-
Actually, it would be more akin to someone about to bash your dog's head in with a baseball bat.
No, see, that's what the dog thinks - that the dental work is no different from hitting her on the head with the baseball bat. She can't understand the difference. But she's wrong. Likewise, we are wrong that the earthquake or the cancer is just random cruelty, because we can't understand the big picture.
Again, I am not saying that I believe this. Just that I now understand that it actually is a coherent position to hold.
-
yeah, plus, this world is only fleeting and such. Afterlife of some kind?
-
So you're saying that getting cancer or dying in an earthquake or fire is good for a person, only we are too ignorant to see how?
Is that really what you think?
-
No, as I have been careful to say in both posts, I don't believe this. But there seem to be people who do, and now I understand what they mean.
Like I said, I still think it is bullshit, but it's coherent bullshit. It's not total nonsense. Maybe you have to be a recovering academic to understand what I mean by that difference, but to me they are totally distinct. I now understand the position although I still don't agree with it.
-
no, that's not what I meant. I mean, God's priority isn't necessarily to make people have happy + healthy lives.
Sort of. Think of G-d like a parent - he gives humanity everything they need to have happy + healthy lives but because we are blessed with free will AND because we are more or less very much like children, we don't always make the best choices for ourselves or for the gifts that we are given. I think G-d wants us to have happy healthy lives and I think that it's OK both to ask for those blessings for ourselves and others and required that we sacrifice some of our time, talent and possessions to help others less fortunate. And I think at least 90% of the people on this board probably volunteer or donate to some degree or another.
The processes that go on on this shiny little planet of ours more or less require that things like Tsunamis and Earthquakes happen. They've happened for eons, for longer than we've been here. There are plenty of ways to reduce or eliminate human casualties from these events - for the most part they occur in predictable places - people stay in those places for mainly human reasons and choices made by themselves and others.
-
As much as we might wish one of the terms of the contract was "God will bend or break the rules of physics and causality so that nothing miserable happens to you", it's not.
But... but... Isn't that exactly what God did when he parted the red sea for Moses? Most Christians I know think God performs little miracles all the time. I was talking to a guy not two weeks ago that told me about how he had a blow out on his RV while driving down a busy highway. His RV careend across 3 lanes of traffic, but God spared them hitting another car. It had to be God because that highway is always crowded, especially at that time of day. In this guys mind, God moved the other cars on the road out of his way so as to prevent something miserable happening to him. Why God didn't just prevent his tire from blowing out is a question I didn't ask. My Dad made a very similar claim many years ago when he and I were driving in a pickup truck that had not one, but two tires blow out. We didn't careen across traffic, but rather off the side of the road and down a hill that led to a drainage ditch. We stopped the car perilously close to the edge of the ditch. Had this blowout occurred any later we would have hit the (concrete lined) ditch at high speed and likely caused serious injury to ourselves and extensive damage to our vehicle. As it turned out, we escaped injury and aside from two blown tires, our truck was unharmed. Now I agree with you Ben that this was just a lucky break, but my Dad thinks it was the hand of God. My entire family is convinced that God cured my Cousin Hillary (http://www.paulmcrae.com/images/Miscellany/Misc/WEDDING_DRESS/DSCN10038-E-1024.jpg) of cancer. Because she was diagnosed with breast cancer, but it mysteriously disappeared. Can anyone say mis-diagnosis? No, I guess not, it must have been God. My Cousin Terri, who died of an aneurysm at the age of 38 wasn't so fortunate though. Oh, excuse me, God decided to call her home.
But I'm glad to see we are finally in agreement. Some Christians believe some silly bullshit.
~Paul
-
The processes that go on on this shiny little planet of ours more or less require that things like Tsunamis and Earthquakes happen. They've happened for eons, for longer than we've been here. There are plenty of ways to reduce or eliminate human casualties from these events - for the most part they occur in predictable places - people stay in those places for mainly human reasons and choices made by themselves and others.
People live by the sea because it's a source of food. So yeah it's a human reason, but not a selgiraffe one. I guess all those folks in Sumatra should just move away from the sea and the danger of tsunami. They can just drive their SUV's to work.
~Paul
-
Your use of disparaging/insulting terms aside, lets posit for a moment that Christians belief is misplaced.
What does that change?
On the one side we have people like your family - they have a certain measure of grace, some peace in their understaning that Someone is looking out for them, and their grief at loss is somewhat salved by their understanding that Terri is in a better place, free of pain and hurt, and with the Lord.
On the other side are the skeptic scoffers. Seemingly angry, embittered, scoffing at the silly beliefs of those others and apparently carrying a pantload of negativity about the world, the people in it, and their belief in silly 'bullshit'.
And of course people in between.
Obviously I'm hardly objective, but I think the first group have a means of being happier (or at least less unhappy) because they have an understanding of the world and their place in it that allows them to celebrate some bad things that happen because they believe they were spared worse things, understand good things that happen as blessings and celebrate them by offering thanks and praise, and believe that they are loved and cared for no matter where they are and who is around - even when surrounded by strangers or enemies! If having those kinds of feelings over loneliness, bitterness, angst and anger is the benefit of 'silly bullshit' I'll take my portion of silly bullshit every day and I'll do my best to share with anyone who wants or needs it.
And as for Sumatra and other Tsunami/Earthquake zones - this is 2006 and there is enough wealth in the world to make those people safe if that route were chosen and if the people there wanted to be helped. As humans, we have the capacity to make that decision and the resources to make it work. But the world and the people on it don't work that way - probably those people know the risks but they can't or won't move, and if they did, others would be unwilling to share their resources to make that happen. But, those folks have been living in those areas for hundreds of years and I'm sure they know the risks. The ocean is a source of food to be sure but people live inland too.
-
But... but... Isn't that exactly what God did when he parted the red sea for Moses?
I don't believe in taking the Torah as a historical research document. I could go into the multiple-truths stuff but frankly I'm pretty sure anyone who's not already into that will just dismiss it as a way of justifying bullshit. Just know that as far as historical and scientific truth goes, I don't think God parted the Sea Of Reeds all Aquaman Vs. Tempest styles. (On the other hand, I can believe pretty well that Aaron was a clever enough fucker to map out the low-tide paths and get their pursuers lost when the tide rose - by its name, the Sea of Reeds was more likely a heavy marsh. The Torah does not refer to it as being the sea we now call "the Red Sea". And who knows, maybe sending an oppressed people a charismatic leader whose brother is a clever bastard is a miracle in its way.)
I do believe that if God wants things to go a certain way, He may bend the odds in their favor, but the contract with God does not demand that bad things not happen to good people. Even taking the Torah as a literal document, those miracles were contracted on a case-by-case basis: God contacted a prophet and said "if the people do X, I will reward them with Y". Those miracles were performed and unless another prophet is contacted you probably shouldn't expect more radiant beams of fire from the sky except during thunderstorms.
-
I've never bowed out of a thread before, but I'm gonna here. Our arguments are going in a circular direction. I'll just conclude by saying, I love you Dawg, I love you Ben. And when we're all living in mansions in the sky we'll have to meet up and have a laugh at how young and serious we once were.
~Paul
-
And as for Sumatra and other Tsunami/Earthquake zones - this is 2006 and there is enough wealth in the world to make those people safe if that route were chosen and if the people there wanted to be helped. As humans, we have the capacity to make that decision and the resources to make it work. But the world and the people on it don't work that way - probably those people know the risks but they can't or won't move, and if they did, others would be unwilling to share their resources to make that happen. But, those folks have been living in those areas for hundreds of years and I'm sure they know the risks. The ocean is a source of food to be sure but people live inland too.
This seems to me to blame the victims in a distressing way. If there is a God, I hope he's the one who's taking me to the dog dentist for reasons beyond my understanding (and who, to beat the metaphor to death, perfectly understands my inability to understand). Not the one who lets poor people be screwed over by tsunamis because humans are crappy to each other and wealth is unequally distributed.
-
We're also talking about the same God who pulls the wings off of butterflies and fucked with Abraham and Job for his own pleasure. I mean, Old Testament (Torah) God was kind of an asshole.
I may have said that already.
Anyway, AD, I think you basically wrote "ignorance is bliss" above, which is true, I guess. But what if we're already in the light? What if we're aware that those shadows on the stones are not us, but just the light we're blocking from behind us?
Once we're unchained from the rock of religious bullshit there's really no going back, man. I've already seen the sun.
-
typically, looking at the sun blinds you.
(and on that note: OH shit, I am suddenly thinking of the movie Pi.)
-
God is in the numbers.
-
oh man. So, I just thought of a thing that would be hilarious.
"ok. Add two and two. It's... FOUR. Imagine, if the universe was random, it could be any number! two and two could be... a billion! But, instead, it is 4. Which is also the result of two times two, I might add. That's proof of the creator, right there."
I am not making fun, I swear. That scenario just popped into my head.
-
[w]hen we're all living in mansions in the sky we'll have to meet up and have a laugh at how young and serious we once were.
~Paul
I read that and found myself thinking of an interview I read with Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393327655/sr=8-1/qid=1152419100/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-4555461-6136829?ie=UTF8)":
One thing I can tell you is that we don't know what the actual relationship between consciousness and the physical world is. There are good reasons to be skeptical of the naive conception of a soul. We know that almost everything we take ourselves to be subjectively -- all of our cognitive powers, our ability to understand language, our ability to acknowledge anything in our physical environment through our senses -- this is mediated by the brain. So the idea that a brain can die and a soul that still speaks English and recognizes Granny is going to float away into the afterlife, that seems to be profoundly implausible. And yet we do not know what the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity ultimately is. For instance, we could be living in a universe where consciousness goes all the way down to the bedrock so that there is some interior subjective dimension to an electron. So I'm actually quite skeptical of our ever being able to resolve that question -- what the real relationship between consciousness and matter ultimately is.
-
"See, when you add the numerical value of mother and father it adds up to the same number for child!"
"No shit. It is that way by design."
"..."