Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

6 (50%)

no

6 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm

[CortJstr]

But isn't the whole idea behind Christianity that you ARE a soul and you HAVE a body? So that body is just a temporary vessle for that soul and is irrelevent once one moves on to their final reward. I have heard that some protestant sects place more importance on the shell but I have no idea how that came about.

I don't know what the Dawg's views are on this issue, but I think a lot of Christians believe this way, roughly.  But don't most Christians believe in a physical resurrection (and so the body would certainly be more than merely a vessel)?  Anyway, it certainly isn't the whole idea behind Christianity, and some believe that when you die, you rest until the resurrection.  Your spirit or soul doesn't go somewhere and wait for it to happen.  You just stay in the ground (or wherever you end up after death) until you are resurrected.  I think it's actually kind of a contentious point in Christianity.

Based on what I know only some groups believe in bodily reincarnation based on either 1) Jesus ascended bodily and/or 2)those alive at the Rapture will ascend bodily. The Church believes that 1) only applied to the J-man and kind of downplays Revelation. I've tried discussing this with our resident born-again in the mail room to get his take on the bodily thing but I can't talk to that guy for more than 3 minutes without wanting to kick him in the throat. We once got into like a 20 minute argument because he denied that Jesus went to Hell.

Anyway, I don't think doing to educate others with a body is disrespectful. On the contrary I think a display skeleton or preserved "visible man" can be a useful and fascinating tool for examining and admiring the complexity of the body. I think the most disrespectful thing thing one can do with a body is put it in a water-tight casket or concrete vault. As if that body is too good to be returned to the food cycle.

[arkabee]

but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.

and i can't stand it when someone attempts to justify their inability to do right by making excuses that the same thing was done in the past.

don't want a better tomorrow?  ok, leave.  shooo, go away, make your time machine and hie to the past.

yes, lot's and lot's and TREMENDOUS amounts of BAD THINGS have been done in the past and we should ALL OF US AND EVERYONE know of them and hold vigil against them EVER happening again.  NOT use them as EXCUSES and PETTY BULLSHIT JUSTIFICATIONS for doing BAD SHIT today and now and tomorrow.

that being said,
dead people are to be removed with an appropriate level of honor.

at a base level, comparing human flesh to squirrels and etc, i am ill at ease walking into a taxidermists.  it is unsettling because it seems unnatural to me, and wrong.

at a higher level, i do not believe that i should PRESENT dead human bodies as some sort of art exhibit.  They should be treated with dignity and honor.  Autopsies, cremation, burial, following the deceased PERSON'S wishes, constrained by the best choices for the community.

I have held that i wish to be cremated and my ashes spread in various times of my past.  if i come to understand some health reason not to, i would never think such again.  Such that, if someone wishes to have their dead body dropped into the city water tower and left to rot, that person's wishes are moot.  fuck 'em.  there is not honoring them in the way they wished, since they did not wish to be honored but to fuck their community.

On the opposite side, i do no believe that i should VIEW an exhibit of dead bodies as i would an exhibit of any other proposed aesthetic example, because the DEAD HUMAN BODY IS NOT AN OBJECT OF ART.

others may disagree, and if they do so be it.

there is a UTILITY to a human CORPSE that exists:  

autopsy to determine cause of death in an attempt to uphold the rule of law.

burial practices to uphold the family of the deceased, religious beliefs being but one example of ceremony binding family together.

scientific enquiry into human anatomy and etc for the greater good of mankind at large.  doctors need to practice, disease and problems need to be studied, etc.

i'm sure there are more.

i do not see an AESTHETIC to a human CORPSE however.
even laid at rest in a casket, in a funeral parlor, it is not art, it is not beauty, it is a CORPSE, a lifeless frame representing MORTALITY AND DEATH, not a thing of BEAUTY IN AND OF ITSELF.

Thus,
to make an attempt to raise the HUMAN CORPSE to be an intrinsic OBJECT OF ART, to make the statement "the HUMAN CORPSE has an inherent BEAUTY and i feel it is a MEDIUM to be USED to convey MY THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS" i would propose ie immoral, unethical, wrong, and DANGEROUS.

The culture i wish to be a part of, the community i wish to live in, the society i wish to share laws with:

IS NOT A DEATH CULTURE/COMMUNITY/SOCIETY.

and thus to come full circle:  you think i don't know they USED to be that way?  you think i don't know it IS that way?  you think i don't know it WILL BE that way?

then you are wrong, because i do know that, and by saying that i was saying ""the world was better back in some mythical time"" you are missing my point entirely.


all this being said, i don't think, from what i know of the exhibit, that i woul d advocate shutting it down, but i sure think it's a bad sign that people would want to go and walk amongst the corpses and look upon the exhibits hoping for, and possibly creating of their own opinion, beauty.

[misterqueue]

but I can't stand this type of "the world was better back in some mythical time" bs I see all the time.

and i can't stand it when someone attempts to justify their inability to do right by making excuses that the same thing was done in the past.

don't want a better tomorrow?  ok, leave.  shooo, go away, make your time machine and hie to the past.

Oh I didn't say anything about not wanting a better tomorrow, whatever that may be in one's view.  I just believe we should keep a sense of perspective while trying to get there is all.

I doubt there's any one of us here (however spiritually aligned or otherwise) who would not want the world to improve in some manner or another.

[AlohaDawg]

I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.

And thanks to Ark for distilling it so nicely. I haven't that talent and I tend to write far too many words for the meaning I'm trying to make.

Cort - interesting that your mailroom guy doesn't believe Christ went to Hell. Two of the major Creeds of the Early Christian Church (Apostle's and Nicene) state that as a tenet of faith. The third (Athanasian Creed) might too but, honestly, I've seen that one used so rarely I don't know if it's in there or not although that creed is so long I assume it must be.

I'm sure you aksed, so what is his answer when you ask him where Jesus was for the three days between his death, resurrection and ascension?

[CortJstr]

Cort - interesting that your mailroom guy doesn't believe Christ went to Hell. Two of the major Creeds of the Early Christian Church (Apostle's and Nicene) state that as a tenet of faith. The third (Athanasian Creed) might too but, honestly, I've seen that one used so rarely I don't know if it's in there or not although that creed is so long I assume it must be.

I'm sure you aksed, so what is his answer when you ask him where Jesus was for the three days between his death, resurrection and ascension?

It boiled down to him saying that the the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds are Catholic stuff that he doesn't know about because they aren't actually in the Bible.

I had learned that Jesus descended into Hell to "rescue" the otherwise good people who had previously been barred from Heaven because of Original Sin (such as Moses, Noah, &c). He seemed deeply offended that I would even suggest that Jesus would go anywhere near Hell. He also didn't seem convinced about the gates of Heaven being closed before the Resurrection but this was over a year ago so I'm a bit hazy.

Plus it all stemmed from an argument that Bush is anti-choice but not pro-life so we weren't on the best footing to begin with.

[miles]

If he's a protestant, he obviously rejects a lot of the Catholic stuff, so why is it interesting that he wouldn't believe it if it isn't in the Bible?  You could argue that he's interpreting the Bible incorrectly, but why would you expect him to go to outside sources?  He accepts what's in the Bible, and works with that, but I don't think he should be expected to accept the Nicene creed.  I have to say this is a major problem I have with Catholics--at least the ones I know (not you Dawg, in fact I don't even know if you are Catholic, but I had a discussion with a Catholic recently along these lines).  They assume that their story is the correct one, and that other Christians who don't buy large parts of the doctrine that developed over the centuries aren't really Christians.  

But, protestants do the same thing.  Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc., aren't really Christians because they bring extra stuff to the table in addition to the Bible.  But as I understand it, the text of the Bible is already farily distant from Christ, so it's not like by sticking to the Bible you are really going to the original source, anymore than anybody else is.  You might be closer, but not all the way there.  It's weird that it's hardly ever enough for a member of one Christian sect to admit that other sects are also Christian, but they just use different sources to inform their faith.  It's usually the case that the other sects aren't really Christian, only Christian in name.  But perhaps it's easier for me to see it this way as an outside observer.  In fact, it's probably stranger to expect members of one Christian sect to be totally understand of the beliefs of another.  They belong to the sect because they believe its tenets and reject the others.  But certainly, I don't think that there is anything interesting about this mailroom guy rejecting Catholic doctrine.

But Cort, it's strange to me that you would even debate this guy on the tenets of his faith (specifically, whether Jesus visited Hell), since you reject it all anyway.  Why should you expect him to accept the story you learned if you reject it?  Is it really reasonable to expect there to be just one Jesus, or just one story of he he is and what he did?  What gives one story rank over another?  That it's been around longer or because more people accept it?  It's such a personal thing, and informed by lots of different things, including (perceived, at least) inspiration from God.  How the fuck can you argue with that by countering with another story about who Jesus is?

Edit:  To be fair, I would always do this sort of thing with my JW roomate.  I would argue with him from the standpoint of a protenstant, even though the point I was arguing I rejected anyway.  Partly beause it was fun (I guess I was playing some type of devil's advocate), and partly because it was interesting.  And I think he believed it helped his faith anyway, so no harm done.  Maybe that's just what you were up to?

[AlohaDawg]

I'm a Lutheran. It's like being Catholic with shorter services, fewer sacraments and less guilt.

I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, but personally, I think it reveals itself to different people in subtly different ways. Also, it's filtered of necessity through language and culture. I'm not saying I take it with a grain of salt - it's like the Pirate Code - more of a guiiiideline than a code. A strong guideline. Arrrrgh.

The Creeds were basically written by the early church as a method to ensure that the most basic tenets of what became Christianity were codified. Mainly, they define the Trinity as well as each of the three components of the trinity and all three creeds describe each - God, the Father almighty, Christ, begotten and not made of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who 'proceeds' from the Father and the Son. I'm not sure how a Christian denomination can exist without reference to the Creeds because they sprang out of the earliest discussions that led Christianity into being a separate belief from Judaism. For some time following the death of Christ, those who were Christian were still Jewish as well. The aforementioned St. Paul was instrumental in moving the Church away from Judaism; possibly too far away looking at the history of the Jews since.

Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Methodists for sure use the creeds. I'm fairly sure Anglicans, UCC, and other 'mainstream' denominations also refer to the Creeds. I don't know about Baptist traditions, Four-Square Gospel Churches, and others. Perhaps the mail room guy belonged to a unaffiliated Baptist church led by a charismatic Pastor?

[miles]

I'm not sure how a Christian denomination can exist without reference to the Creeds because they sprang out of the earliest discussions that led Christianity into being a separate belief from Judaism.

That makes sense, and I know that not only Catholics refer to the Creeds, but I don't see why a religious group couldn't form around a core belief in the divinity of Christ, and reject anything but their interpretation of the Bible.  In fact, isn't this at least somewhat common?  (Or maybe not.)  And I don't see why this would make them not Christian.

Full disclosure:  I may have mentioned before, or it may be obvious, but I was raised Mormon, and so when I was younger and accepted the faith, I was really annoyed by people who accused me of not being Christian.  I'm agnostic now, so it's not a problem anyway (I'm not a Christian, but for less interesting reasons, I guess), but I still think it's an interesting issue.

[CortJstr]

I left the church not because I reject the faith but because I reject the people spreading it and their politicizing of religion. On the Sunday before election day in '00 our priest said, "and remember, because turnout is expected to be so high this year the republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday." I haven't been to church since. Especially when, after mass, this priest was unable to provide any evidence that the R candidate was "more Christian" than the D. He also used "pro-life" as a synonym for "anti-choice" which bugs the crap out me on priciple because of all people a freaking priest should know the difference. Then with things like the 700 Club guy praying for Supremes to drop dead I just became ashamed to be associated with the word "Christian."

Quite frankly I don't know if the descending into Hell part is in the Bible. At mass they only read a few passages over and over and over on a 3-year cycle and I've never read the Bible on my own (everything I know of Job or Goliath is from popular media) so maybe there was an iron-clad argument for me but I wouldn't know.

I'm mainly just fascinated by how exclusionary mailroom guy's version of a "loving god" is. He thinks people like Moses can't get into Heaven because they weren't Christian and only practicing Christians can get in. That boggles my mind. He also believes the Bible is literally true, even the parts that other sects have accepted as metaphor (the 6 days of creation, the Tower of Babel), but conveniently glosses over the part where he rejects the church that Jesus specifically told Peter to start.

He's also our office whiner. He complained to HR that he was offended by the comic I had posted by my desk (You can't kick Jesus!). So I complained that I'm offended that every time I go into the mail room for paper I have to hear on his radio a guy screaming at me that I'm going to Hell. But HR can't do anything about that apparently. Plus the "preacher" sounds creepily like Paul Heyman. So basically I go out of my way to give him a hard time now.

[AugustWest]

The two protestant groups I'm most familiar with, the Presbyterians and the Disciples of Christe, both use the Apostle's Creed.

Personally, I love Jesus.  What a great teacher!  What a loving soul!  It's just that some of his followers get me down.  But I think that speaks more to human nature than the nature of Christianity.  I'm sure there were Pat Robertsons among the Aztec and the Zoroastrians.

I think religion is a human creation and therefore flawed.  Church just doesn't do anything spiritual for me.  

On the other hand, I know there is a higher order in the universe that we are all a part of.  It would be nice if I could find an organized group of people that I could share my journey toward that higher power with.  To date, I haven't found that group.

[Limmo]

Good for you, Cort.  You go right on torturing that mailroom guy.

You may find some assistance here.  The gifts page is particularly nice.

[AlohaDawg]

I left the church not because I reject the faith but because I reject the people spreading it and their politicizing of religion. On the Sunday before election day in '00 our priest said, "and remember, because turnout is expected to be so high this year the republicans vote on Tuesday and Democrats vote on Wednesday." I haven't been to church since.

I would have left too - but I would have found another church. I really try to avoid politics as much as possible in my faith life. I'm not trying to build barriers, I'm trying to build bridges and I think politics and religion together create too many conflicts to overcome.

Aug and Cort - you both sound to me like people with some core beliefs - and also, possibly what a good friend of mine calls a "God-shaped hole". In the absence of sprititual practice like worship or prayer and, of course, grace, people with one naturally try to fill the hole. Usually with things like secularism or politics or intellect, sometimes with drugs or bad behavior but for many people, everything feels kind of wrong until they find that way to grow their core beliefs and values in a comfortanle and nurturing (at least at the beginning) environment. If that includes you, I hope you (and anyone who has such a need) finds that place. It's a good place, especially when things are not going as planned. (Like my life for the past 6 months or so)

[Golfhaus]

Aug and Cort - you both sound to me like people with some core beliefs - and also, possibly what a good friend of mine calls a "God-shaped hole".

Whoa! You know Bono? That's awesome!

[AlohaDawg]

St. Ambrose lived in around 300AD and he wrote about the God-shaped vacuum in all of us...

My friend who uses this image a lot is the same guy I linked to a couple of weeks ago who is an artist.

[Bozack]

Ergh. I'm going to write a long-winded, "pity-me" post, and I hate myself for it, but...I have a weird philosophy towards religion, and I think this explains it.
When my parents met, they were both lapsed Christians; he was a lapsed Catholic and she was a lapsed Church of Christ member. Because my dad's parents were a lot more Catholic than my mom's parents were...Church of Christ, my parents agreed to raise us Catholic, *wink wink*, meaning we'd be raised nothing. And this was all fine and dandy until my mom's parents moved to Louisville; my mom started going to church with them and the next thing you know I'm eight years old and a guy is telling me that homosexuals fuck goats. That I'm going to hell forever if I don't act right. That everyone else, EVERYONE, is going to hell, regardless of how THEY act, because they weren't lucky enough to hear about the Church of Christ; after all, doesn't it say in the Bible that "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you, for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." So anyone who's not from the Church of Christ must not be KNOCKING hard enough, the poor dumb fucks.
When my dad found out that his kids were being raised in what basically amounts to a hate group, he was freaked out, and thus proceeded to do the worst possible thing: he turned into Super-Catholic. He's written books. He's better-versed in the writings of the early church fathers than any priest I've ever met. Hell, I've heard Solo Scriptura debated so many times I don't give a damn what "Petros" means anymore. And, according to my mom, he was trying to get us to go to hell.
This went on for about 8 years, until I was 16 and my parents were too a)exhausted, and b)insane to continue to fight the Protestant Reformation over the damn dinner table. I continued to have guilt-related breakdowns for several years, including a series of apocalyptic visions I had while reading Augustine's "City of God," until therapy somewhat healed the scars that religion left. However, because God decided to mess with me again, my sister became extremely religious in the Church of Christ when we moved in together, which resulted in even more screaming matches and ambulance-rides to the emergency room.
I think that the "God-shaped hole" I may have once had is completely filled, because I'd really like to never hear another WORD about God, for the rest of my life. I realize that this is because I'm just fucked up, and so I try to understand that religious people, by and large, are trying to be good people, and almost all are. But religion, any religion, is dead to me; the only proof I can see of any sort of God is the wide range of shit that happens to me, which leads me to believe that God hates me and likes to mess with me. I've been trying to get into Merton recently, because I really love his Walnut Street Epiphany (second entry down), but I can't even pretend to care anymore, and I don't feel anything like what Merton describes. I knocked as hard as I could for as long as I could and I got nothing; if God needs me, He can come to my door this time