Bloodnfire,
Nice to see you too. All is extremely well with me! Thanks for asking. I'm getting married Wednesday, and I have been happier this past year than at any time in my life.
I asked you about "sinful nature" 'cause I had just read that verse in Romans (believe it or not I actually go to a bible study class now!) and the pastor thinks the same way you do, and I disagreed with him (it's hard to take me out into polite company sometimes!).
Paul does not say we are born with a sinful nature...i.e., that we can't help but sin, because that is our nature....he just says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Those two aren't the same idea. I think you (and many Christians) are literally reading into the verse an idea that isn't actually there.
12014. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 12:09:13 PM
I don't think your mean at all CalGal. I just suspect your profanity is getting out of control.
PhillipDavid. Congratulations on your upcoming marriage. You are both blessed people. You post..."Paul does not say we are born with a sinful nature...i.e., that we can't help but sin, because that is our nature....he just says we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Those two aren't the same idea. I think you (and many Christians) are literally reading into the verse an idea that isn't actually there".
Whether one is 'born with a sinful nature' or not is moot isn't it, if everyone sins and comes short of the glory of God? The Scriptures also teach that..."The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it?" Jeremiah 17:9. (I checked again incidentally, and the book does say "All have sinned..." and not "Everybody except SnowOwl have sinned...:-).
When the Lord inspired the writer of Acts to put the two verses (8 & 9) into Chapter 13..."And God Who knows the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us:
And put no difference between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.", it points to one of the major effects of redemption, i.e. the 'cleansing' of the 'deceitful & desperately wicked' human 'heart'.
Dirty hearts = dirty language...'That which is down in the well comes up in the bucket'.
(She that hath ears to hear, let her hear).
12015. PelleNilsson - 3/18/2001 2:05:42 PM
CalGal
Save yourself some aggro. It is useless to reason with people who live in a closed, self-referencing belief system, and who don't have the intellectual capability, or honesty, to admit to it.
12016. SnowOwl - 3/18/2001 2:14:37 PM
bloodnfire,
You're the one who made the claim that as a result of your "extensive personal experience" you knew that all human beings were born with flawed characters.
I have asked you to demonstrate this. You haven't and you want to change the subject again. Why haven't you? Because you can't prove your assertion without referring to the Bible where it tells you we all have flawed characters. But reading something in a book is not "personal experience". You are being intellectually dishonest, which is what I've come to expect from you.
12017. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 2:15:14 PM
I feel it's a mistake to judge other peoples' honesty Pelle. Including yours.
12018. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 2:27:27 PM
I'm also tired of personal attacks. I feel no need either to explain or justify my personal spiritual experiences. The cynical, perverted challenges of avowed atheists is boring beyond words, and I am as disenchanted with each of them, as I realize they are with me.
For as long as I am convinced that...'All scripture is given by inspiration of God', and many in this thread are not, don't question me either to explain or justify.
12019. SnowOwl - 3/18/2001 5:07:29 PM
I'm glad you're sick of personal attacks. In that case perhaps you'll stop making them.
As for the rest, they're just weasel words to disguise the fact that you don't care what your god does, he's god so you'll worship him anyway. That's absolutely fine, despite what any of us might think of the morality of such a decision, so why try to pretend that all your words mean anything else.
But don't whine when others' moral values lead them to reject the murderous, lying, petty god that the scriptures reveal to them.
12020. vonKreedon - 3/18/2001 8:01:21 PM
In Message # 12008 Indiana Jones says:
I'm willing to answer questions about what I actually believe is the nature of God, but not to hypothesize absurdities about a God in whom I do not believe. God is good. Whatever sense of goodness we have comes from him. By the mere fact he is God, he is worthy of our worship and when we put up our own intellect/reasoning/conscience and measure it against his, we are being Luciferian.
I have posed the Scripture based hypothetical, see Deuteronomy 20, suppose you are a member of Mose's tribe approaching Canaan and God commands you to destroy everyone who lives in Canaan and to attack the cities in the vicinity and make slaves of those you can. Do you do as God commands or does your own moral compass prevent you from participating in this bit of ethnic cleansing?
12021. vonKreedon - 3/18/2001 8:05:51 PM
On a slightly different topic, in Message # 12002 bloodnfire says:
There is a marked tendency to disobedience in the human heart that is easy to detect at an early age. Flawed character can lead to 'antisocial' self-centered (and self-destructive) behavior.
I have been thinking about creativity and rebellion. Let me pose a hypothesis:
All acts of creativity are acts of rebellion; the creative act rebels against the status quo by insisting that it can be improved and that the actor has a right to create the new status quo. Without the capability to rebel there is no capability to be creative.
What do you all think about this statement?
12022. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:21:59 PM
IndianaJones. You post in your Message # 12002...
"when we put up our own intellect/reasoning/conscience and measure it against his, we are being Luciferian."
I agree. Notice how many keep doing it. The very first words recorded out of Lucifer's mouth were
"Has God really said ........." (Gen.3:1)
12023. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:24:13 PM
Indi. I actually meant your Message # 12008.
12024. bloodnfire - 3/18/2001 8:26:13 PM
Toys.
12025. Jenerator - 3/18/2001 8:27:55 PM
I particularly like the fact that Jen and others will often say, "Suppose you die and you're burning in hell--you'll regret it then!" I don't recall any of you bitching. But surely "Suppose you die and it turns out that God fucks three year olds and wants you to do the same" and sniff, sob, look how meeeaaaaaan you're being.
I thought I heard my name mentioned. CalGal, you really haven't a clue about my belief system, so try as you may to characterize me in a particular way, rest assured you're wrong.
An honest observation, for an "agnostic" you sure get heated up about God, especially any Christian notions about God.
12026. mgleason - 3/18/2001 8:54:49 PM
Are any of you familiar with Ari L. Goldman? Twenty years a New York Times reporter, he is now a member of the faculty at Columbia University's School of Graduate Journalism, and the author of two books I recently finished: The Search for God at Harvard and Being Jewish: The Spiritual and Cultural Practice of Judaism Today.
In 1985, Goldman took a year's sabbatical to study religion at Harvard's Divinity School, resulting in his first book, an account of his introduction to world religions and the affirmation of his own Orthodox faith. It is an absorbing book by a self-confessed religious pluralist, a rare bird in this or any other age.
Being Jewish, his second work, is an excellent introduction for those unacquainted with Judaism. It is at once informative and captivating, as Goldman puts the ancient traditions through their paces.
I recommend both books unreservedly.
12027. Jenerator - 3/18/2001 9:47:09 PM
Maria,
Three years ago, before I got my scholarship to study abroad, I looked into HDS and YDS. Both schools had an interesting mix of theologians. Yale had a dominant mix of feminists and New Agers, whereas Harvard had a stronger mix of Gnostics and Atheistic Jews. (Philip and I have discussed Helmut Koester and Elaine Pagels before...)
I'm not criticising either school (here anyway), but what I do notice is that both process more revisionists than do conservative theological schools. Having spoken to the head recruiter from Harvard, I know that what they seek are students who are interested in creating their own twist on Christianity.
That being said, I have no doubt that Being Jewish is a good book!
12028. mgleason - 3/18/2001 10:10:09 PM
Jen,
Goldman noticed a strong inclination on the part of the Harvard faculty toward teaching religion, especially Christianity, as literary criticism. He also felt that the Div School's students were much more radicalized than America as a whole.
Part of what makes The Search for God at Harvard so interesting is that Goldman kept looking for the joyous affirmation of faith that marked his own spiritual development, and finding precious little among many of those looking to make the ministry their life.
It's just as good as Being Jewish, believe me.
12029. Jamie R - 3/18/2001 10:11:14 PM
While hanging out at the folks this weekend I cracked open Gary Zhukov's latest (I don't even remember the title.) It's been a long time since I've read any new age books, so I'd forgotten how they work.
From the opening sentence on, nothing but a long string of flat assertions about the nature of reality, god, the human soul, morality, our destiny as a race etc. etc. ad nauseam. Not a word defined, not an argument pursued, not a scintilla of evidence presented for anything. I guess we're just supposed to take his word for it.
But it's the generous helping of pseudo-science and some comical punning-as-etymology that really gives it that Oprah feel.
(Fairness obliges me to add that after the first chapter or so I skimmed the rest, saw more of the same, and chucked it. Maybe upon careful reading it's the best damn book ever. He's from Haaaaavuhd, after all.)
12030. CalGal - 3/18/2001 10:42:13 PM
An honest observation, for an "agnostic" you sure get heated up about God, especially any Christian notions about God.
Actually, what I find offensive--if generally inevitable--is the fact that so many people are drawn to such an exclusionary and petty God. I have higher expectations of humanity, I suppose.
Moreover, I am the sort of person who takes hypotheticals very seriously, so when I hypothesize the notion that the universe may indeed be run by such a monstrous little Hitler, it makes me rather ill. What a joke life would be, if it's true. Bleah.
I said nothing of your belief system. I said only that you have mentioned how quickly my opinions would change if I were burning in hell. Which you most certainly have said before.
12033. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 7:28:03 AM
Maria,
Part of what makes The Search for God at Harvard so interesting is that Goldman kept looking for the joyous affirmation of faith that marked his own spiritual development, and finding precious little among many of those looking to make the ministry their life.
Honestly, this is why I did not pursue HDS or YDS. I know that I would have been on a one-woman mission. While I am interested in redaction criticism, I would prefer to study under more disciplined or conservative professors. Part of my initial attraction to tose universities was in making a difference and in taking the lead in conservative scholarship (showing that it still exists and is very much desired), but an alumnus told me that it would have been an uphill battle at either institution. Therefore, I decided that should I study theology again someday (which I sincerely hope to do!) I'll attend a university interested in historcal scholarship with a conservative outlook on the discipline.
Still, I am interested in what comes out of Harvard and Yale.
12035. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 8:45:39 AM
Man sort of wants a relationship but doesn't want to live to any standard or have any conscience.
I thought the key to that relationship is acceptance of Christ as personal savior. That crucial criterion has nothing to do with conscience and standards. It has to do only with belief. Would you say Buddhists Monks have "rejected" conscience and standards?
Conscience and standards are even more irrelevant if only those god calls to begin with are able to have a relationship with him.
12037. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 10:56:25 AM
You have now proposed two different, supposedly ridiculous, analogies to "prove" why you shouldn't have to answer.
Not at all. My response was not to prove why one shouldn't have to answer a question. It was to point out to Jamie R that the analogy of hypothetical red shoes was not equivalent. I have already answered the question--as has blood--but you apparently don't like or don't understand the answer.
I have deleted your post 12011 and 12013 and will delete any further references juxtaposing God and that particular subject. You have asked the question once and your repetitious use of such imagery for shock value makes it little more than angry spam. I said I preferred you not do so again and gave my reasons in 11924.
12038. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 10:58:21 AM
von K (12020): I pretty much answered that in response to Jamie in 11930.
12039. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:04:54 AM
Without the capability to rebel there is no capability to be creative.
vonK (12021): What constitutes creativity? Is it more discovery or invention? What about the almost universal notion among artistic geniuses of inspiration?
12040. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:09:23 AM
12031, 12032, and 12036 were moved to the Inferno because of personal rather than thread focus.
12041. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:10:43 AM
12034 was moved to the Cafe.
12042. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 12:59:13 PM
IJ - Your right, you said that if you were in Mose's tribe you would do as commanded and kill all those currently living in Canaan. So, in your cosmology whatever God commands, no matter how repugnant to your own personal moral compass, is by definition morally good.
But the thing is, how do you know even with this starting point that what is being commanded is from God? In Deuteronomy the Hebrews are not being addressed by God Himself, but rather this is a long speech by Moses instructing and inciting the Hebrews prior to their invasion of Canaan. So now you have surrendered your moral compass to another man who claims, with good evidence, to speak for God. Do you still kill children in Canaan?
12043. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 1:00:02 PM
oops, that should be You're right...
12044. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 1:04:46 PM
I am not speaking of creativity as the discovery of something, but creation of something new. Some creators, Michealanglo for one, do speak of simply uncovering what is already there, but I don't buy this.
Inspiration is in interesting twist, does creativity come from outside of the, human, creator? I assume that this line of reasoning would then trace all true creativity back to God, correct? But what about free will and our being created in God's image? Without the ability to create can we really be said to have free will or to be fashioned in God's image?
12045. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 1:58:20 PM
Hi Jamie,
I'm not sure if I've ever interacted with you before unless you had a different name.
Anyway, I said Man sort of wants a relationship but doesn't want to live to any standard or have any conscience.
You responded in Message # 12035:
I thought the key to that relationship is acceptance of Christ as personal savior. That crucial criterion has nothing to do with conscience and standards. It has to do only with belief.
I slightly disagree. There is a moral compelling or a spiritual urge from necessity that one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is one thing to simply believe He exists, it's another to have Him as Lord and Saviour of your life. There is some sort of inner-knowledge or awareness that takes place that allows us to see ourselves as sinners in the presence of a Holy and Just God. We desire reconciliation because we realize that we need it. This is part of our conscience calling us to obey a righteous God and to live according to a higher standard.
Would you say Buddhists Monks have "rejected" conscience and standards?
No.
Conscience and standards are even more irrelevant if only those god calls to begin with are able to have a relationship with him.
His moral rules only apply to those He called and everyone else is free to live in rebellion? We're all free to live in rebellion (we all do in some way or another) and the rules apply to all. I'd say that those not called, live to their own standards and to their own consciences.
12046. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 2:12:26 PM
Is it possible to believe in a God who is the higher power but at the same time believe Jesus was only a mortal man who was good and wise but not the son of God?
12047. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 2:14:29 PM
I suppose that would be a Jew, right? Are they saved, then?
12048. Jenerator - 3/19/2001 2:37:54 PM
Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus and Jews believe in God(s) and that Jesus was only a wise man, or a noble person.
12049. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 2:44:15 PM
Judith
That would rather be a Muslim.
I don't think a Christian can hold the view you propose. It is possible, however, to believe that Jesus was a man uniquely inspired by God. That would make you into a Nestorian. You would then also demote Maria from being the Mother of God (Theotokos) to being the Mother of Christ (Christotokos)
Your nearest Assyrian Church can tell you more.
12050. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 2:45:53 PM
X-post with Jen on Muslims. I don't think Jews hold that Jesus was a wise person, rather a false prophet.
12051. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 2:46:49 PM
Hi Jenerator,
I'm a little confused by the language you're using. You said man wants a relationship with god (to some degree anyway) but doesn't want to live up to a higher standard. I understood that to mean that man wants god but not all the moral principles and constraints that some with him.
But in your reply to me it sounds as though by "living to a higher standard" and "conscience" you mean again wanting a relationship with god. Wanting that relationship comes from the conscience pulling at you to be aware of your failings and subsequent need of god.
But if I parse that back in to the original I have something like "man wants a relationship with god but he doesn't want a relationship with god."
Can you explain a little further? I'm clearly missing something.
12052. mgleason - 3/19/2001 2:47:21 PM
There are Unitarian Christians, too.
12053. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 3:37:39 PM
Thanks guys...I guess you can see it's been awhile since I studied comaprative religion and even then, it was just reading on my own. The church I grew up in wasn't too keen on comparing different views, unless negatively.
12054. JudithAtHome - 3/19/2001 3:38:13 PM
comparative...
12055. Fielding - 3/19/2001 3:56:40 PM
Orthodox Jews hold that Jesus was a well-regarded Rabbi, whose followers took things a little too far.
In addition, some Jews argue that some of the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament (Sermon on the Mount, for example) are Jewish theological beliefs dating back a few hundred years before Jesus. They cite the Dead Sea Scrolls as evidence supporting this view. I take no position on this debate.
12056. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:01:11 PM
"I don't think Jews hold that Jesus was a wise person, rather a false prophet."
My understanding is that most Orthodox Jews blame Christianity on Saul (St. Paul). My understanding of this view is that it is based on the fact that Jesus did not renounce Judaism during his life, and celebrated a seder (a Jewish ritual passover dinner) shortly before his crucifiction.
Again, this is what I'm told, and I take no position on it.
12057. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:03:58 PM
Jen:
Welcome back. I hope that your honeymoon was spectacular.
"There is a moral compelling or a spiritual urge from necessity that one accepts Jesus as Lord and Savior. It is one thing to simply believe He exists, it's another to have Him as Lord and Saviour of your life."
I'm sure that this question is old hat to you, but what is your position on people who never learn of the existence of Jesus?
12058. mgleason - 3/19/2001 4:23:06 PM
From The Search for God at Harvard:
The Pulnoer Rabbi related this parable: "A Christian king once invited the ambassadors of several countries to a banquet. Among the guests was a Jew. In the theological debate that ensued, the king invited a Mohammedan guest to state his opinion regarding Jesus. The Moslem asserted that Jesus was not the Son of God, but merely a distinguished Prophet. The Jew, when called upon, stated his belief that Jesus was merely a Jew. 'Jesus was one of us,' he said. 'Who, therefore, knows better than ourselves his true nature?'"
12059. Ronski - 3/19/2001 4:29:15 PM
I doubt that without Paul there would ever have been a Christian religion in any way resembling what exists today. Christianity has even been called the religion of Paul, rather than the religion of Jesus.
12060. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 4:38:35 PM
Ronski
I'm in full agreement with that. Paul was to Jesus what Lenin was to Marx.
12061. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:42:15 PM
It's that whole seer vs. doer thing. You find it in many religions. One guy comes along with a cool idea, is very peaceful and loving, open and accepting to all. A while later a doer shows up and says, "What this place needs is a stern hand and some organization."
The Sikhs have this, too. I forget the details now, but they have the equivalent of a Christ and a Paul.
12062. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:42:41 PM
Except that in this regard, Paul was successful and Lenin was a failure.
12063. Ronski - 3/19/2001 4:43:25 PM
Fielding,
Wait.
12064. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:44:44 PM
Lenin wasn't a failure.
12065. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 4:45:42 PM
Lenin was not a failure. Communism was a failure.
12066. Fielding - 3/19/2001 4:48:33 PM
Lenin's version of Marxism has become discredited both intellectually and politically. Paul's Christianity has a billion followers. If that means the same thing in CalGal-land, well then who am I to argue.
12067. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 4:48:34 PM
In omparing Paul to Lenin/Christianity to Communism, one would have to say that Paul appears to have been more successful long term, though Lenin was certainly more successful in his own time. But the Vanguard Party concept of seizing the state for the good of the working class may yet make a comeback, though I think it's doubtful.
12068. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 4:49:26 PM
...omparing should be comparing
12069. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 4:52:35 PM
But the Vanguard Party concept of seizing the state for the good of the working class may yet make a comeback
We're working on it. It's not easy to build an aggressive vanguard of the proletariat when you're mostly fishing for membership among the stoners and performance artists.
12070. CalGal - 3/19/2001 4:59:16 PM
Fielding,
Pelle has the right of it. Besides, lord knows Christianity has morphed many times since Paul, so do you count every morph as a failure? Shouldn't he only get the Catholics? Or do we say that the Protestants returned to what he intended and count only them?
12071. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:00:40 PM
Cal - I think we go with Paul wanting Christianity to be the most powerful religion in the world. He's a success.
12072. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:04:19 PM
Can I get any discussion on my statement regarding creativity and rebellion, see Message # 12021, Message # 12039, Message # 12044, any interest in this thread of discussion?
12073. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:06:25 PM
I never said he wasn't a success. I was focusing on the "billion followers" and how they are counted.
Besides, has Russia ever been as powerful and as successful as it was during its Communist period? Setting up a government that gets a country to super-power status is no small achievement.
I would never argue that Lenin was as successful as Peter; I just think it is inaccurate to describe him as a failure. BTW, at this point in time, I think more people know what he's done than know about Peter--but I don't know if that will be true 50 years from now.
12074. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:09:54 PM
I disagree that rebellion and creativity are necessarily linked. Certainly rebellion can be a method of conforming, and it can also be a matter of desperation.
I would say instead that original thought is required for both true creativity and true change.
12075. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:10:44 PM
Lenin was a resounding success in his period; Paul's success has endured for millenia. We'll have to check in in a couple thousand years to see how Vladimir Illych fares.
12076. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:12:06 PM
Cal - Isn't original thought a form of rebellion; a refusal to conform to the orthodox way of thinking?
12077. mgleason - 3/19/2001 5:14:36 PM
There are more than a billion Catholics alone, worldwide.
12078. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 5:14:44 PM
I wouldn't say that. The world is not Christian. Christianity itself is fractured into myriads of sects.
12079. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:16:26 PM
No, not all original thought is rebellion.
12080. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 5:17:42 PM
Well, you can get original conclusions using orthodox tools of thought, and these can be stunningly important (like Maxwell's equations. AFAIK that was just good old scientific method with some math thrown in. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.)
Does that count as a refusal to conform?
12081. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:17:56 PM
In fact, thought is just thought. The expression of thought may be rebellion.
12082. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:20:30 PM
Cal - How can orginal thought not be a form of rebellion? Most of us go through life accepting the orthodoxies that our culture presents us with, to do otherwise requires us to rebel against the orthodoxies.
I am not arguing that every Einstein is a Lenin, but that without the willingness to overthrow the orthodox one cannot create something new.
12083. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:20:36 PM
Jamie,
Exactly. I tried to come up with several examples and couldn't think of any clean enough, so I figured I'd just put the statement out there and see what others could do with it.
12084. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:24:43 PM
Jamie - I am not familiar with Maxwell's equations, though I am familiar with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. At any rate, were they in some way a new way of thinking/viewing/interacting with reality? Did they create something new?
There is also the difference between the method and the purpose put to it, Einstein may have been rooted in the scientific method, but his conclusions are routinely refered to as revolutionary.
12085. PelleNilsson - 3/19/2001 5:31:02 PM
Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
12086. Jamie R - 3/19/2001 5:34:44 PM
At any rate, were they in some way a new way of thinking/viewing/interacting with reality? Did they create something new?
He used them to get a unified treatment of electricity and magnetism and to show that light is an electromagnetic frequency. I'm not a physicist so I can't go too far with this.
And I'm not entirely sure how to answer your question anyway. It was new information about certain physical phenomena and a set of mathematical tools for working with that information. I don't know if that counts as a new way of viewing reality. Reality is a pretty big word.
Are you looking for the distinction between those discoveries that are important and those that are profound? Maxwell's discoveries are important and useful and true. They don't make people go "man, that is fucked up" the way Einstein's do.
12087. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 5:39:24 PM
Jamie - I'm trying to differenciate between acts that are, as you say, discoveries and acts that are creations. A discovery may reveal what we expected or it may be accidental; a creation brings something entirely new into our consciousness.
How do we catagorize Columbus? He accidentally discovered the New World, while trying to show that the more or less orthodox thinking about the flat earth was wrong.
12088. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:43:15 PM
vK,
But it seems to me that you are bending the meaning of "rebellion" to fit your desires, when it's the other way round. Original thought is not rebellious. It may be the impetus for rebellion, it may require rebellion to be heard, it may require an extraordinary effort of will to overcome the indoctrination of ideas imposed by a conformist society. Or it may not.
An original idea may revolutionize society without the slightest disruption in its day to day life--for example, the computer. Was their rebellion in the computer? No. Now, was their rebellion in the origination of the desktop? No. First desktop was created at Xerox PARC, one of the great experiments in original thought, but with little interest in rebellion.
For that matter, think of China. Lots of original thought (I often refer to Xerox Parc as the China of high tech), little in the way of rebellion.
I'm not sure what context you are asking this in. I don't think that rebellion is needed for creativity. However, I believe that original thought is needed for true change, and most great creativity begins with change. Given that Christianity of Jen and Indy's form punishes much original thought, I'm sure you'll end up at the same conclusion.
12089. CalGal - 3/19/2001 5:44:28 PM
I'm trying to differenciate between acts that are, as you say, discoveries and acts that are creations.
That's entirely different from your original point. But in any case, neither creation or discovery requires rebellion.
12091. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 6:56:30 PM
12090 (my own post) was deleted because it was supposed to be on New Features (it's there as 10272).
12092. vonKreedon - 3/19/2001 7:26:44 PM
My hypothesis is that an act of true creativity must be an implicit rebellion against the status quo; that to create something new is to rebel against what is/how things have been done.
Let me define my terms:
Creation/creativity: To bring something truely new into the world. This is different from the discovery of something that already exists; e.g., the discovery of sub-atomic particles would not be a creative act, but developing the hypothesis that such particles exist might be a creative act. It is also different from the production of something in understood ways; e.g. I might produce ceramic bowls and each of those bowls might be unique in the history of the world, but my production of such bowls would not be creative under my definition. Similarly, according to Judeo-Christian-Islamic cosmology, God created humanity and since then we have been producing ourselves; with the advent of genetic engineering we approach the capability of creating new life.
Rebellion: The act of rejecting the status quo/orthodoxy. This does not need to be the purpose of the act and it certainly does not have to be political.
Any problems with these definitions?
12093. anomieme - 3/19/2001 11:12:00 PM
VonK,
If I'm reading your definition of creation right, you have eliminated any possibility of creativity. Nothing totally new. Why is a new bowl NOT creative but a new genetic being is?
I can't go anywhere with the definition although I like the rebellion angle to the creative impetus.
12094. anomieme - 3/19/2001 11:21:14 PM
CalGal,
I found your hypotheticals a bit jarring but I certainly understand and agree with your position. I would only say that we don't need the hypothetical. We were all three years-old once. The Christian God hated Esau in the womb--younger than three.
Just asking about their God as they define him is horrible enough.
Christians freely tell you how terrible their God is, and then deny it out of the same mouth. No need for three-year-old pediphelia. The story they actually do tout is worse.
12095. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:27:12 PM
vonK (12042):
In Deuteronomy the Hebrews are not being addressed by God Himself, but rather this is a long speech by Moses instructing and inciting the Hebrews prior to their invasion of Canaan. So now you have surrendered your moral compass to another man who claims, with good evidence, to speak for God. Do you still kill children in Canaan?
In context, these people had seen plenty of miracles as proof of Moses' mission and had been liberated from the Egyptians and slavery. So they had adequate evidence that Moses was speaking for God--not to mention that I don't think given the moral standards of the time they would have had a problem wiping out the Canaanites even without God's direction, provided it was a lucrative proposition. (That is, they sometimes got into trouble for saving women and livestock IIRC in contradiction of God's orders, but not for humanitarian reasons.)
In the context of post New Testament times, I doubt I would ever be convinced secondhand of God's desire that I kill women and children.
BTW, are you a pacifist?
12096. Indiana Jones - 3/19/2001 11:47:07 PM
vonK (12044): In terms of free will versus creativity, I particularly liked the metaphor Tolkien used in The Silmarillion (sp?). I forget what he called the beings and since I'm right in the middle of moving I can't check my copy, but he had "God" (Manwe?) be a composer/conductor and all his "angels" (started with a V, I think) be musicians. The devil-type character (Melchior?) was a musician who wanted to expand his part beyond what God had written for him. During the performance, Manwe kept turning Melchior's discordant notes back into the arrangement, giving it more weight, somberness, etc., but making it richer and fuller.
In other words, I think we can have free will in how well we play our parts, but the sheet music is already laid out for us. Of course I don't think that's an exact allegory, but that's a way for me to get a handle on it.
Have you read Tolstoy's "What Is Art?" Many people don't like the conclusions he reached and think that he gave art too narrow a definition, but I sort of agree with him (sort of, not completely).
Rebellion might well have been essential--presumably God knew that both Satan would rebel and human beings would disobey--so that his greatest glory is how he is able to turn evil to good. Was it Shakespeare who was questioned as to why he had to make Lear suffer so and answered "Otherwise there would have been no play"?
Personally, virtually without question the art in all forms that I most appreciate has at its center a mixture of sadness and joy.
12097. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:16:41 AM
vK
I disagree with both your definitions. Rebellion is way off base and creation is extremely limited.
12098. CalGal - 3/20/2001 1:18:37 AM
Oh, I just saw Message # 12093. Yes, that's a good bit of why I object to it, too.
12099. SnowOwl - 3/20/2001 2:18:44 AM
anomiemie,
Christians freely tell you how terrible their God is, and then deny it out of the same mouth. No need for three-year-old pediphelia. The story they actually do tout is worse
Because Christians need to believe that God is good (after all, who would admit to worshipping a monster), they have to rationalise the terrible things God does by resorting to the age old, weak tactic of claiming that we puny mortals can't possibly comprehend the nature of God's goodness, justice, mercy etc and that the evil things he does are simply part of his higher purpose and hidden from us. That's simply nonsense. If we can't comprehend the nature of God's goodness/justice/mercy/etc in fact it makes no sense to talk about him as good/just/merciful etc, since the concepts we use really have no meaning when applied to him.
12100. bloodnfire - 3/20/2001 6:30:14 AM
I am so glad that I know Him, this Wonderful One you brand as a Monster. "God is Love" the Holy Spirit proclaims, and your rational humanism just sneers and wants to argue.
I regret that my paltry explanations have only served to aggravate you and those like you in this thread, and have encouraged you all to insult us and blaspheme Him.
I truly wish you well, SnowOwl. You have been most kind to me in other threads, and it is there that I hope we can communicate in the future. In this thread, I feel that I contribute to your delinquency.
Go ahead and reply, and I'll make sure you have the last word.
12101. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 8:45:30 AM
Because Christians need to believe that God is good (after all, who would admit to worshipping a monster), they have to rationalise the terrible things God does by resorting to the age old, weak tactic of claiming that we puny mortals can't possibly comprehend the nature of God's goodness, justice, mercy etc and that the evil things he does are simply part of his higher purpose and hidden from us.
The argument you are ascribing to Christians is wrong, and their actual belief is much more complex. Worshipping a monster: many religions have quite freely admitted to worshipping beings that demanded human sacrifice or even (as I understand it) deities that embodied both good and evil. They had no problem with it. Further, that Christianity does not deny its past is essential to the Christian's valuing of truth as inherently good. Ironically, the triumph of Christian ideals and values in the Western Zeitgeist is what you see as wrong with Christianity. That is, were human beings still living under pre-Christian mores, the disgust/outrage you and others feel with the "Christian God" would not even exist.
Now, as for the evil you and others ascribe to God, let's look at the human race. In some way we are all interconnected--scientists claim that we have an original "Eve" ancestor and an original "Adam" ancestor. Therefore, one doesn't have to believe in original sin to think that as a species we are all inexorably linked by DNA.
Human beings have committed and continue to commit acts like the Holocaust and every other action ascribed to God upthread. As a human being yourself, I assume you see us as individuals and that we should not all be punished for the actions of literally millions of our compadres both in the present and past.
12102. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 8:45:44 AM
(cont.)
Perhaps yours is a valid way to see us, perhaps we are all so interconnected we should be judged as a lump and punished collectively. Regardless of which is true, an alien race stumbling upon us might very well conclude that individuals are of no more consequence than individual cells in a human body and as a whole we are pretty horrible.
You can disagree with their assessment and argue against that, but assuming they don't have perfect knowledge of the situation, they could still reach that conclusion. Don't you think God is at least as complicated as the human race, just as hard to understand, and your knowledge of him every bit as limited?
Alright, so that addresses what you dismiss as the "weak tactic." The significant part you are ignoring, however, is what gives the Christian religion its name: Jesus Christ. No, we cannot comprehend all things about God, but we can try to comprehend those things about him that were embodied in Jesus Christ. Which also addresses another debate point upthread about Jesus and why one cannot view him as just another prophet: his unique existence was necessary to bridge the gap between the mortal and the eternal, between the perfect and the flawed.
12103. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:03:57 AM
SnowOwl,
Yes, it's as though "goodness" and "justice" take on entirely new meanings. I truly don't understand the rationalization.
12104. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:16:20 AM
Indiana,
You make a valiant attempt to explain the mystery of your God, but you completly ignore the fact that your God also demanded human sacrifice on many occasions, and many more humans will be assigned to hell in the future in the culmination of his divine plan.
You also talk about human sin as something he DIDN'T create. Why let him off the hook?
Millions more will spend eternity in the hell your God created. I ask you in all sincerity, what is the correct attitude of the millions who are damned from birth? Why should these individuals who have no control over their hidious fate consider God to be kind and loving? What good could it possibly do to repent and worship? These folks are damned already. Why should they see your God as anything but a monster?
Please do not use the parent/child analogy. I've never known a parent who deliberately created hell.
12105. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:18:06 AM
Indiana, BTW, thanks for hosting, if I haven't said already.
12106. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:46:10 PM
You completly ignore the fact that your God also demanded human sacrifice on many occasions, and many more humans will be assigned to hell in the future in the culmination of his divine plan.
anomieme: I don't think that's quite right. I introduced the story of Isaac into the discussion, and I readily admit that my understanding of scripture is that some will be assigned to hell (perhaps many more than are saved). As for actual human sacrifice, except possibly for the story of Jepthah's (sp?) daughter, I don't know of an instance when God received a human sacrifice. The instances above when the Israelites killed people weren't a sacrifice to him, but in any case I haven't "ignored" that, either.
I ask you in all sincerity, what is the correct attitude of the millions who are damned from birth? Why should these individuals who have no control over their hidious fate consider God to be kind and loving?
I'm not sure such people exist because I'm not positive about predestination, but I do lean toward it more than I used to. If they do, then it would already seem impossible for them to love God and that is the ultimate reason for their condemnation: they are predestined to hell by their own inability to love God.
In fact, one strain of Christian thought is that hell is in and of itself alienation from God and his love. Milton has Lucifer say (paraphrase), "I carry hell inside me."
12107. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:46:19 PM
(cont.)
What good could it possibly do to repent and worship? These folks are damned already.
I think that they can "repent and worship" would indicate they aren't damned. In Ezekiel IIRC the prophet likens God to a potter and we are the vessels he creates. The flawed wind up cast aside by the creator. Those who can be saved are.
Does that seem hard-hearted? Well, explain an alternative to me. Would you prefer that every human being--no matter how they lived their life--be treated the same after death? If not, how would you evaluate who deserves salvation and who doesn't? Would your behavior in this life have any meaning at all if in terms of eternity it was of no consequence?
There are two questions to be answered: 1) does God exist*? 2) if he exists, what is his relationship with human beings? If you answer no to the first, then the second is meaningless. Clearly you cannot take a "bad" answer from the second ("God is mean to us") and reason your way backward to answer the first in the negative.
Conversely, if you answer the first affirmatively, I think the presumption that God exists does have implications for the second question.
*God as a being with a "personality."
12108. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:47:51 PM
BTW, my own belief is that even without eternal life, even if we all die when we die--finite', kaputo--we would still be obligated to serve "the good."
12109. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:52:47 PM
Would you prefer that every human being--no matter how they lived their life--be treated the same after death?
Sure. Why on earth not? If the universe was created by an ultimately unknowable entity, any selection process would be random. I think it is best that everyone be treated the same.
Would your behavior in this life have any meaning at all if in terms of eternity it was of no consequence?
Absolutely.
Your questions (and the answers you assume everyone will give) reflect your own priorities and demonstrate again that religions evolved to fill common human needs. Lots of humans apparently need a carrot--hence Christianity.
There are two questions to be answered: 1) does God exist*? 2) if he exists, what is his relationship with human beings?
Actually, the questions can't be answered. Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the second one is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality. Thus, there is only one truly honest answer to the first, which is "I don't know". The answer to the second question, in that case, can also be "I don't know". At that point, anyone can hypothesize various relationships and their relative value and acceptability. Which is exactly what this conversation is about. Except some folks don't like to hypothesize too far outside their comfort level.
12110. CalGal - 3/20/2001 12:53:32 PM
Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the second one is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality
Whoops. To the first question, not the second.
12111. Indiana Jones - 3/20/2001 12:57:23 PM
Cal: I'm not ignoring your posts, but since I've posted a fairly high percentage of the recent content, I'll wait a bit to see what others may contribute before responding.
12112. PelleNilsson - 3/20/2001 1:09:50 PM
1) There is no proof either way. But for me the abscence of positive proof is more important than the absence of negative proof, so my answer is "no".
2) If God exists I think he has a relation to the universe rather than to mankind. He need not be absent in the world like Aristitotle's Unmovable Mover but he also does not have a one-to-one relation with every human being.
12113. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 1:15:14 PM
I have this problem with the potter analogy- a human potter makes flawed vessles by accident, because of carelessness or ignorance. He does not deliberately make warped pots, and then smash them to bits saying "that's what you get for being warped."
But surely god does creates just what he intends to create.
12114. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:55:01 PM
Indy,
I mention this only because of claims you made about your God not demanding human sacrifice. Isn't it obvious that he demanded the supreme human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross? How can you just ignore the fact that Christianity is MAINLY human sacrifice...but I won't belabor this point.
What was the lesson of Jepthat's daughter, BTW? Is God a jokester?
And why do you arbitrarily dismiss all other human death and suffering he caused as NOT a sacrifice. Twas done for his pleasure, was it not?
And finally, I'll comment on the fact that you and others speak about the unsaved as though it's their fault on the one hand, and then come down on the side of predestination. Indeed, your last post to me went something like (heavy paraphrasing), people are damned because of their INABILITY to believe. So I ask you again. What is the correct attitude toward God for these lost souls who had no choice in their disposition? And what is (or should be) the Christian message to the unselected -- too bad, God picked me, he didn't pick you?
How could you not query God on such policies? Maybe because he doesn't answer?
12115. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:57:10 PM
Jaimie, Yes you've said it very well. And parents don't send their kids to hell.
12116. anomieme - 3/20/2001 9:57:56 PM
Parents being another favorite analogy, if I wasn't clear.
12117. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 10:54:57 PM
I send mine to her room. I'm reserving hell for the teen years.
12118. Jamie R - 3/20/2001 10:59:29 PM
And thanks. I'm still getting used ot the fatc tht you can't fix typso here. I have to post and then quickly look away.
12119. anomieme - 3/20/2001 11:18:32 PM
Jamie, I live in constant shame of spelling and typos. I guess we must have faith.
Teen years...hang on to your wallet and pray.
12120. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 1:05:10 AM
IJ
Your analogy of the aliens stumbling across the human race and judging it as horrible doesn't make any sense in relation to God and our understanding of his actions. To begin with, the human race does not, as a whole, proclaim itself perfectly good, perfectly loving, perfectly just etc, demand worship, and consign the aliens who don't comply to everlasting torment.
bloodnfire,
In this thread, I feel that I contribute to your delinquency.
I thought you'd given up making personal insults.
12121. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:39:52 AM
Your questions (and the answers you assume everyone will give) reflect your own priorities and demonstrate again that religions evolved to fill common human needs. Lots of humans apparently need a carrot--hence Christianity.
Cal: Actually, I also posted "BTW, my own belief is that even without eternal life, even if we all die when we die--finite', kaputo--we would still be obligated to serve 'the good.'" So no, I don't think a "carrot" is necessary. Personally, I've already received enough of a reward by being allowed to exist once and for all the joy that God has given me in this life. Since I've not walked in others' shoes, I can't make that call for them, but it does seem that those who have apparently suffered the most are also often the most godly. Ironically, secondhand observers take a concentration camp as evidence that God is dead, whereas its inhabitants will usually/mostly be devout believers.
What I was getting at rather was the belief of most that "life isn't fair." If we presume temporal existence--that which we know--isn't fair and decide that in the afterlife God treats everyone the same, how does that suddenly make things fair (just)? It appears to me you condemn God for tolerating a Hitler, but also think Hitler is as every bit entitled to eternal bliss as his victims.
12122. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:45:17 AM
Actually, the questions can't be answered. Anyone who answers "yes" or "no" to the [first] is only answering for themselves, not in any absolute sense, and only about their beliefs, not reality.
I assume you mean the answers to the questions can't be known, but that there is an actual reality that--whether or not a person knows--since it's a binary question they have some probability of guessing correctly.
Thus, there is only one truly honest answer to the first, which is "I don't know". The answer to the second question, in that case, can also be "I don't know".
Is there any circumstance under which you think a person should be convinced of God's existence? Are you similarly skeptical about scientific knowledge?
For example, do you believe in the Big Bang? Ought one believe in God if the consensus scientific opinion was that God existed?
12123. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 11:54:37 AM
But for me the abscence of positive proof is more important than the absence of negative proof, so my answer is "no".
Pelle: Why? What about love? What is the proof of its existence?
If God exists I think he has a relation to the universe rather than to mankind. He need not be absent in the world like Aristitotle's Unmovable Mover but he also does not have a one-to-one relation with every human being.
Do you think if God exists, he created human beings?
12124. CalGal - 3/21/2001 11:59:14 AM
Indy,
I condemn God for tolerating a Hitler and rejecting a pygmy who lived a good life. I have no issue with a God who accepts everyone.
I can't make that call for them, but it does seem that those who have apparently suffered the most are also often the most godly.
I don't think you'd find much correlation, actually.
If we presume temporal existence--that which we know--isn't fair and decide that in the afterlife God treats everyone the same, how does that suddenly make things fair (just)?
Why is there any need to make things fair or just after death?
Again, I am not bound by your religion. I don't have to "decide" anything about this God, or any other. I can only state the terms under which I would find your God acceptable, using your basis as a starting point. So I have no demand that this life or the next be "fair". I am not complaining about your god because he's unfair, I'm saying that I reject him because he is petty. You can't say "Well, you want X, Y, or Z from God so you're being unreasonable." No, I don't want anything from God. I'm telling God (in this hypothetical) how he can play out this Supreme Being bit and still meet with my acceptance. He's the one who has to measure up. Not me.
Also, I just saw that you deleted my hypothetical. The subject was over, but I expect it will come up again, and so long as anyone makes statements about others rejecting God, I think you'd best not delete it. Because all Gods are hypothetical at this point and the one I posit is just as valid as the one of your Bible.
12125. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:13:27 PM
Jamie R (12113): (Well, I wanted to use the parent analogy, rather than the potter but was asked not to. Heh.)
I can see two explanations, neither of which is totally satisfactory. Either God as the composer and conductor doesn't have total control over what we do (i.e., our freewill) even though he assigns us the parts we play, or we are all working out God's plan precisely as he designed it--that he wanted the music to have both bass notes and treble.
In Genesis God begins creating as though that is his nature, and many have viewed him as a great artist. What sort of art can exist without villains and suffering? Going back to my remark about Shakespeare and Hamlet, we see something terrible in a TV drama and think, "Thank God, it's only TV."
Well, the problem with reality is that we're not so privileged as to see behind the curtain or to know yet what will happen when the camera is turned off. IMO, however, we should still give the performance of our lives.
12126. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:32:48 PM
anomieme (12114): (What is the signficance of your moniker, BTW? I'm sure you've probably posted it before, but I've forgotten.)
Isn't it obvious that he demanded the supreme human sacrifice of Jesus on the cross?
Good point--I just misunderstood what you were referring to. My point about human sacrifice was to counter the argument that people won't admit to worshipping a bloodthirsty god. Again, the values that many use here to "judge" God are a consequence of Christian influence in the contemporary world. In a pre-Christian era, the notion that God shouldn't be blood-thirsty would hardly have come up.
As far as Christ's sacrifice, you have to first answer the question of what do you think was Christ's nature? The nature of the sacrifice in turn hinges upon that.
What was the lesson of Jepthat's daughter, BTW?
It's an old testament story in which a Jewish leader promises to sacrifice the first thing that greets him if God will give him victory, and his daughter shows up first. Apologists have tried to explain it away (it's not explicitly spelled out what happens to her), but such explanations seem IMO arbitrary. I don't have an answer for it, either--though I will say that the continued existence of passages like that ought to be some proof of the sincerity of those passing on the Bible (i.e., if they wanted to cut out things that gave God a bad name, why leave that in?).
12127. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:41:39 PM
You and others speak about the unsaved as though it's their fault on the one hand, and then come down on the side of predestination. Indeed, your last post to me went something like (heavy paraphrasing), people are damned because of their INABILITY to believe. So I ask you again. What is the correct attitude toward God for these lost souls who had no choice in their disposition? And what is (or should be) the Christian message to the unselected -- too bad, God picked me, he didn't pick you?
I think the attitude of each should be the same. We are not to judge because we don't know. If you think your attitude toward God is not right, try reaching out to him. Try sincerely repenting, asking him to come into your heart, and forsaking your alienation from him--that you'll follow his commandments and the teachings of his son. Promise that from now on, he'll be number one in your life and you will do your best to love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
To the extent you can do that, you're reward will be in this life.
As for believing Christians, I like what Maya Angelou said (paraphrasing): she wasn't a Christian yet, but she kept working on it all the time and hoped she'd be one by the time she died.
12128. Indiana Jones - 3/21/2001 12:53:29 PM
Snow Owl: It was for illustrative purposes of what lack of knowlege can mean. I don't see that the fact we don't proclaim our worth invalidates it.
Imagine a Borg-like race with a collective consciousness. If this alien race decided to wipe us out because we might someday be a danger to the rest of the universe as evidenced by our genetic diaspora with bloodthirsty ancestors and our sibling contemporaries, they might not understand (what I assume is your belief) that each human being can make individual decisions about how he or she lives. From their limited frame of reference, they might judge us as collectively evil--the say way we, operating from a limited scope, try to evaluate God.
12129. PelleNilsson - 3/21/2001 2:06:48 PM
Indiana
Pelle: Why? What about love? What is the proof of its existence?
I was speaking in a much more restrictive sense. The absence of proof that invisible flying elephants do not exist does not mean that they do exist.
Do you think if God exists, he created human beings?
No, but he created the conditions under which human beings might emerge.
12130. jexster - 3/21/2001 7:22:52 PM
ANIMA Christi, sanctifica me.
Corpus Christi, salve me.
Sanguis Christi, inebria me.
Aqua lateris Christi, lava me.
Passio Christi, conforta me.
O bone Iesu, exaudi me.
Intra tua vulnera absconde me.
Ne permittas me separari a te.
Ab hoste maligno defende me.
In hora mortis meae voca me.
Et iube me venire ad te,
Ut cum Sanctis tuis laudem te
in saecula saeculorum.
Amen.
12131. anomieme - 3/21/2001 9:59:06 PM
Indiana,
Before I forget...anomie is a word I remembered from Psych 101. It means, I think, a a lack of internalized norms. I'm prone to question all norms although I live by most of them, FWIW. Since I posted exclusively in the R&P thread it seemed apt at the time.
12132. SnowOwl - 3/21/2001 10:07:56 PM
Durkheim. I'd almost forgotten him.
12133. anomieme - 3/21/2001 10:15:52 PM
"Try sincerely repenting, asking him to come into your heart, and forsaking your alienation from him--that you'll follow his commandments and the teachings of his son. Promise that from now on, he'll be number one in your life and you will do your best to love God with all your heart and soul and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.
To the extent you can do that, you're reward will be in this life. "
Indiana,
Try as you might to be compassionate, you must see how futile it is to ask me to repent -- as to entreat the lame to walk and the blind to see. No doubt their life would be better if God had given them the ABILITY.
I think we all know you're trying to answer some tough questions, so I'll give you that.
It would be nice if someone would take a stab at Cal's hypothetical, or speculate what their own attitude would be if they were deceived and were not of the chosen.
Say you get to heaven's gate, and God condemns you. Says you had it all wrong, Indiana. You should have listened to CalGal when you had the chance. Is God so loving and just in that instance?
12134. anomieme - 3/21/2001 10:35:23 PM
Indiana,
To be fair in my comments, I should add that you did make your statements contingent...
"If you think your attitude toward God is not right, try reaching out to him"
So, you were fair enough, IF a man thinks he can see, he should open his eyes.
12135. Dr.XavierTColtrane - 3/21/2001 11:36:45 PM
One question I intended to answer before the petty martinet Nilson struck but never got the opportunity was...
Ask Dr. Coltrane
Dear Dr. Coltrane: What model of stereo works best in hell?
The answer is lost to the ages.
12136. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:02:49 AM
SnowOwl, Rings a bell. Yes.
12137. mgleason - 3/22/2001 12:06:54 AM
I always thought you'd adapted the word anomie to your own use.
12138. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:12:46 AM
Mgleason, How so? I guess if you mean I used it in a less complex context, then yes, I suppose.
12139. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:15:22 AM
If I continue to post in some of the other threads, I should probably request a change. It is a bit weird and I think it worries Marshame. Smile.
12140. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:21:37 AM
Curiosity Google search reveals the following:
"Anomie are a kick ass hardcore metal outfit hailing from Moorhead, MN. Visit there official site for news, pictures, mp3s, RA files and more!
Description: Heavy metal group from the Fargo-Moorhead, MN-ND area. News, pictures, and sound files.
Category: Arts > Music"
I think I'll sue
12141. mgleason - 3/22/2001 12:24:59 AM
I meant that you'd transformed it into an identifier, like revolutionary or pirate. The first definition for anomy, a 16th century word, is disregard of law, especially divine. (Anomie, or lack of the usual social standards, came into usage in the middle of the last century.)
12142. anomieme - 3/22/2001 12:33:28 AM
Oh, I see. Seems you know more about me than I do. Hmmm.
But really it was a hasty decision on my part based on a vague memory. As I remember, "anomie" didn't take when I tried to register, so I added the "me". It ended up more confusing than I intended.
12143. bloodnfire - 3/22/2001 7:10:15 AM
Anomie = 'Disregarder of Divine Law'
Me = Myself.
Mmmmm. :-)
No insult intended...again
12144. anomieme - 3/22/2001 6:44:09 PM
mgleason, I didn't intend to sound glib. It is interesting how the term developed. I didn't know about its association with divine law - or at least didn't remember. IAC, your info makes it even more apt here.
Blood, None taken.
Divine Law = Natural Law.
12145. bloodnfire - 3/22/2001 8:45:48 PM
Natural Law +
12146. HollyW - 3/22/2001 11:43:36 PM
Wow. The Christians posting here are talking about a Christianity I do not believe in, but I still consider myself a Christian, although a haphazard one.
I don't know exactly where to start to jump in here, please bear with my fumblings.
For me, Christianity contains (expresses, may be the better word) the truth. This has been primarily a visceral reaction, the intellectual teasing out is still ongoing.
I don't expect Christianity to contain the truth for everyone. I can't conceive how it would. I do believe that everyone needs God, but I don't think that everyone needs to believe in God. I think there is a difference. When Christianity speaks to me of salvation and redemption, I feel rejoicing, and when it says that these things are available to everyone, I believe that to be true.
I cannot believe that anyone on this earth was meant to be damned; I see God's hand stretched out to everyone, and everyone with the ability to reach his hand out to grasp God's. Whether one calls it God or not. Some people do not need "God". I do, and I find myself thinking of the world and my relation to it in terms of Him.
I suppose my ideas of salvation and redemption are rather half-baked, then. They are in the language of Christianity, and in the sermons I have heard, the books I have read, I feel a deeper understanding, and a stronger light on my path; but I don't expect anyone else to find clarity where I do.
Would anyone say I am contradicting myself? I don't think I am, but it seems that when the truth can be many things, the ground gets shakier and shakier, and threatens to get dangerously subjective.
12147. HollyW - 3/23/2001 12:40:04 AM
Ha, not to say that when Jesus said, "I am the Way," he meant to say, "I am one of the Ways..."
12148. bloodnfire - 3/23/2001 6:16:46 AM
Nor that when He said "I am the Truth" He meant that He is only part of the Truth.
It's really good to have you with us. We all tend to contradict ourselves as we try to 'work things out' in our hearts and minds.
"I feel a deeper understanding, and a stronger light on my path; but I don't expect anyone else to find clarity where I do."
We each have to find light and clarity for ourselves. The kind of Christianity I personally have been sharing in this thread for about three years or so, is "Christ in you, the Hope of Glory". (Col. 1:27) That is, a personal 'relationship' (as opposed to a 'religion') with the God Who made relationship with God the Father possible.
My understanding from Scripture is that the Holy Spirit either 'indwells' a person, or He does not.(2 Corinthians 13:5). If that person will seek Him with all their heart, in their heart, they will surely find Him.(Matthew 7:7).
That's it. Glorious romance with the God Who is Love.
You will read in this thread posts from those who are 'fixated' on the killing and destruction which God the Father ordered and arranged in the Old Testament as part of the establishment of "The Law". Teaching us all that none of us could keep it.
Then Grace had Him become one of us (with His clean Heart), and die a death that each of us would otherwise have to die.
"Too good to be true" many say. No, "so good it has to be true".
But I honestly don't want to persuade you. If I could, then some other old fool could persuade you that something else is true. When God Himself persuades, one stays persuaded.
Welcome again.
12149. Jamie R - 3/23/2001 11:31:32 AM
"Too good to be true" many say.
"Not good at all" others say.
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true. Of course, I'll also be in hell, so I imagine I'll have other things to focus on.
Ironically, if atheism is true I'll never know it. That irks me too.
12150. Jamie R - 3/23/2001 11:32:47 AM
I should say, "some visions of Christianity." It doesn't sound like Holly thinks I'm hellbound.
12151. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:06:22 PM
Turn to the Light
A Sermon Delivered at Grace Cathedral by Louis Weil, Professor of Liturgics, Church Divinity School of the Pacific, 3/18/01
requires Real Audio
12152. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:09:36 PM
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true
1 Corinthians 15
Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13
But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;
14
if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.
15
We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
16
For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised.
17
If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins.
18
Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19
If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied.
12153. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:11:33 PM
Think you've got problems!
12154. jexster - 3/23/2001 12:22:55 PM
Beliefnet is multifaith and independent. Our goal is to help individuals meet their own needs in the realms of religion, spirituality, and morality. Sometimes this means providing information, and sometimes it means providing
inspiration. We will provide you with original, expert analysis from scholars and thinkers and, more important, allow members to gain wisdom,
companionship and strength from each other.
You’ll find reliable, fair, and thought-provoking information at Beliefnet. Our editorial staff is composed of some of the nation’s most accomplished and respected journalists in the fields of religion, spirituality, and morality.
At Beliefnet, you’ll find:
Religion: Information and special features on religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam.
12155. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 12:29:00 PM
I make the most persiflagenous posts and they are deleted or never show up. Go figure. Must be Moterguists in the form of thread hosts.
12156. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:28:00 PM
Holly,
When Christianity speaks to me of salvation and redemption, I feel rejoicing, and when it says that these things are available to everyone, I believe that to be true.
I cannot believe that anyone on this earth was meant to be damned; I see God's hand stretched out to everyone, and everyone with the ability to reach his hand out to grasp God's. Whether one calls it God or not. Some people do not need "God". I do, and I find myself thinking of the world and my relation to it in terms of Him.
First let me say that redemption and salvation cause me to rejoice also!;-) I have a few questions for you. How come you don't think God is capable of creating or has created anyone who will be destroyed? Who does not need God? What is it we are redeemed for and what is it we are saved from? Why is it that God would offer us these if they weren't necessary for all?
12157. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:30:40 PM
I'll be very irked if Christianity turns out to be true. Of course, I'll also be in hell, so I imagine I'll have other things to focus on.
Ironically, if atheism is true I'll never know it. That irks me too.
Lord. This is so me. Can we start a religion based on this belief system?
The Irkedites--No matter what happens after death, we'll be really pissed off.
12158. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:44:01 PM
A fascinating and important lesson dealing with sin, salvation and damnation:
Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, by Jonathan Edwards.
12159. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:46:06 PM
Lordy, Christians were unpleasant little squirts even 250 years ago.
12161. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 1:47:59 PM
CalGal,
Spend longer than 30 seconds on it, I dare you.
I dare you to read the *whole* thing.
12162. CalGal - 3/23/2001 1:52:26 PM
I did. How else do you think I came to that conclusion? The notion that you would find it appealing is, well, not as surprising as it should be.
If God is as this little monster describes, then I'll be in hell and consider it a step up from eternity with folks like Edwards. But I'll also think the world is a cosmic joke, that such a nasty creature could have built it. That's what will piss me off--not hell, but the knowledge that life and all its beauty was created by such a pathetic creature.
12163. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 2:01:20 PM
CalGal,
It's appealing in the sense that it's historical and that the teachings are interesting. This particular sermon was extremely influential in the 18th Century and although I don't personally like four hour sermons on death and damnation, it's one that's important and influential.
Amazing that so many people would be influenced by this sermon, but you, bad-ass CalGal still don't get it.
12164. Uzmakk - 3/23/2001 2:04:57 PM
you go, girl!
12165. CalGal - 3/23/2001 2:05:48 PM
It's appealing in the sense that it's historical and that the teachings are interesting.
Oh, okay to the first. I disagree with the second.
Amazing that so many people would be influenced by this sermon, but you, bad-ass CalGal still don't get it.
Not amazing at all. Most people are astonishingly stupid.
Okay, that's a joke.
Seriously, I've said before that belief is a capacity, not a choice. But I do know that if I had the capacity to believe, I wouldn't believe in an exclusionary god.
12166. SnowOwl - 3/23/2001 2:14:04 PM
What's amazing is that anyone would consider such a creature to be worthy of worship.
12167. mgleason - 3/23/2001 2:56:47 PM
I posted Ambrose Bierce's ironic take on DIES IRÆ in Poetry some time back, but I thought those that frequent this thread might enjoy it, too. Make sure to read Bierce's preface to his 'translation.'
12168. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 3:01:10 PM
SnowOwl,
I tend to look more at myself as the one who's unworthy. Why would God love me? Why, in spite of all I've done to dishonor Him, would He still remain faithful to me? Why, would He offer me so many chances and spare me from so much?
12169. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:31:42 PM
Jen,
That could just the mindfuck you put on yourself in order to feel like part of the group. Religions, particularly proseltyzing ones, draw in those who need and respond to strict rules about who's in and who's out. The only way that works is if the people are made to feel lucky that they're in and everyone else is out. How better to do that than to posit a God who shouldn't love you, but does anyway--but only if you do something really easy, like believe in him.
BTW, Religion regulars, don't forget to enter the Oscar Prediction contest! Cash prizes, and you can win even if you haven't seen any of the movies!
12170. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:42:04 PM
CalGal - I know your hypothetical was quite awhile ago, but I would reject that God. In fact, I've pretty much already decided that I may believe in God, but not the God of the Christian bible based on the picture of God drawn by the Old Testament.
I believe the Bible is a very informative book written by people. Parts of it relate actual historical events. Parts of it are allegory. Parts of it are very interesting indications of what the writers thought were important.
If the Bible were the exact word of God and God is completely what is defined by the Old and New Testaments as they exist today, then I don't want anything to do with a petty mean inconsistent tyrant like that.
12171. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 3:43:06 PM
That could just the mindfuck you put on yourself in order to feel like part of the group. Religions, particularly proseltyzing ones, draw in those who need and respond to strict rules about who's in and who's out.
OR it could be that I consider myself fairly small when compared to God. (Hint, hint.) Something about Him being GOD and me being only human, makes me feel more reverent.
Oh, and no one recruited me.
The only way that works is if the people are made to feel lucky that they're in and everyone else is out.
But see, I don't know who's out, I can only speculate; which ina ll honesty is not my my job.
How better to do that than to posit a God who shouldn't love you, but does anyway--but only if you do something really easy, like believe in him.
Welcome to the age-old stumbling block that you and the pharisees couldn't get around.
12172. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:44:55 PM
Christi,
Thanks. I find that most non-prosletyzing believers (like you and Holly) are willing to reject that God, because you believe in the essence, rather than the specifics.
12173. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:46:05 PM
Jen,
You miss the point. I am saying that religious beliefs are a reflection of personality. After all, you were talking about your own feelings. I was saying yes, but your own feelings are dictated by your personality, and your personality is reflected in your definition of God.
12174. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:51:48 PM
That's it, CalGal. The more biology and physics classes I took, the more I believed there was an intelligent force in charge of it all. So I believe in God.
I was raised Christian and I have found that living my life in ways that meet what Jesus required work for me. (BTW, I stick to what is recorded as Jesus' own words. I also make no judgement as to how accurately those words are recorded. I just know that it works for me.)
I believe the human race as a body needs us to care for and reach out to all of those around us as much as possible for fallible humans to do.
I believe that deliberately harming another person is just plain wrong.
I believe that sometimes shit happens and what's important is how you handle it and what you learn from it.
That's just about as specific (give or take a bit) as I get.
12175. SnowOwl - 3/23/2001 3:51:56 PM
Maria,
The Bierce is delightful. You might also like Burns' Holy Willie's Prayer
O Thou that in the Heavens does dwell
Wha, as it pleases best Thysel,
Sends ane to Heaven an' ten to Hell
A' for thy glory.
And no for onie guid or ill
They've done before Thee!
12176. christipeters - 3/23/2001 3:53:25 PM
Further, that's just about as specific as I need to get. I have no great burning desire or need to define God or pin down all the specifics or try to winnow what truth or truths are the big Truth, etc.
12177. CalGal - 3/23/2001 3:57:52 PM
Maria,
That's very funny!
Christi,
I think the need part that you describe is very much what religions and spiritual beliefs come down to: what does a person need or desire as a belief system?
12178. mgleason - 3/23/2001 4:00:01 PM
I'd never come across that one, Snow. Thanks!
I find Bierce's DIES IRÆ irresistible because he captures so well the smugness that characterizes many believers:
On that day of lamentation,
When, to enjoy the conflagration,
Men come forth, O be not cruel:
Spare me, Lord--make them thy fuel!
12179. marshame - 3/23/2001 4:03:40 PM
What I find interesting about the Edwards piece that Jen linked is the historical context. Here, the Reverend Edwards focuses on the righteous wrath of God, and how we so justly deserve hell and damnation. I agree that it is a pretty heavy piece. But compare that to today's popular conception of God: all love, righteousness, all forgiving, no judgement. We are as extreme in our view of God today as Edwards was in his.
So, as they say, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.
12180. marshame - 3/23/2001 4:04:25 PM
Oops, that should read: all love, NO rigtheousness, all forgiving, NO judgement.
12181. Jenerator - 3/23/2001 4:12:34 PM
I didn't know that Christipeters was a believer?
12182. Jon Ferguson - 3/23/2001 4:13:09 PM
Great link, Maria.
12183. CalGal - 3/23/2001 4:18:28 PM
So, as they say, the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.
No, actually, it doesn't "have to" at all.
Also, I think there is a difference between saying that God is all sweetness light and righteousness and the belief that God is unknowable but probably not interested in whatever we believed while we were here.
12184. christipeters - 3/23/2001 4:25:09 PM
Jenerator - I guess it depends on how you define believer. However, I have stated my beliefs many times, both here and in The Fray.
12185. mgleason - 3/23/2001 4:47:59 PM
Thanks, CG and Jon.
I posted that link for a guy on TT who was throwing a bit too much hell-fire and brimstone my way, and he didn't like it one bit.
Which reminds me that we passed a truck with a load of molten sulfur on the highway last Saturday. I figured it was an emergency order for the next day's sermons.
12186. HollyW - 3/23/2001 9:26:14 PM
Oh, that's funny.
12187. HollyW - 3/23/2001 9:32:14 PM
Then Grace had Him become one of us (with His clean Heart), and die a death that each of us would otherwise have to die.
There's another part I don't believe in. I don't believe in the sacrificial death of Christ. What's more, it isn't necessary to believe that to be a Christian, as it is not necessary to believe in the literal resurrection. I can tell you, I felt like dancing a jig when I found this stuff out.
Christi, nice posts.
Jen, I'm going to answer your questions in a bit, too. It's helpful to think about and articulate where I am coming from, from time to time, although it changes quite a bit as I go along.
12188. wordninja - 3/23/2001 9:53:41 PM
So . . . this male version of God as a father figure, reads like a divorce court summary pertainin' to dead-beat Dads.
I'm told he knowingly put temptation in the paths of his first two children (Adam and Eve), and when they did what kids will do . . . answer the proddin' of curiosity (which is supposed to be the basis for our species dominance on this particular planet) . . . he throws his hands up in the air n' turns the entire species loose to figure things out fur ourselves . . . then takes a typical Dead-beat Dad attitude of leavin' us to our own devices.
Can't ya'll just picture God, sittin' on the *throne*, leafin' thru one of his back issues of High Times, n' shakin' his head at how rotten and sinful his kids have turned out . . .?
12189. HollyW - 3/23/2001 10:03:00 PM
How come you don't think God is capable of creating or has created anyone who will be destroyed? Who does not need God? What is it we are redeemed for and what is it we are saved from? Why is it that God would offer us these if they weren't necessary for all?
The idea of a God who creates us and destroys us according to how much we please him with our obedience to his law repels me. God's omnipotence is a rather recent idea, and frankly I don't hold to it. The God who sustains me would never destroy me, and indeed created this crazy world but has little control over it. I doubt he created me, although I believe he created conditions agreeable to me being here, to a degree. So I guess I'm a bit of a Deist.
CalGal talks of belief as a capacity not a choice, and I'm grateful to her for being able to put into words something I have not been able to...I really think certain conditions, maybe a mix of personality, life experience, culture, whatever, give one a need to believe in God. I can tell you what my belief in God gives me: the strength to live my life rightly. Other people live rightly without asking for his aid. I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me; but who's right or wrong doesn't matter, I believe in God so that's how I see it, they do not so that is how they see it, and God certainly is not keeping a tally on who "believes"--he promised us, he is available to all! And I believe that.
12190. HollyW - 3/23/2001 10:23:31 PM
What are we saved from? Hoo, boy. Hard to pin this down, I know others have probably said it SO much better...but I'd say ourselves, our loneliness, and the deep pain that seems to be our legacy, being human. How are we redeemed? The pain is washed clean, it ceases to matter. We are filled up, we are not alone. How does this happen? As many different ways as there are people, haha...myself, I think of Jesus and am filled with joy. I read C.S.Lewis' Surprised by Joy a few years ago, and related to it quite a bit.
However, another notable thing about that book, he describes the moments of joy at certain times in his life, and his desire to find it or rather let himself be guided by the search for it, and suddenly he arrives at Jesus. How he got there is a big mysterious leap, to the reader, and to him. Not everyone would make the leap to Jesus...someone living in India sure would not, most likely. But their path would not be any less true.
Bloodnfire, mulling over the contradictions has certainly deepened my faith. What I was saying before was, I did not believe I was contradicting myself, although it sure would look like I was. Sorry if I was not clear--it wouldn't be the first time, though!
12191. anomieme - 3/23/2001 11:23:32 PM
HollyW,
I'm very much enjoying your post. It's a refreshing outlook for this crowd. I'm not a Christian but I have a certain respect for personal spiritual experiences and It's always interesting to hear about them. I hope you continue.
12192. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:42:38 AM
Holly,
The idea of a God who creates us and destroys us according to how much we please him with our obedience to his law repels me.
It scares me and makes me realize, I have room for improvement!
God's omnipotence is a rather recent idea, and frankly I don't hold to it.
How could he be God then?
The God who sustains me would never destroy me, and indeed created this crazy world but has little control over it.
I don't understand why you think that God sustains you but has little to no control over this world. If He sustains specificaly Holly, wouldn't that imply some sort of special relationship?
I doubt he created me, although I believe he created conditions agreeable to me being here, to a degree. So I guess I'm a bit of a Deist.
He had no idea you were coming and has no control or knowledge of what will happen to you?
CalGal talks of belief as a capacity not a choice, and I'm grateful to her for being able to put into words something I have not been able to...
CalGal likes to talk about things she has no experience or true knowledge in. She can tell you all about belief and God; but bases those opinions solely on her misunderstandings and lack of any real experience. It would be like me telling you what it's like to be a man as a female.
I really think certain conditions, maybe a mix of personality, life experience, culture, whatever, give one a need to believe in God. I can tell you what my belief in God gives me: the strength to live my life rightly.
What do you mean by rightly?
(Cont.)
12193. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:46:30 AM
Other people live rightly without asking for his aid. I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me; but who's right or wrong doesn't matter, I believe in God so that's how I see it, they do not so that is how they see it, and God certainly is not keeping a tally on who "believes"--he promised us, he is available to all! And I believe that.
What about those people who reject Him?
What are we saved from? Hoo, boy. Hard to pin this down, I know others have probably said it SO much better...but I'd say ourselves, our loneliness, and the deep pain that seems to be our legacy, being human.
Jesus came to say, "I am here to save you from yourselves."??
How are we redeemed? The pain is washed clean, it ceases to matter. We are filled up, we are not alone. How does this happen? As many different ways as there are people, haha...myself, I think of Jesus and am filled with joy. I read C.S.Lewis' Surprised by Joy a few years ago, and related to it quite a bit.
So we're redeemed how??
However, another notable thing about that book, he describes the moments of joy at certain times in his life, and his desire to find it or rather let himself be guided by the search for it, and suddenly he arrives at Jesus. How he got there is a big mysterious leap, to the reader, and to him. Not everyone would make the leap to Jesus...someone living in India sure would not, most likely. But their path would not be any less true.
So, any andall paths lead to God?
I'm trying to understand the way you think about Jesus, as a Christian. We all have room for growth and we all bring our own perspective to the table.;-)
12194. Jenerator - 3/24/2001 8:49:11 AM
christipeter,
I guess it depends on how you define believer. However, I have stated my beliefs many times, both here and in The Fray.
Are you a Christian now? You'll have to forgive me, but I don't recall you ever stating your beliefs. I remember you saying that your beliefs are personal and that you don't share them. Most likely you were defending your opinions with Vic.
12195. RosettaStone - 3/24/2001 8:56:50 AM
We went to "the Stations of the Cross" last night at our local Catholic church.
Such a powerful symbol of the last hours and death of Jesus.
First time our teenagers did it. The church sponsored a pizza party afterwards for the kids.
I know it sounds outrageous but it worked. Next week the kids want to go again--although no party afterwards.
12196. anomieme - 3/24/2001 10:20:26 AM
Jen, Your questions to Holly betray your belief in innerancy - Baptist version - and sounds like biblical idolitry to me.
Can't someone have a direct relationship with God? Does God need to check in with the innerancy faction before he can relate to someone?
12198. HollyW - 3/24/2001 12:21:04 PM
Jen,
It scares me and makes me realize, I have room for improvement!
Well, okay, then. It would scare me too if I believed that. Fear doesn't motivate me to live closer to God, the peace and joy that results from walking in his light does. So we are different.
How could he be God then?
That is your definition of God, and like I said, a fairly recent definition of him. God is powerful, but is not required to be omnipotent, even in Christianity. I reject your definition. The God I know would not have allowed the horrible things of the world happen if he could help it.
I don't understand why you think that God sustains you but has little to no control over this world. If He sustains specificaly Holly, wouldn't that imply some sort of special relationship?
He sustains me, he does not control me. He reaches out his hand, and I grasp it. He gave me free will. He can't control me. I do have a special relationship with him. As I am sure your relationship with God is special, and personal. I know that you believe Jesus died on the Cross for your sins.
I'm not making this up as I go along, Jen. Christianity is a far from cut-and-dried religion. People who think a great deal more clearly and deeply than I do puzzle over the meaning of his life and death. I am still in the process of exploring their insights.
12199. HollyW - 3/24/2001 12:30:57 PM
He had no idea you were coming and has no control or knowledge of what will happen to you?
Exactly. To a tremendous degree. Free will again.
The comments about CalGal don't refer at all to what I said, only your opinion of CalGal, therefore I won't respond to them.
What do you mean by rightly?
We could go on and on with that one! What is right living? What Jesus taught. But don't you think many people live by what could be called good Christian virtues, but only without the religious belief?
You think of people who reject him as specifically rejecting his name. I think you can have Christ living and active in your heart without naming him Christ.
i have more to say about this, but motherhood calls...
12200. CalGal - 3/24/2001 1:56:07 PM
I believe that they do enlist his aid, only they don't know that's what they are doing; they would laugh at me
Well, I don't know that they enlist his aid, but I do think that, if there is a God who happens to care about what people on earth do (keep in mind there could be a God who doesn't give a damn) then that God would realize how different people are, and look to how they lived, rather than what they believed.
12201. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 2:24:10 PM
It never ceases to fascinate me how so many people can be caught up in this superstitious, irrational, archaic cult called Christianity.
Even among many of the non-believers here, the persistent niggling doubt that is so highly in evidence is truly a marvel to behold.
There is almost no reason whatsoever to believe that there is a God. There is even less reason to believe that anything remotely resembling the Biblical God exists. And yet we babble for hours and hours about this fantastic being who belongs with unicorns, goblins, angels and dragons ... in fairy tales.
Many billions of years ago, a few amoeba gained a foothold on Earth. They might have come from interstellar debris, or we might have even been colonized by another civilization much like our own. We are only a few decades from being able to do so if we so desired (there's no reason to colonize a new planet with people, amoeba and time will do the trick nicely.)
After a lot of evolution, here we are. It is not a miracle that everything works as it does, it is exactly what one would expect after billions of years of adaptation. The world is still a very chaotic place as anybody whose head isn't inextricably wedged up their ass would be happy to admit.
There is no God, people. Get over it. There are a brainwashed few who are too far gone to hear this message. But those of you who seem to be wavering need a wake-up call. This was it.
12202. arkymalarky - 3/24/2001 3:31:00 PM
Wow. Glad you cleared that up. Will we change the thread name to just "Philosophy"?
12203. bloodnfire - 3/24/2001 7:34:38 PM
We've put away all of our banners,
Melted down our red kettles for shells,
Put our uniforms out with the dustbins,
and thrown out our wee silver bells...
We've closed down our re-hab-ilitation,
(The centers for making folks 'free'),
Called in all our doctors and nurses
From our hospitals 'over the sea'...
No more helping the homeless or hurting,
Nor comfort those mourning the dead,
If you're hungry or homeless or helpless,
Go see Jonny Furgy instead.
The fact is the 'Ferguson Mindset'
Was rampant when life got its start,
And the trouble has never been 'minds' after all,
The problem has been with the heart...
We worked fourteen decades for Jesus,
No strings, just God's loving outpoured,
And we feel true compassion (not smugness),
For all those who don't know our Lord.
But lurking around this arena,
Can prove wonderfully good for the soul,
For the Christ of the Cross is a 'Motie',
And He can deliver Jon's soul.
Author Unknown.
:-)
12204. RickNelson - 3/24/2001 7:50:20 PM
JAYSUS!
12205. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 9:35:24 PM
Blood
As misguided as you are, I truly believe that you do a lot of good. When reality is so harsh that life becomes unbearable, providing people with a fantasy that gives them hope is certainly not something I can condemn.
But you are, sadly, the exception among those of your faith. And what little good you do doesn't begin to make up for all the atrocities and other acts of lunacy committed over the past two millennia in the name of Christ.
Thanks for the poem, though. Cute.
12206. wordninja - 3/24/2001 11:17:14 PM
*Talkin' to yurself in public and not havin' to worry about lookin' like yur on dope . . .*
12207. ee - 3/24/2001 11:17:37 PM
264. God - 9/15/99 9:33:28 AM
Oh, and if you get bored, kill a bunch of non-believers for me. And if history looks unfavorably on what you do, make up some dumb excuse about how even though the leaders of this movement have been kooks from day 1, that still doesn't mean that the movement is kooky.
same conversation as 800,462 minutes ago
12208. Jon Ferguson - 3/24/2001 11:42:08 PM
ee
Ain't that the truth. Good to see you.
12209. HollyW - 3/25/2001 1:02:00 AM
Hee.
Good poem, bloodnfire, and that kind of thing usually annoys me.
Hey Jon! Was that you trying to mix it up in TT last month, on an MWT thread?
12210. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 1:04:54 AM
Hi Holly
I don't post on TT, other than to change my tag-line occasionally (I 'host' (if that's the right word) the Mote Café over there.)
At the risk of sounding ignorant, what's MWT?
12211. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 5:20:29 AM
Jon, thanks for your smiling acceptance of my 'tongue in cheek' doggerel.
You post..."what little good you do doesn't begin to make up for all the atrocities and other acts of lunacy committed over the past two millennia in the name of Christ."
Let's forget everything and anything 'good' that's done in the name of Christ. I acknowledge the countless attrocities and acts of lunacy also done 'in His name'. It seems to me that what we are looking at is the difference between love and hatred.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, any loving act done in His name is 'genuine' Christianity. The other nightmarish behavior reflects self-centered 'religiosity' and is the reason He came to die in the first place.
I appreciate your kind spirit.
12212. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 5:29:01 AM
"Many billions of years ago, a few amoeba gained a foothold on Earth"
"Such brilliant amoeba, how fortunate they came,
Sent here by The Creator, to start a lovely 'game'
A game called "Love's Salvation",
In which folk, like you and me,
First getting 'lost' then being 'found'
At last can be made 'free'.
Thank God for those amoeba,
Summer, Winter, Spring and Fall...
Without them I'd have never met.....
Jon Furgeson at all!"
I promise this is my last epic poem, at least in this thread, for a long while! :-)
Thanks Indy for your patience.
Jon, I care for you, and truly wish you well.
12213. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:22:43 AM
Could someone post a quotation from the bible in which "the mote in Gods eye" is mentioned? I think it starts "It is better to remove..." something something; I need to be able to quote it verbatim rather than just guess at it.
12214. mgleason - 3/25/2001 9:28:57 AM
Matthew 7:1-5 (King James Version):
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
12215. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:37:33 AM
Thanks, Maria...can you explain to me how someone could see the word "beam" and take it to mean "log" or "piece of lumber" in the context of those verses?
I assumed it meant a ray of light or a gleam of something like understanding, lust, envy, whatever. This lady I know took it another way.
12216. mgleason - 3/25/2001 9:46:28 AM
Judith,
In the later tranlations 'plank' or 'log' is usually substituted for 'beam,' as 'speck' (of sawdust) is for 'mote.'
The passage refers to a fault observed in another person by a person who ignores a greater fault of his or her own, so the comparison is as between a log and a splinter, for example.
12217. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 9:55:46 AM
Thanks, Maria...I suppose she has a later translation.
12218. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:05:00 AM
Furiously biting tongue. (g)
12219. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 10:07:35 AM
Don't hold back, Jon...but might I suggest you take your little put down to the Inferno?
12220. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:09:28 AM
Thanks for the kind words, Blood (not that I would ever expect otherwise from you.)
12221. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:10:11 AM
Now Judith, you're being catty again. Please desist. Thanks, Sweetie. (g)
12222. wordninja - 3/25/2001 10:30:37 AM
Does not the "mote", as referred to, conjur a mental image of a tiny mote of dust, that one may detect lazily floatin' in the radiance of a "sunbeam" shinin' thru a window?
I oft times think that we are too busy tryin' to look for the "mote" that mars the radiance of the life-beam shinin' out from the eyes of others, which in turn, befouls the perfection of our own image, as we beam it outward to *enlighten* the world with the lasers of our egos . . .
.. . 'course that's just the opinion of this ol' secular humanist
12223. JudithAtHome - 3/25/2001 10:52:32 AM
Thank you, kind sir...you should write a book!
That was what I thought when I first read the quote: motes on beams of light.
12224. PelleNilsson - 3/25/2001 12:25:54 PM
Ferguson's Message # 12201 confirms his level of emotional development.
Teenager Discovers "Truth" and Decides to Confront Elders with Revolutionary Message.
12225. RickNelson - 3/25/2001 4:31:02 PM
Dear bloodnfire, I insist you take a moment of your time over to the Poetry thread and read Maria's limricks.
12226. bloodnfire - 3/25/2001 8:19:26 PM
I did Rick. Always enjoy Maria's posts, especially in your thread.
12227. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:38:25 PM
Holly,
Well, okay, then. It would scare me too if I believed that. Fear doesn't motivate me to live closer to God, the peace and joy that results from walking in his light does. So we are different.
Fear is the beginning of wisdom. Don't you think that it is only natural that we fear God in some ways? Read Psalm 103, read Ephesians. What say you?
I then comment on your rejection of omnipotence and you say:
That is your definition of God, and like I said, a fairly recent definition of him.
I never gave a definition.(?)
God is powerful, but is not required to be omnipotent, even in Christianity.
If he knows the past present and future, how is he NOT omnipotent?
I reject your definition. The God I know would not have allowed the horrible things of the world happen if he could help it.
If he couldn't help it, he wouldn't be a God. Besides, he has done acts of vengeance and destruction.(the flood, Sodom, etc.)
We could go on and on with that one! What is right living? What Jesus taught. But don't you think many people live by what could be called good Christian virtues, but only without the religious belief?
He taught that He was the way, the truth, the light and that *no one* would come to the Father but by Him. How do people who consciously reject Him, come to Him??
12228. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:41:37 PM
Jon,
Message # 12201
Your wake-up call was weak, very weak. I'm sorry to break this to you, but Christianity has been around longer and influenced more lives that you will ever have. Christianity will also be around longer than your own legacy ever will be.
12229. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:49:07 PM
Jen,
If he knows the past present and future, how is he NOT omnipotent?
Sweetie, that would make him omniscient, not omnipotent.
Christianity will also be around longer than your own legacy ever will be.
So will syphilis and cockroaches.
12230. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:51:44 PM
Knowledge is power, sweetie.
12231. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 9:53:15 PM
I've created the heavens and the earth and everything in between. I know the past, present and future. I am passionately woven into all of creation, I'm just not omnipotent.
Yeah, okay.
12232. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:57:35 PM
Oh, we're talking about you. Well why didn't you say so?
Of course it's a given that you're omnipotent, Jen. (g)
12233. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 9:58:51 PM
And at least you and Pelle can agree on something.
Isn't it beautiful how I bring people of opposing beliefs together like this? (g)
12234. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:01:16 PM
Jon,
I don't understand you sometimes. You're very supportive of religion (yes, including Christianity) and you've said wonderful things about what it has done for it's believers. Then, for some unkown reason, you go on these binges and insult Christianity and it's followers.
Your announcement was incredibly condescending. I didn't think you'd say that stuff.
12235. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:02:21 PM
I have to go. I hope you win the Oscars sweep!;-)
12236. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:14:10 PM
Jen,
You've always known that I'm an atheist. I've often told you that your judgmental streak bothers me. You see me as condescending. Do you think I'm the only one being condescending?
Christianity can do wonderful things for a select few who use it as a tool to bring love, hope and meaning to their lives. Most use it as a club to condemn others with. Either way it is, at its root, a mythical cult. But if used for good, I don't have much of a problem with it.
10-4 with the majors to go. The only really stupid choice I made was Gladiator for Cinematography instead of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
12237. Jenerator - 3/25/2001 10:18:45 PM
My goodness what is Sigourney Weaver wearing??
Jon,
All of us are judgmental in ways, including yourself. Did you stop to think of how judgmental your rant against Christianity was??
12238. Jon Ferguson - 3/25/2001 10:36:55 PM
Haven't noticed Sigourney.
Just lost another Gladiator pick to CTHD, this time best score. Crap.
My opinions are just that, Jen, my opinions. People can take them or leave them. And yes, most people leave them.
I don't try to back them up with torture, or fire and brimstone. I don't try to coerce people into believing as I do or try to impose my views on others. That's the difference. Well, that and my beliefs are based on science and rational thought (if you want to nitpick.)
But I don't really want to debate with you. As I mentioned, there are a few people who are too brainwashed to hear me. But imagine what you'd do if a friend of yours was trapped in a religious cult and you can begin to imagine how I feel when I see what you've immersed yourself in.
12239. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 5:29:29 AM
Oh Oh, what's happened ? All I get is a blank page.
12240. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 5:34:06 AM
All better now. Good morning everyone...
12241. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 12:08:52 PM
Good morning bloodnfire.
I'm reading If Not For The Grace of God, and it's quite nice.
12242. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 12:13:10 PM
But imagine what you'd do if a friend of yours was trapped in a religious cult and you can begin to imagine how I feel when I see what you've immersed yourself in.
Weird that you don't always think that way. I can recall many nice things you've said to me about my faith in Christ.
Secondly, I have feelings and thoughts about your staunch atheism at times, but I don't try to insult you with condescending announcements on how brainwashed you are. Nor do I compare your outlook with a cult; which I could do.
12243. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 1:38:11 PM
I can recall many nice things you've said to me about my faith in Christ.
Well, context certainly played a role in that, Jen.
How can you claim I'm 'brainwashed' when I came to atheism entirely on my own, Jen? As you know, but may have forgotten, I was raised Anglican Protestant, carried the cross in church, etc.
I didn't know a single atheist (at least, not one who shared his/her views with me.) Or did I 'brainwash' myself? (g)
I'd be interested to hear how you could possibly compare my outlook with a cult. Please elaborate.
12244. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 2:25:06 PM
Jen. Hi. Great subject "Grace". I don't seem to be able to make your link to the book you're reading work. Can you try again please ? Or is it only I who am having this problem ?
12245. SnowOwl - 3/26/2001 2:29:40 PM
That is not a link. It is simply underlined to show that it is a book title.
12246. mgleason - 3/26/2001 2:32:12 PM
It's not a link; she underlined the title.
BTW, have you read Blood and Fire : William and Catherine Booth and the Salvation Army?
12247. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 3:43:47 PM
Jon,
People who think that Christians become brainwashed when they become Christians really don't understand what it's like to be Christian! I didn't surrender my thought processes when I became a believer, and if anything I'm faced with more choices than before.
The WWJD bit is overdone, but as a Christian, I do have to think about things not only in my own terms according to my own conscience but by the standards of my faith. I fail miserably sometimes, too. But, I am never on automatic pilot!
You mentioned the word "cult" first and since you used it loosely, I used it it right back on you. Had I responded in kind, I would have said that you had been brainwashed by the liberal media and the secular community and that you are a faceless member in the cult of self. (But I didn't!)
12248. Jenerator - 3/26/2001 3:49:41 PM
Bloodnfire, 
12249. Jon Ferguson - 3/26/2001 6:35:34 PM
Main Entry: cult 12250. CalGal - 3/26/2001 6:39:18 PM Well, atheism could be a cult. Put another way, a group of people who are atheists could form a cult around atheism. You could say that this is what MMOH did, in fact. But there is no way that atheism itself could ever be a cult. 12251. bloodnfire - 3/26/2001 7:32:26 PM Thanks Jen. I'll look into it (both figuratively and probably physically...:-). 12252. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2001 8:44:09 AM anomieme (12133): 12253. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2001 8:57:18 AM 12160 was deleted as a dupe. 12197 was moved to the Inferno. 12254. Jenerator - 3/27/2001 10:43:21 AM Jon, 12255. Jenerator - 3/27/2001 10:44:49 AM 11. Concept of Jesus is contrary to truth of Bible 12256. CalGal - 3/27/2001 10:47:45 AM Moreover, I don't see what Cal's alternative offers at all (the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" as one is cast into eternal flames?). 12257. CalGal - 3/27/2001 10:48:34 AM One of the *MAIN* characteristics of a cult is that it is unorthodox from the orthodox perspective. 12258. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 10:54:54 AM I worship myself? I'll admit, I have a healthy ego. And that most standardized tests say I'm smarter than 99.9% of the population. That still leaves .1% of the population smarter than me. That's 6 million people (on Earth) and 325,000 (in Canada/U.S.) That's not the kind of scientific evidence I would use to justify a 'Cult of Jon.' 12259. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2001 11:40:24 AM Cal: 12260. Indiana Jones - 3/27/2001 11:46:17 AM Also, I wasn't aware that it was religion's job to "offer" something, like it's a sale. Are you saying that you're not an atheist because you don't like the idea that there's no heaven? That would make a mockery of belief. 12261. CalGal - 3/27/2001 1:07:02 PM Rather, it's your statement that you would embrace the flames (and I know that's not the exact word you used, but I'm not scrolling back to see what it was because IMO that's close enough) because your feeling is that such a system is petty anyway. 12262. bloodnfire - 3/27/2001 1:24:31 PM Jen. Your excellent Message # 12255. "If I was Christian, though, you'd never hear me say 'the WWJD bit is overdone.' I think it has been overdone because the message is lost because of it's commercial market appeal. People don't think about WWJD the way they should, instead, they buy the slogan to have." 12263. christipeters - 3/27/2001 2:33:17 PM bloodnfire - It was JonF, in post #12249 who said "If I was Christian, though, you'd never hear me say 'the WWJD bit is overdone.' " 12264. Jenerator - 3/27/2001 4:31:23 PM Jon, 12265. Jenerator - 3/27/2001 4:34:16 PM Bloodnfire, 12266. Jenerator - 3/27/2001 4:42:49 PM CalGal, 12267. bloodnfire - 3/27/2001 6:45:58 PM Thanks Christi. I knew that it was Jon's original comment, but it seems to me that Jen agrees with the W.W.J.D. program (is that true Jen ?). For myself I think it's merely 'religious' and tends, for those who have not had the experience of 'His Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we're His children' (Romans 8:16), to encourage "The Man Upstairs" syndrome, as opposed to the "Christ in You" promise of Scripture. 12268. bloodnfire - 3/27/2001 6:52:30 PM Jen, not to pick up on Christi's 'nit-picky' as well but you posted above..."It IS good to consider Christ when facing any decision, we should! You and I agree on that, I just wanted to clarify for Jon.;-) . 12269. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 7:24:52 PM Jen 12270. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 8:56:22 PM What you leave out of your own incredibly narrow view is the possiblity of truth. 12271. Jon Ferguson - 3/27/2001 8:56:32 PM I think it is fine to think about what Jesus would do, I just believe that the WWJD? phenomenon has lost its significant focus. 12272. bloodnfire - 3/27/2001 9:16:33 PM Jon. "But I do require a rational basis for what I believe in." That, of course, is true of all 'Rational Humanists'. I respect your candor, and your right to believe anything you wish. 12273. iiibbb - 3/27/2001 10:57:42 PM Repeat I know... but it's the ethics of it... 12274. iiibbb - 3/27/2001 11:47:44 PM nevermind... I've answered my own question 12275. bloodnfire - 3/28/2001 6:23:03 AM Good for you iiibbb. Good to have you with us. 12276. iiibbb - 3/28/2001 7:24:54 AM ...I already knew what I would do... I was just seeing what other people would do. I decided I'd just do what I was going to in the first place. 12277. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 8:10:08 AM Looking for the Historical Jesus 12278. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 8:15:44 AM I didn't ask whether it offered something. I asked whether it was its job to offer something. 12279. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 8:18:12 AM iiibbb: I agree with b&f. Also, I think we remember graciousness given and received much longer than we do quid pro quo transactions. 12280. christipeters - 3/28/2001 9:33:16 AM Indiana - I wonder when/if that show will make it to the States.... 12281. Indiana Jones - 3/28/2001 11:46:24 AM christi: I'm pretty sure PBS will pick it up. It could dovetail with From Jesus to Christ: The First Christians. 12282. christipeters - 3/28/2001 1:12:23 PM I watched and enjoyed that one. If the BBC Historical Jesus makes it to PBS, I certainly will watch it. 12283. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 4:16:37 PM Bloodnfire, 12284. Jenerator - 3/28/2001 4:32:18 PM Jon, 12285. bloodnfire - 3/28/2001 5:10:50 PM Now Jen I can see that I'm not making myself clear (not for the first time :-) ...I'm trying to differentiate between 'considering Christ' when facing a decision, and not considering Him but instead allowing Him to decide and move in me (Colossians 1:27). 12287. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:08:36 PM Jen, 12289. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:20:58 PM ...I didn't explain that very well. 12290. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:24:32 PM Oh, hi Jon! That was very amusing. 12291. bloodnfire - 3/29/2001 10:30:12 PM The Scriptures don't say that "Fear is the beginning of Wisdom" (On the contrary, it states that "Perfect love casts out fear" (1 John 4:18). 12292. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:39:11 PM I'll go read that in context, and try to get a handle on it. Thanks, Bloodnfire. 12293. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:42:50 PM "Reverential awe" and "fear" as Jen seems to be understanding it don't look like the same thing to me. 12294. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 10:51:37 PM Hi Holly, 12295. HollyW - 3/29/2001 10:59:46 PM No, it was NT stuff. I liked it because it underscored how to act in a loving way is not easy, it demands a great deal. If my memory serves right. 12296. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 11:06:51 PM how to act in a loving way is not easy 12298. mgleason - 3/29/2001 11:27:29 PM Holly, are you thinking of 1 Corinthians 13? 12299. JudithAtHome - 3/29/2001 11:36:50 PM So, who has received the Jesus tape? I'm wondering how much that sucker cost to film and distribute? I received one and have no interest in it whatsoever...wouldn't that money have been better spent on orphans or feeding the poor or helping the unfortunate or healing the sick? 12300. Jon Ferguson - 3/29/2001 11:41:45 PM Judith 12315. bloodnfire - 3/30/2001 6:17:53 AM Holly. Appreciate your posts. As I understand things, the word 'Fear' in Scripture means two things, depending on the original language. It can mean 'Terror' and 'Trepidation', which are the kinds of 'Fear' which Perfect Love (and we know Who that is !:-) 'casts out'. 12316. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 9:07:27 AM Deleted posts 12301-12314 consisted of a series of broken pics and a discussion about why they were broken. 12317. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 9:20:44 AM Change-of-pace topic: 12318. Jenerator - 3/30/2001 12:28:42 PM As tempting as it sounds to be stuck with sterile millionaires of the same sex and race, I'd have to pass! 12320. Jon Ferguson - 3/30/2001 12:46:33 PM Blood 12321. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 12:50:18 PM Jen: They're separate scenarios. That is, would you have any qualms about making such a drug legal in each instance? 12325. Jenerator - 3/30/2001 1:35:50 PM Indy, 12326. Indiana Jones - 3/30/2001 2:24:37 PM Jen: Here are a couple of the things I'd like to get at, but avoid couching them in the traditional terms that keep debate in this thread so circular. One, the alleged unfairness of granting eternal (or close to eternal) life to one group of people. I'm curious whether anyone reacts differently when it's not a supernatural being showing favoritism, but the reality we're used to of inequities in everyday life. 12327. joezan - 3/31/2001 1:42:53 AM Ok... 12328. joezan - 3/31/2001 1:47:22 AM 12329. joezan - 3/31/2001 1:54:53 AM 12330. joezan - 3/31/2001 1:59:16 AM 12331. HollyW - 3/31/2001 12:00:42 PM Holly, are you thinking of 1 Corinthians 13? 12332. jexster - 3/31/2001 1:14:45 PM Are you a person of faith who is sick and tired of the radical right distortions of religion? On the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination, help reclaim his progressive prophetic message. Join Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Marian Wright Edelman, Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Rev. John Buehrens, Taylor Branch, Dr. Charles G. Adams, Paul Begala, Rev. George Regas, Rev. Timothy McDonald, Rabbi David Saperstein, Sr. Maureen Fiedler, Ralph G. Neas and other progressive leaders and activists. 12333. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 12:35:29 PM That looks like a major production, Joe. Are you in it? 12334. JudithAtHome - 4/1/2001 12:53:35 PM do people consider it more important that the persons already here live longer or that new generations continue to arise? 12335. joezan - 4/1/2001 12:58:52 PM arky: 12336. CalGal - 4/1/2001 1:03:48 PM Indy, 12337. Jenerator - 4/1/2001 1:07:08 PM Joe, 12338. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 1:49:19 PM Joe, 12339. PelleNilsson - 4/1/2001 3:21:18 PM joe 12340. arkymalarky - 4/1/2001 3:38:16 PM Duh. The production Bob's nephew is in is for Christmas. 12341. joezan - 4/1/2001 9:29:07 PM Jen: 12342. jexster - 4/2/2001 11:41:20 AM Son of Thunder! 12343. jexster - 4/2/2001 11:42:20 AM In the last month 3 friends have died of AIDS..this is for John, Harry, David 12344. Jenerator - 4/2/2001 12:24:16 PM Joe, 12345. marshame - 4/2/2001 12:38:39 PM jexter 12346. jexster - 4/2/2001 1:18:26 PM I predict this PRP will implode from its own self-importance - even though it's sponsored by such spiritual heavy weights as People for the American Way 12347. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:35:18 PM Oh how tolerant of you. And may I remind you that the Rev. Martin Luther King was a Baptist??? I sincerely doubt he would joing the PRP today, if he were alive. 12348. marshame - 4/2/2001 1:36:38 PM Jexter 12349. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2001 3:48:08 PM One could just have kids and then take the drug. The obvious problem is overpopulation, which I imagine would be addressed politically. 12350. Ms. No - 4/2/2001 5:31:25 PM Indy, 12351. Jamie R - 4/2/2001 7:10:54 PM 12352. jexster - 4/2/2001 7:17:51 PM No Marshme it doesn't strike me as odd. 12353. pogie - 4/2/2001 8:22:23 PM There is a ridiculous amount of sci-fi that argues that if superlong/near-eternal/eternal life were available to humans, eventually they would indeed stop having kids and die out, millennia down the road. Literally dozens and dozens of stories operate on this premise. Overpopulation, when it shows up, is a passing phase lasting a few hundred years/few millennia before the not having kids at all part kicks in. 12354. CalGal - 4/2/2001 8:28:11 PM Yep. I don't buy that most people would choose kids over eternal life. Also, I doubt that would be the change offered. It would probably be something you could buy. 12355. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:43:53 AM Ms. No: Suppose the pill worked only on (pick a race) because of genetics. Would you be in favor of prohibiting members of that race from using it? Or suppose it was tied to Y chromosomes--same question. 12356. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:45:09 AM pogie's and Cal's 12353 and 12354 seem to bear out that the modern consciousness does work that way. 12357. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 8:47:05 AM I don't much care if a supernatural being shows favoritism or not--I will reject the one that does, is all. 12358. Indiana Jones - 4/6/2001 9:09:02 AM Addendum to 12355: I don't mean that the pill was designed that way. Rather, because of some fact of science, it just turned out that way. 12359. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 9:10:33 AM How about a 'change of pace'? We try to help our students (at the Reformatory where I work) understand, learn and practice "Unconditional Respect". That's really what "The Golden Rule" means, do you agree? Respect, including kindness and compassion, extended to everyone regardless of the way they might be treating you. 12360. ycmeehan - 4/7/2001 9:19:07 AM No ideas, Bloofire. How are you? 12361. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 9:25:58 AM Never better yc, thank God. You back in America ? 12362. phillipdavid - 4/7/2001 9:31:06 AM I agree, Bloodnfire. But I would take it a little further. Besides respect, kindness and compassion, add friendship. 12363. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2001 9:31:20 AM b&f: I think the Golden Rule is based more on love. Of course to love someone, you really must have an element of respect for them too--so maybe it's another chicken and egg thing. 12364. phillipdavid - 4/7/2001 9:36:36 AM Indiana, 12365. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2001 9:43:04 AM Phillip: You are likely right, though the unconditional part is hard for me to get a handle on. I can sometimes feel compassion for anyone--I remember reading Inside the Third Reich when Speer is parting company with Hitler and feeling pity even for the two of them--but OTOH the idea of Hell is that God must eventually place a condition on an eternal relationship with him. 12366. phillipdavid - 4/7/2001 9:57:33 AM Indiana, 12367. Indiana Jones - 4/7/2001 10:06:33 AM Phillip: Your beliefs sound pretty similar to mine. You don't mean by "numerous opportunities" reincarnation--or do you? 12368. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 10:11:41 AM My understanding of Scripture is that God so loved that He gave..." (etc.) and that based on John 14:21... 12369. phillipdavid - 4/7/2001 10:12:27 AM yes, I do. 12370. phillipdavid - 4/7/2001 10:23:32 AM bloodnfire, 12371. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 2:12:13 PM "I reject the idea of conditional love, though." 12372. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 2:21:37 PM I didn't finish reading your post 12370. If you feel that John 14:21 reflects your conviction that..." the concept of conditional love is a concept and belief born of human relationships", then I gather that you choose which Scriptures you will and will not accept as being inspired by God, if any ? 12373. bloodnfire - 4/7/2001 4:40:36 PM At the same time, I should emphasize, it is my understanding that all followers of Christ are to love everyone, unconditionally. 12374. phillipdavid - 4/8/2001 9:51:39 AM bloodnfire, 12375. jexster - 4/8/2001 4:44:26 PM 12376. jexster - 4/8/2001 4:58:59 PM The royal banners forward go, 12377. jexster - 4/8/2001 5:00:24 PM < b> 12378. jexster - 4/8/2001 5:04:05 PM toys!! 12379. jexster - 4/8/2001 10:06:24 PM Well put Phillip David! This one is headed for the e-mail! 12380. joezan - 4/9/2001 12:38:45 AM 12381. bloodnfire - 4/9/2001 5:19:00 AM "bloodnfire, You seem to have a problem with the idea of unconditional love.." 12382. HollyW - 4/9/2001 11:21:25 PM It's interesting how in the Book of John Jesus talks so differently than in the synoptic Gospels. Frankly, if John came first in the NT, I'd be saying to myself before I was halfway into it, "Where does this guy get off?". As it is, the synoptics balance John nicely. 12383. mgleason - 4/10/2001 12:47:42 AM Taken on its own, much of the Gospel of John is difficult to reconcile with the Synoptic Gospels. If one bears in mind, however, that it was most likely the last of the four canonical Gospels written, and by more than one author, something of a pattern begins to emerge. 12384. angel-five - 4/10/2001 2:49:04 AM Has anyone here moderately acquainted with the workings of the papacy read Hitler's Pope? Rereading it now and am curious if any Catholics acquainted with recent papal history have any insights or rebuttals to offer on its content. 12385. bloodnfire - 4/10/2001 5:26:18 AM Holly, thanks so much for your kind comment. Contrary to popular belief in this thread I am not a smug idiot who thinks he knows it all. I am merely a man who also 'looks through a glass darkly' and tries to learn all I can about the God I love and serve. I look forward to reading your posts when you have had a chance to think things through. 12386. bloodnfire - 4/10/2001 5:27:28 AM Good to see you back, AngelFive. 12387. Every Grain of Sand - 4/10/2001 2:57:16 PM Can American Christians proclaim that Jesus is the son of God when his crucifixion and agony are symbolized by a rabbit who lays eggs? 12388. Jenerator - 4/10/2001 3:48:59 PM Yes I can. As an American Christian, I understand why there are secular versions of holy holidays. Christ's suffering and resurrection are in no way minimized for me simply because some people have easter egg hunts. 12389. bloodnfire - 4/10/2001 5:50:01 PM Welcome Every Grain of Sand, (and since it's Easter I'll greet you by your initials EGS) :-) 12390. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:36:53 AM 22 Deus, Deus meus 12391. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:37:10 AM 12392. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:44:12 AM Tommorrow night marks the start of the Triduum the three holiest days of the Holiest Week of the year for Catholic Christians. Tonight at many parishes will conduct the monastic Office of Tenebrae (shadows) as service of pslams and prayer noteworthy for the extinguishing of candles and at the end, a loud clap as one single candle symbolizing the Resurrection is placed on the altar. 12393. RickNelson - 4/11/2001 11:30:24 AM Is all of that a Catholic mass Jexster? 12394. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:29:35 PM Yes 3 actually. And Hitler's Pope - beatified or in process I believe. 12395. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:57:52 PM Tenebrae 12396. jexster - 4/11/2001 7:02:36 PM Lamentations 1 12397. mgleason - 4/11/2001 7:41:06 PM I've enjoyed your Holy Week posts, Jex. 12398. jexster - 4/11/2001 8:16:22 PM Thanks MG...I've a plan for each of the next 3 days. 12399. bloodnfire - 4/12/2001 6:26:36 AM I am enjoying them too, Jexster. In the Salvation Army Songbook there is a song based on the first line of verse 12 of the passage you just quoted...it might bless you... 12400. ycmeehan - 4/12/2001 6:40:31 AM Have a happy Easter, Bloodnfire. 12401. bloodnfire - 4/12/2001 7:23:42 AM Thanks yc. Same to you. 12402. RickNelson - 4/12/2001 10:14:01 AM A joyous and praiseful Easter to all spiritual Moties. 12403. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 10:18:33 AM Images of Christ (clickable0: 12404. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 10:19:23 AM 12405. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 10:20:10 AM 12406. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 11:29:23 AM As out of Jesus' affliction came a new sense of God's love, and a new basis for love between men, so out of our affliction we may grasp the splendor of God's love and how to love one another. Thus the consummation of the two commandments was on Golgotha; and the Cross is, at once, their image and their fulfillment. 'It is in affliction itself', Simone Weil writes, 'that the splendor of God's mercy shines; from its very depths, in the heart of its inconsolable bitterness.' We feel ourselves to be forsaken, as Jesus momentarily did on the Cross; and if then we persevere in our love, we end by coming into contact with something which is neither joy nor sorrow, something necessary, pure and essential; something apart from the senses, partaking of both joy and sorrow. Then, at last, triumphantly, we know what it is to love God, and looking outwards from within this love, we see our fellow men, all of them, the sick and the well, the beautiful and the plain, the stupid and the clever, Mongols and beauty-queens and imbeciles and athletes, every variety and category of humankind; see them all as brothers and sisters, members of one family, at once enfolded in God's love and chained together by it, as though they were His galley-slaves, and this servitude their perfect freedom. 12407. RickNelson - 4/12/2001 11:32:19 AM Indiana, 12408. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 11:36:09 AM Rick: 12409. Jenerator - 4/12/2001 12:32:25 PM What Rick said! 12410. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:18:29 PM 12411. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:20:30 PM sorry 12412. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:25:19 PM 1 Cor 11: 12413. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:28:01 PM Now, my tongue, the mystery telling 12414. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:30:21 PM The Anima Christi 12415. Indiana Jones - 4/12/2001 2:43:11 PM Rick: I think most people hunger for drama, and their fascination with something like a McVeigh execution is just an upping of the "need" to watch Jerry Springer or Dale Earnhardt smash into a wall and kill himself. Christ's suffering and death is different, however, in that first it is suffering which has inherent meaning (whereas we struggle for any meaning to most human suffering) and second, at least for believers, we know the resurrection--as you say--is the final chapter, not death: "Death has been swallowed up in victory! here, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?" 12416. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:49:23 PM John 17 12417. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:50:52 PM toys sorry Indy 12418. jexster - 4/12/2001 3:20:42 PM I see the love displayed on Calvary's Cross as being unconditional until Jesus uttered the words "It is finished". Thereafter, that Love of God (Who after all is love) is extended only to those who love Him back. John 14:21 sounds rather 'conditional' to me. 12419. jexster - 4/12/2001 5:23:34 PM Maundy Thursday 12420. jexster - 4/12/2001 5:25:50 PM My song is love unknown, 12421. bloodnfire - 4/12/2001 9:26:11 PM 12422. arkymalarky - 4/12/2001 9:34:20 PM Happy Easter, everybody. 12423. bloodnfire - 4/12/2001 10:08:36 PM Hi Arky. Thanks for remembering. It's one of our favorites. Blessings! 12424. jexster - 4/12/2001 11:25:51 PM Well thanks and God bless BnF...just began the Heavy liftin tonite...I LOVE HOLY WEEK! 12425. jexster - 4/12/2001 11:37:19 PM Well thanks and God bless BnF...just began the Heavy liftin tonite...I LOVE HOLY WEEK! 12426. jexster - 4/12/2001 11:47:31 PM 12427. jexster - 4/13/2001 10:46:54 AM 12428. RickNelson - 4/13/2001 10:50:37 AM Just a quick repair of an error, the city with a problem might be Philli, but this time it's Cincinnati. Sorry to interrupt Jexster's wonderful work in progress. 12429. jexster - 4/13/2001 10:57:25 AM Walk The Stations of The Cross 12430. jexster - 4/13/2001 4:15:06 PM 12431. bloodnfire - 4/13/2001 5:10:25 PM Very much appreciate the last two links jexster. 12432. jexster - 4/13/2001 6:28:40 PM Walked over for the final word from the Cross meditation. Fr. Paul gave the final homily. 12433. jexster - 4/13/2001 6:29:37 PM toys 12434. bloodnfire - 4/13/2001 8:45:07 PM A wonderful (and wonder-filling) activity for the whole family for Easter Saturday evening... 12435. bloodnfire - 4/13/2001 8:46:51 PM EASTER COOKIES (Continued)... 12436. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:21:53 AM 12437. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:24:39 AM EveryGrain... 12438. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:31:37 AM The Great Vigil of Easter 12439. jexster - 4/14/2001 10:36:53 AM From The Exsultet 12440. jexster - 4/14/2001 11:09:20 AM The Exsultet - An Ancient Hymn of The Church (Real Player) 12441. marshame - 4/14/2001 11:49:16 AM Bloodnfire 12442. jexster - 4/14/2001 11:54:04 AM 12443. bloodnfire - 4/14/2001 1:14:56 PM Thanks Marshame. Happy Easter to you, Jen and Mr.Blessed Wonderful! :-) 12444. jexster - 4/14/2001 1:59:20 PM 12445. jexster - 4/14/2001 3:20:12 PM Further reflections on the Exsultet... 12446. jexster - 4/14/2001 3:36:30 PM We who have the good fortune to participate in the Easter Vigil can listen with the ears of our heart to the proclamation of the Exultet. If we do not grasp its full significance this year, no matter. One of the reassuring characteristics of the liturgy is that it is repeatable, and the Exultet will come around again next year. Then we can listen once more, attentively, pondering these things in our heart as Our Lady did, repeating with wonderment and awe: "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, that won for us so great a Redeemer!" l 12447. Indiana Jones - 4/14/2001 7:34:00 PM Saturday in Holy Week - Easter Eve 12448. Indiana Jones - 4/15/2001 5:56:06 PM 12449. jexster - 4/16/2001 5:38:34 AM The Easter Sermon of St. John Chrysostum 12450. jexster - 4/16/2001 5:40:40 AM Jesus lives! thy terrors now 12451. jexster - 4/16/2001 5:44:14 AM Happy Easter Everyone! 12452. jexster - 4/16/2001 5:58:30 AM 12453. Indiana Jones - 4/16/2001 12:03:58 PM The Problem of Evil 12454. jexster - 4/16/2001 1:45:15 PM I'll paraphrase a homily delivered recently at the funeral of a friend who died of AIDS and another frinend who died of the disease 15 years ago. 12455. bloodnfire - 4/16/2001 2:05:46 PM Quoting also from Job..."Then said Job's wife unto him, 'Dost thou still retain thine integrity? Curse God, and die.' 12456. jexster - 4/16/2001 2:27:41 PM The fit, BF, is astounding for its consistency and not only in the Bible and other Judeo-Christian theological writing but in other faiths, Buddhism, the Hindu Opanishads, Tao come to mind as well. 12457. HollyW - 4/17/2001 11:37:12 PM Jexster, wonderful posts. In particular-- 12458. jexster - 4/18/2001 11:44:20 AM 12459. Indiana Jones - 4/19/2001 9:05:37 AM Buddha 12460. christipeters - 4/19/2001 9:37:33 AM "Further, can we conclude that, given evil and suffering, there is no God at all?" 12461. ElliottRW - 4/19/2001 11:09:08 AM Christi 12462. Ronski - 4/20/2001 1:33:09 PM 12463. jexster - 4/20/2001 1:35:55 PM "When you are truly a happy Christian, you are also a Buddhist and vice versa....On the altar in my hermitage are images of Jesus and Buddha, and I touch both of them as my spiritual ancestors....If we touch the Holy Spirit we touch God not as a concept but as a living reality....Reality is free from all notions....It is our duty to transcend words and concepts to be able to encounter reality" 12464. jexster - 4/20/2001 1:47:52 PM New Camaldoli Hermitage, Big Sur CA 12465. jexster - 4/20/2001 1:56:00 PM NEW CAMALDOLI HERMITAGE: WHO WE ARE 12466. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2001 12:04:05 PM Ronski: Sounds to me like a non-story. The church was certainly within its rights to decline anyone's giving a speech there for any reason, and the school reacted appropriately IMO by moving the ceremony somewhere else. I'm glad that everyone seems to have handled it locally without the need for a big national whoop-de-do. 12467. Indiana Jones - 4/21/2001 12:22:59 PM Where do reason and faith come into play and how do they interplay? 12468. jexster - 4/21/2001 9:32:40 PM Interesting site (and I am sure I missed it will have to study more)but the question of good and evil faith and reason are not directly addressed as far as I could quickly glance and determine. 12469. Jenerator - 4/23/2001 9:12:23 PM Indiana, 12470. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 9:48:30 PM Jen: I don't know about the death penalty. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of the state's executing its citizens, especially in "my" name. Someone on one of the other threads expressed the idea that somehow relatives of the deceased should have a say-so in what happens. Maybe that would be more acceptable to me because like Pilate I could wash my hands of the whole thing. 12471. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 9:48:41 PM When the soldiers go up to where she's been hit (and discover she's a female), they also see they've shot her in the stomach, so she's writhing in agony, but not yet near death. I remember thinking--and saying--at the time, "I'd just leave her there to suffer," and my now-deceased co-watcher being horrified that I reacted that way. It was just a movie, yet my bloodlust had been stirred in a way that later even real-life tragedy didn't duplicate. 12472. jexster - 4/23/2001 10:36:43 PM We join Pope John Paul II in renewing our strong and principled opposition to the death penalty. We oppose capital punishment not just for what it does to those guilty of horrible crimes, but for how it affects society; moreover, we have alternative means today to protect society from violent people. As we said in our Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty, 12473. jexster - 4/23/2001 10:38:44 PM Administrative Board, United States Catholic Conference, A Good Friday Appeal to End the Death Penalty (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1999), 3. 12474. Indiana Jones - 4/23/2001 10:45:18 PM jexster (12468): I am not a Buddhist, either, and can't speak for that religion or characterize it overmuch. I dislike nonbelievers doing so with Christianity, so I try not to do it to other religions. 12475. CalGal - 4/23/2001 10:53:38 PM Actually, Jen, the McVeigh execution has been discussed in at least three threads. So don't go drawing any conclusions. 12476. mgleason - 4/23/2001 11:46:53 PM Most capital punishment supporters probably don't even trust the State to fluoridate the water supply, yet they have no qualms about entrusting it with the ultimate power over their lives. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around that one. 12477. CalGal - 4/23/2001 11:53:15 PM Well, that makes them sound a lot more right wing than they are. Hell, when you've got Judithathome saying "Burn the bastard", it's hard to blame it on the VWRC. (g) 12478. Uzmakk - 4/24/2001 9:09:23 AM Jexster: 12479. Jenerator - 4/24/2001 1:12:54 PM CalGal, 12480. jexster - 4/24/2001 2:20:03 PM Uzzie..that's because I don't play here. 12481. jexster - 4/24/2001 2:25:19 PM Indy... 12482. Jenerator - 4/24/2001 2:30:18 PM Unlike most Christian denominations, the Zen Buddhist's at least do not require you to believe their theology - dogmatic or moral. There is indeed no conflict from their point of view. 12483. jexster - 4/24/2001 2:42:58 PM Oh sure Jen, I know that just from all the reading I've done. 12484. jexster - 4/24/2001 2:45:49 PM But did you find that your own Christian spirituality suffered or was deepened by yoga practice????? 12485. jexster - 4/29/2001 3:03:46 PM Preachers, priests and politicians often talk about "traditional family values" as though they were handed down by George Washington and God himself. 12486. jexster - 4/30/2001 10:40:55 AM PBS Interview With The Archbishop of Canterbury 12487. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 12:45:11 PM More on the religion/death penalty debate... 12488. jexster - 5/2/2001 1:51:26 PM Now that is ONE helleva piece of exegetical sophistry! 12489. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 1:57:09 PM jexster: That piece gave me several things to think about. 12490. mgleason - 5/2/2001 1:57:10 PM It's no wonder, Jex; note the surname and affiliation. 12491. jexster - 5/2/2001 1:58:39 PM From The Cathecism of the Catholic Church 12492. mgleason - 5/2/2001 1:59:35 PM He's a prince of the Church, Indiana. That's how they're styled. 12493. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:00:33 PM 2267 "Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. 12494. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:02:25 PM 12495. mgleason - 5/2/2001 2:07:01 PM A statement from the National Jewish/Catholic Consultation urging an end to the death penalty. 12496. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 2:08:07 PM mgleason: The surname and affiliation reference went right over my head. What's the significance? 12497. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:08:39 PM CHAPTER III 12498. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:09:55 PM 12499. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:12:24 PM 12500. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 2:12:54 PM The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself. 12501. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:16:00 PM to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin 12502. mgleason - 5/2/2001 2:16:28 PM Cardinal Dulles is the son of former Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and the nephew of former CIA Director Allen Dulles. He's also a Jesuit. Sophistry is not only in his blood, it's his vocation. ;-) 12503. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:16:29 PM amen 12504. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:17:15 PM toys 12505. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:18:28 PM toys! 12506. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:19:01 PM DAMN 12507. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:31:11 PM The Prophetic Humanism of Evangelium Vitae 12508. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:32:00 PM toys... 12509. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:32:23 PM toys 12510. jexster - 5/2/2001 2:33:10 PM "The glory of God is man fully alive." 12511. mgleason - 5/2/2001 2:40:56 PM The Pope is very forceful on the subject of capital punishment. From Ecclesia in America: 12512. Indiana Jones - 5/2/2001 2:42:59 PM Thanks, Maria (hope I got your first name right this time). I wondered about that, made sense, but not being Catholic, I didn't want to assume. 12513. mgleason - 5/2/2001 2:48:03 PM My pleasure, Indiana. Cardinal Dulles was named to the College of Cardinals in January of this year, the first US theologian to make the cut. 12514. mgleason - 5/2/2001 3:01:33 PM I forgot to mention that the Cardinal is a convert to Catholicism. 12515. jexster - 5/2/2001 8:08:13 PM This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death 12516. Indiana Jones - 5/3/2001 8:34:55 PM jexster: (Sometimes you post all those lengthy quotations and toy fixes until I don't see the part you've actually said) 12517. Jenerator - 5/4/2001 10:19:06 AM I was wondering the same thing. 12518. labwabbit - 5/4/2001 12:19:57 PM On their way to get married, a young couple are involved in a fatal car accident. The couple find themselves sitting outside the Pearly Gates waiting for St. Peter to process them into Heaven. While they are waiting, they begin to wonder, "Could they possibly get married in Heaven?" 12519. labwabbit - 5/4/2001 12:30:37 PM What is the definitive priest? 12520. joezan - 5/4/2001 10:05:04 PM As promised: Yet another photo from the Easter Pageant. These are 11 of the 12 disciples, and Jesus. 12521. bloodnfire - 5/6/2001 5:55:09 AM What a great looking bunch! Which one are you Joezan? 12522. joezan - 5/6/2001 9:00:25 AM Well thank you, blood - but I'll never say. 12523. seadate - 5/6/2001 10:38:57 AM Joe's the one with singed hair. 12524. joezan - 5/6/2001 11:12:04 AM Ha ha ha! 12525. bloodnfire - 5/6/2001 5:23:46 PM My guess is middle row, extreme right. 12526. bloodnfire - 5/6/2001 5:24:32 PM Probably extreme wrong! :-) 12527. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 11:34:24 AM Hello all. New here. 12528. PelleNilsson - 5/8/2001 1:04:32 PM Hello Zojak. Welcome. This thread doesn't get much traffic lately. Maybe you will get it to move. 12529. Ronski - 5/8/2001 1:23:46 PM Religious Anti-Semitism and Homophobia 12530. Indiana Jones - 5/8/2001 1:51:43 PM Zojak: Welcome. 12531. Indiana Jones - 5/8/2001 1:53:36 PM intercession = remission 12532. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 2:57:26 PM Indiana - 12533. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 2:57:53 PM (con't) 12534. Indiana Jones - 5/8/2001 3:06:08 PM Zojak: Christ's was voluntary, but per your other arguments, wasn't he a substitute for us? 12535. labwabbit - 5/8/2001 3:08:21 PM Welcome aboard Zojak. 12536. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 3:33:39 PM One may look at it as God taking advantage of man's retributive techniques to have his son sacrificed 'voluntarily'? 12537. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 3:37:44 PM Thus, if Christ had not died, would our death be punishment and retribution (and failed deterrence in the sense that God told Adam he would die if he disobeyed)? 12538. Zojak Quafeth - 5/8/2001 4:53:14 PM Whoops Joezan, I meant Immanuel not maclean -- 12539. Jenerator - 5/8/2001 4:57:09 PM Zojak, 12540. labwabbit - 5/8/2001 5:49:34 PM Zojak: 12541. joezan - 5/8/2001 6:58:06 PM ZQ: 12542. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 8:35:09 AM Zojak: I think we're talking past one another and in actuality I'll be surprised if our positions differ much. I agree Christ was innocent. 12543. Zojak Quafeth - 5/9/2001 9:13:42 AM Indiana - 12544. Zojak Quafeth - 5/9/2001 9:33:57 AM Jenerator - 12545. ElliottRW - 5/9/2001 10:24:40 AM I'm pretty sure that people are supposed to sin. They are supposed to screw up at least as often as they succeed. Otherwise, God would of have chucked the whole mess aeons ago. As Jenerator says, a sin is a mistake. A person that makes no mistakes never grows, never really lives, is intensely boring. That doesn't mean sin isn't worth avoiding; it's just reasonable to think of sin as part of God's plan. Without sin, God has a mathematical model, not a universe. Thrown in sin and things get interesting. 12546. Zojak Quafeth - 5/9/2001 10:55:18 AM Elliott - 12547. Zojak Quafeth - 5/9/2001 11:00:12 AM P.S. Is sin part of God's plan? I think God recognizes that sin will occur and if you assume he's omniscient knows when and can use it as part of his plan even if it is not his will. I think that's what free will is about. 12548. Indiana Jones - 5/9/2001 11:00:31 AM Zojack (12543): Good post. I told you our positions probably didn't differ much. (Though of course we both may be wrong!) 12549. ElliottRW - 5/9/2001 11:08:33 AM Zojak -- touche. I was too glib. A life without the actual commission of sin could indeed be quite interesting, provided there was at least the possibility of sin. Or even the perception of the possibility of sin. The triumph of virtue is only as sweet as the temptation of vice is strong. So sin happens, because how credible would the possibility of sin be if it never, ever happened? 12550. Jenerator - 5/9/2001 7:45:05 PM Zojak, 12551. Zojak Quafeth - 5/10/2001 8:47:08 AM Jen - 12552. Zojak Quafeth - 5/10/2001 9:15:14 AM And on the topic of sin, one of the passages that has bugged me a bit is Exodus 9. The plagues in Egypt. Moses went to Pharoah and told him to free the Israelites at God's command. Pharoah's heart was hard and he refused to do so. So we start with the plagues. 12553. Zojak Quafeth - 5/10/2001 9:17:23 AM It actually continues through Exodus 10 as well: 12554. bloodnfire - 5/10/2001 6:00:39 PM You'll notice Zojak Quafeth (and welcome to the thread by the way) that in 8:15 and 30 Pharaoh 'hardened his own heart' first. 12555. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 4:38:15 PM DEATH TO BLASPHEMERS: ISLAM'S GRIP ON PAKISTAN 12556. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 4:50:10 PM Whoops! Death to Blasphemers by Barry Bearak, Islamabad NYT 5-12-01 12557. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 4:54:42 PM "Before saying anything in this country, you must always be aware of the forum, the place and the time," said Afrasaib Khattak, head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. "If accused of blasphemy, you are in great difficulty. The mullahs are not known for their generosity. Even if exonerated, you will always be in danger." 12558. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:08:39 PM "I had heard form the sermons in the mosques that those who blaspheme deserve to be killed immediately," said Ashghar Ali Afridi, who at 28 was older than most students and whose views were persuasive. "It was a weakenss of faith that we did not do it." 12559. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:10:31 PM KILL FOR ABRAHAM! 12560. bloodnfire - 5/12/2001 5:21:21 PM God defend us all from religiosity, Muslim, Jewish, Christian or any other. 12561. wonkers2 - 5/12/2001 5:24:36 PM Amen! 12562. msgreer - 5/12/2001 5:36:05 PM wonker2 Why my posts are not getting through I do not know so here is my second try. Please accept my apologize for the spam, Moites. I checked the Mote Cafe but emails are not coming through for me. I have been trying to get to you. 12563. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2001 8:56:10 AM Two takes on the Golden Rule: 12564. bloodnfire - 5/15/2001 3:48:23 PM In the 'Essay on the Golden Rule' the author says...""Treat others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same exact situation.". He also cites Matthew 7:12 in which the Lord Jesus actually expressed it somewhat differently, imo. He said..."Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets". 12565. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2001 4:05:15 PM Not always...some people can learn to do things just because it is better to do them that way. I don't think, in other words, one has to be saved to obey the Golden Rule. 12566. CalGal - 5/15/2001 4:15:37 PM I can think of any number of times when using the Golden Rule would be extremely inapt. 12567. Zojak Quafeth - 5/15/2001 4:22:24 PM Calgal - 12568. Zojak Quafeth - 5/15/2001 4:30:42 PM I can instances where people may disagree as to how to apply the golden rule, one of the perfect examples being the relationship between my mom and wife (which is great now that they have figured each other out - but until that happened, mom thought she was applying the golden rule, my wife didn't). 12569. CalGal - 5/15/2001 4:47:55 PM Zoj, 12570. JudithAtHome - 5/15/2001 4:55:52 PM there are plenty of times when kindness and respect gets you nowhere. 12571. CalGal - 5/15/2001 4:59:16 PM I suspect you're just not thinking this through, Judith, because I find it impossible to believe that you can't think of times when being kind or respectful isn't only not helpful, but actively harmful. 12572. Zojak Quafeth - 5/15/2001 5:02:31 PM I am skeptical that there is any society where it is considered polite to tell someone that they look like a sheared sheep. 12573. Zojak Quafeth - 5/15/2001 5:04:35 PM I suspect you're just not thinking this through, Judith, because I find it impossible to believe that you can't think of times when being kind or respectful isn't only not helpful, but actively harmful. 12574. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2001 5:16:47 PM The problem is though, Cal, that the golden rule is not about about selfishness and getting what you want. It about creating a better world. Would life as a whole be better if I (along with everyone else in line with me) didn't have to put up with the asshole at the front of the line yelling to get what he wants? 12575. Indiana Jones - 5/15/2001 5:32:46 PM For starters, Kant's criticism: 12576. CalGal - 5/15/2001 7:19:07 PM I hadn't read the links when I first responded, but the second one (what I've read of it) makes much of my point for me, particularly the bit about transfer of perspectives. 12577. CalGal - 5/15/2001 7:25:49 PM That's what my mom and frankly a lot of the people I grew up with want or expect. 12578. Jenerator - 5/15/2001 7:50:20 PM The British are quite blunt and don't take honest statements as criticisms the way we do here in America. 12579. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 11:45:47 AM ... But if you have documentation that says...that everyone in ... thinks that "my god, did a lawnmower get you?" is an appropriate way to comment on a stranger's hair, I'd be delighted to see it. In any event, it is clear that your mother wasn't following the golden rule, since I am sure she would expect to be treated politely, by her standards--and yet she has failed to do the same with your wife. 12580. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 11:53:54 AM Cal - 12581. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 11:55:33 AM American history would be far different if we had done unto the native tribes the way the colonists would wish to be treated had they been the downtrodden, and quite arguably the worse off for it. 12582. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 11:57:23 AM A child molester or a murderer would no doubt we do unto them they way they would do unto others--namely, they'd let the other murderers and child molesters go unharmed. Any takers? 12583. CalGal - 5/16/2001 12:16:38 PM Well Cal, if you know my culture better than I, so be it. 12584. CalGal - 5/16/2001 12:19:10 PM That's a VERY narrow-minded, and I think, inaccurate, interpretation of the rule. 12585. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 1:01:55 PM Cal - 12586. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 2:09:25 PM As to the second link. Lots of other interesting articles there. We've got "hy Human Rights are Wrong," "Why Democracy is Wrong," "Why NATO is Wrong," and last but not least "Why Forget the Holocaust", which contains the following wonderful little snippet: 12587. Indiana Jones - 5/16/2001 3:35:01 PM Well, the entire human race is pretty much about self-interest. In some cases, communities perceive self-interest in the greater good of the community, that's all. 12588. Zojak Quafeth - 5/16/2001 4:15:20 PM Indy - 12589. CalGal - 5/16/2001 9:24:04 PM You said in an earlier post that there are times when following the Golden Rule could be "inapt." 12590. CalGal - 5/16/2001 9:41:12 PM If you leave out spiritual aspects, yes, there's the rub. 12591. HollyW - 5/17/2001 12:09:56 AM I am currently reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God and highly recommend it to everybody here. 12592. ee - 5/17/2001 12:42:53 AM Holly; Christ was crucified because He said he was God. This was blasphemous to the Jews. The first and second century had many first person accounts of people being killed because they were followers of Christ. Killing or dying for your beliefs seems fundamental to me. 12593. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 9:56:59 AM Cal - 12594. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:45:08 AM Zojak, 12595. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:47:17 AM Oops. Hit enter accidentally. 12596. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 11:53:23 AM Cal - 12597. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 12:43:31 PM reminds me of a discussion between Vic Kuligin and Resonance in which Resonance would not concede that there existed right and wrong, and that he would not, under any circumstance, try and influence his future child to know the difference. 12598. CalGal - 5/17/2001 1:16:56 PM Let's see how the Golden Rule might work. 12599. CalGal - 5/17/2001 1:21:03 PM Let's see how the Golden Rule might work. 12600. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 1:57:08 PM LOL Jen, I see what you mean. 12601. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 3:17:26 PM Zojak -- the golden rule really is too flexible. Consider the positive golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Fair enough. But people have a tendency to interpret this rule to their own advantage. Consider a smart person who kills and eats retarded people. By simply explaining that he is judging people by their intelligence, and saying he is willing to be judged by his own intelligence, he is following the golden rule. And that's the way it is with differences, particularly immutable differences. People may choose rules which meet the golden rule criterion, but that also permit them to do whatever they feel like. Honestly, I seriously doubt that you'll find CalGal at a skinhead cocktail party; she's just trying to challenge you. I suggest you think hard and fight back. Genocide certainly strikes me as wrong. But why exactly is it wrong? 12602. CalGal - 5/17/2001 3:23:11 PM Apologies for the double post; the company network was crippled for a while. I didn't think either one had gotten through. 12603. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 3:47:33 PM Elliott - 12604. CalGal - 5/17/2001 3:48:47 PM Am I wrong there? 12605. CalGal - 5/17/2001 3:50:55 PM Maybe I'm dense, but I haven't seen an example from Cal that supports her position. 12606. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 3:55:25 PM I don't think that the person is truly follwoing the "Golden Rule" by eating retarded people. Sure he may feel justified in doing so, because he judges them as intellectually inferior, but I doubt that his justification is the Golden Rule. If it were, he'd know that the justification of intellect would be entirely subjective by the person doing the murdering and eating. The example is absolutely ridiculous. 12607. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 3:57:47 PM Elliot - 12608. CalGal - 5/17/2001 3:58:39 PM I don't think that the person is truly follwoing the "Golden Rule" by eating retarded people. 12609. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:00:02 PM For example, let's take Christ's perspective, since it seems that it is the one most often quoted. 12610. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:01:42 PM You can't take anyone's perspective. 12611. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:01:46 PM I just gave you an excellent example of a situation where supporting genocide in one's neighbors is following the golden rule. 12612. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 4:02:06 PM CalGal, 12613. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:04:50 PM You can't say, "what he meant was...." 12614. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 4:05:32 PM Cal, 12615. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:05:55 PM Zojak, 12616. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:06:28 PM If I were gay, I'd want people to have the moral fortitude and spiritual integrity to challenge my lifestyle. I would also hope that in that process, they would help me. 12617. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 4:07:33 PM Okay, I'll tell you why I don't like genocide. I will oversimplify (as usual) for the sake of brevity. First, let's consider violent genocide, ala Hitler. It's an addictive and ultimately destructive power trip for the violator and no fun at all for the victim. What happens when the violent run out of victims? They look for new ones. For this, and other reasons, I think that violence as a means to solving problems--particularly political problems--is inefficient, wasteful, bad for people in general. Ergo, violent genocide is bad. Now suppose, then, that we can find a way to commit genocide in a kind and gentle way, say using contraceptives or tax breaks, or whatever. I would still object to it on the grounds that it's probably a mistake. Genetic diversity, and to an extent, ethnic diversity is an asset to the human race, not a hindrance. Finally, genocide is heavy-handed. It mashes an entire cluster of genes. If the problem with, say, Serbians, is a couple of bits on the old Y chromosome, it seems wasteful to obliterate the whole chromosome. There might be some redeeming virtue in the rest of that gene pool. 12618. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:08:17 PM Jen - 12619. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 4:10:36 PM CalGal: Country A: murdering most of the inhabitants and enslaving the rest. 12620. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:11:55 PM Elliott, I think your argument is a good simplification of another argument of why genocide is wrong. 12621. Jenerator - 5/17/2001 4:12:55 PM Well, I'm still waiting for some answers to these questions of mine in Message # 12612 12622. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:13:27 PM Cal - "Others" is defined as the OBJECT of your ACTION. 12623. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:15:06 PM Cal there are no questions in 12612. It's not your post. 12624. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:17:59 PM Cal - 12625. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:38:59 PM "Others" is defined as the OBJECT of your ACTION. 12626. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:40:04 PM And you did it again. At what point will you realize that the person who agrees with you about the Golden Rule is a devoutly discriminating Christian? 12627. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:50:30 PM Cal - 12628. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 4:52:54 PM At what point will you realize that the person who agrees with you about the Golden Rule is a devoutly discriminating Christian? 12629. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:55:32 PM And what does what you think of Jen have to do with our argument? 12630. CalGal - 5/17/2001 4:56:32 PM Then you have to consider them both. 12631. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 4:56:51 PM The example is ridiculous and the Golden Rule is inapplicable. Show me a retarded person that wants to be killed and eaten. Better yet, show me any culture that would support "kill others and eat them as they will do unto you." Nonsense. This post was addressed to CalGal, but since it is my example, I will defend it. First, let's let go of the "killing and eating" imagery for a minute. The eating thing in particular was for effect. Let's stick with simple "exploitation. The smart person justifies his exploitation of retarded people by saying, "if they were not retarded, they'd realize it is for the best. The weak are sacrificed so that the strong may flourish." As for societies that sell short the rights of retarded people, do you really want to go there? If you do, I give up. I'm too lazy and squeamish to come up with examples for you. To put it another way, the problem with the golden rule is that it doesn't say treat people as they want to be treated, it says treat them as you want to be treated. Most people don't have very good counterfactual imaginations. When they imagine themselves in someone else's shoes they still have their own tastes and preferences, they still have their closely held desires. They still have their own viewpoint. 12632. christipeters - 5/17/2001 5:07:05 PM Yes, re the golden rule and thinking of how you treat homosexuals, for instance, don't think about how you would want to be treated if you were homosexual. 12633. CalGal - 5/17/2001 5:10:00 PM Exactly. 12634. christipeters - 5/17/2001 5:17:11 PM Yep. It is totally subjective and therefore using the golden rule has wildly varying results. 12635. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:18:03 PM Holly; Christ was crucified because He said he was God. This was blasphemous to the Jews. The first and second century had many first person accounts of people being killed because they were followers of Christ. Killing or dying for your beliefs seems fundamental to me. 12636. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:18:52 PM And anyway, Jesus never said he was God. 12637. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:20:12 PM Christi - 12638. CalGal - 5/17/2001 5:22:49 PM Zojak, 12639. PelleNilsson - 5/17/2001 5:23:39 PM Zojak 12640. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:29:24 PM Cal - 12641. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 5:29:35 PM Pelle -- he he. But she kind of grows on you, no? Like some beneficial intestinal bacteria that at first makes you sick, but aftwards makes it easier to digest insults. 12642. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:36:24 PM To put it another way, the problem with the golden rule is that it doesn't say treat people as they want to be treated, it says treat them as you want to be treated. Most people don't have very good counterfactual imaginations. When they imagine themselves in someone else's shoes they still have their own tastes and preferences, they still have their closely held desires. They still have their own viewpoint. 12643. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:38:32 PM No sociopaths here, of course. ;-) 12644. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:39:25 PM Elliott - 12645. CalGal - 5/17/2001 5:41:40 PM I'm not sure I could find you a book entitled "I Can Call You a Sheared Sheep and Not be Rude." 12646. christipeters - 5/17/2001 5:42:55 PM "Sure, I'd want someone to tell me. Why is it that DISCUSSING an issue would be considered wrong?" 12647. CalGal - 5/17/2001 5:44:12 PM Or they'll caveat it, saying piously that it's really not for them to say, but God. But that it's their duty to abide by God and here it says, right in the Bible, that queers are going to hell. 12648. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:49:04 PM OK, Cal fine I'll bring it back to the level where you seem to want to discuss it. 12649. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 5:49:22 PM Zojak -- The other day I saw my son struggling to get his cup from a countertop. He had pulled a chair over, but still couldn't reach it. He looked frustrated. So I gave him his cup. He was so angry with me he threw his cup on the ground. In retrospect, I "helped" him because of selfish motives: I didn't want to hear him whine. But at the time, I thought I was being kind, compassionate. I think that Christians, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending. 12650. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:49:52 PM I am so willing to take on anybody who really, truly thinks that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible. 12651. christipeters - 5/17/2001 5:50:48 PM Thank you, ElliottRW. Very well put. 12652. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:54:05 PM I think that Christians, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending. 12653. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:54:54 PM In other words, yeah? 12654. CalGal - 5/17/2001 5:55:41 PM Zojak, 12655. HollyW - 5/17/2001 5:56:01 PM And so discussion comes to a screeching halt. 12656. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 5:57:29 PM Cal - 12657. christipeters - 5/17/2001 6:00:08 PM Holly - Nah, it always slows down about now - it's just quittin' time. 12658. Zojak Quafeth - 5/17/2001 6:00:34 PM And on that note, I'm reminded that it's dinner time. Off to home to see the wife and kiddos. 12659. CalGal - 5/17/2001 6:02:28 PM Zoj, 12660. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 6:07:10 PM Zojak--you asked for everyday examples of how the golden rule could be inept, I gave them. You just expanded one of them. As I've been saying, human's generally do a poor job of applying the golden rule. It is too flexible. It is too simple. Real compassion, which I admire, is carefully considered, complex and conditional, reflective and humble. The golden rule, while perhaps a good guide to a thoughtful, humble, sensitive person is a club in the hands of a thoughtless, arrogant, narrow-minded person. 12661. HollyW - 5/17/2001 6:08:07 PM What a coincidence, it is suppertime here as well. 12662. HollyW - 5/17/2001 6:09:42 PM Elliot-- 12663. ElliottRW - 5/17/2001 6:14:28 PM HollyW -- thanks. Guess I'll go eat now. 12664. bloodnfire - 5/17/2001 6:31:49 PM Holly W. Your Message # 12650. "I am so willing to take on anybody who really, truly thinks that homosexuality is condemned by the Bible. 12665. HollyW - 5/17/2001 9:31:33 PM Bloodnfire, I always appreciate your posts. 12666. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:02:06 PM Please do. However, I'm pretty sure the Bible does come right out and call homosexuality, at least the performance of the practice which defines male homosexuality, an abomination in Leviticus. Of course, it says a lot of things in Leviticus, most of which everyone comfortably ignores these days because, well, because. In my eyes the ethical problem is not that fundamentalist Christians have made a mistake in interpreting what their Bible says as regards gay sex -- or even, as sad and loathsome as their prejudice might be, that they are wrong to stand by their beliefs in this instance -- but rather that they manage to conveniently forget just about everything else in Leviticus and focus in on that one proscription. The problem isn't even that, precisely -- I personally think it's eminently defensible for people to pick and choose from a religious or philosophical corpus as best suits their own beliefs -- but in the case of fundamentalists, the most sacred plank in their own holy platform is the notion that the whole Bible is the definitive and inerrant word of their deity, and cannot be selectively ignored to fit the needs of the moment. And any theology which holds to the notion of ultimate truth (and moreover commands that the laws of that ultimate truth must not only be upheld by the believer but proselytized upon unbelievers as well) cannot successfully encompass such a contradiction without falling apart into a dangerous incoherence. 12667. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:10:38 PM As far as the Golden Rule, it's hardly the subject of a Christian monopoly...The Golden Rule or the ethic of reciprocity is found in the scriptures of nearly every religion. It is often regarded as the most I'll add that I find the quibble on the potential meaning of 'others' to be a bit amusing. As far as the Christian perspective goes, however, the Bible doesn't mention 'others', it mentions 'men'. 12668. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:14:07 PM Well, yes. I don't see fundamentalist Christians following the clean/unclean laws put forth in Leviticus, and I'm sure I've seen Terry what's-her-name on the 700 Club mixing fabrics, which is, you know, an abomination. 12669. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:15:30 PM That was to your previous post, angel-five. 12670. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:15:44 PM Indy's original post and links mentioned that it is found in most religions. I thought that was a given. 12671. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:21:08 PM Oh, trust me, just trust me on this one, please. This has been pointed out many many times in this thread and in its predecessor. It doesn't take. Jesus does say that he and his father are 'one'. At least, the Bible attributes that statement to him. BUT he also is alleged to say that there are other sons of his god and that they shall surpass his works. He never --anywhere -- ever makes any statement proclaiming himself as having a relationship with his 'father' that others cannot have, or that the relationship empowered him in a manner and to a degree which it cannot empower others. Rather the opposite, in fact. The point at which it's most sensible to attack the paradigm is not at what Jesus was alleged to say -- although that is important as well -- but at what is meant by 'being one with the Father' and whether or not that state is exclusive enough to lend any meaning to the idea that Jesus was a part of a god. 12672. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:23:06 PM Indy's original post and links mentioned that it is found in most religions. I thought that was a given. If you indeed thought this was a given, then the question becomes why you were narrowly focusing on one phrasing of the principle we deem the 'Golden Rule' and attempting to demonstrate a problem with that principle based on the one phrasing. 12673. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:28:04 PM Sorry, it's hard not to be a wise ass in reference to the Leviticus argument against homosexuality. It's just so ridiculous. Pretty much, yeah. Leviticus as a whole is kind of off-kilter. And furthermore, using Leviticus as a basis to attack gay sex raises a question --where's the Biblical pronouncement on lesbian sex? And if there's none, why needlessly extend the Christian hunt for opprobrium beyond its established and, at least in theory, Bible-backed parameters? 12674. angel-five - 5/17/2001 11:30:55 PM I mean, the obvious reason why it IS extended, at least in my eyes, is the same reason why mobs of people start off celebrating the fact that their basketball team has won a championship and end up overturning cars and looting appliance stores. Give a monkey a brain and he'll swear he's the center of the universe, and then he'll set about trying to make changes. 12675. CalGal - 5/17/2001 11:34:04 PM I wasn't attempting anything based on the phrasing--although I'm surprised you focused on the Christian definition, given that the phrase I was using wasn't Christian. 12676. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:34:12 PM In reference to Jesus being God--the post I was answering, ee's, was a largely incoherent response to a post of mine, I am guessing, since ee addressed the post to me. The subject of Jesus' relationship to God is one that has never been nailed down by anybody, in fact, didn't it lead to the idea of the Trinity? A concept that not every Christian accepts. 12677. HollyW - 5/17/2001 11:42:30 PM And usually the problem is with the word "others", if you note. 12678. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:01:55 AM I wasn't attempting anything based on the phrasing Indeed you were, unless you're going to up and pretend now that you didn't make several posts focusing on the problem with 'other'. It doesn't matter what the phrase is, the same issue exists. As I'm sure you will agree, given that you linked in a page with dozens of restatements all with the same problem. Not at all. It's a foolish thing to consider a problem. The principles don't roundly state 'do unto others, meaning people you consider to be as worthwhile or important or meaningful as your own kind, but excluding anyone you feel does not match your standards of what an 'other' must be in order to merit your consideration, as you would have them do unto you.' There's not even a breath of 'others' being thought of in any way as an exclusionary term. Really, you might as well quibble on the meaning of 'have them' or whatnot. But if you DO insist on quibbling on the potential meaning of some words, as is your eternal wont... it doesn't make much difference to the principle as it's understood, nor does it impugn the usefulness of invoking the categorical imperative of that principle. Simply restate the principle in CalGal-proof boilerplate in a manner which exactly defines 'others' as a quantified pronoun for all humanity... or remove all restriction on others and extend it to every organism or object thought capable of possessing Being. 12679. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:07:41 AM The subject of Jesus' relationship to God is one that has never been nailed down by anybody, in fact, didn't it lead to the idea of the Trinity? A concept that not every Christian accepts. You're preaching to the choir. Once again, though, good luck making this point out among the pews. 12680. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:28:30 AM Now. If you examine a subject human, possessed of the belief that 'kill or be killed and might makes right', and you place him or her inside this little thought experiment, you'll swiftly find that The Golden Rule doesn't seem to stop bad behavior. Upon a first examination, that is. After all, you can give Johnny Carnage a shotgun and a box of buckshot and place him in a room full of nuns, and tell him he can do whatever he wants so long as he follows the Golden Rule... and so long as Johnny believes that it would be all right for one of his prospective targets to kill him were they in his position and he in theirs, mayhem will result. The thing is, that isn't a problem with the Golden Rule. It's a problem with Johnny. If you START by assuming that your subject is a sociopath, you are causing no harm by expecting him to live by the Golden Rule, because you are not encouraging his behavior at all -- you are merely ruling out things he cannot do. The problem with Johnny is not caused or exacerbated by the Golden Rule. If he thinks 'kill or be killed' is a good deal, he cannot be any more of a danger to society if you constrain his behavior with the Golden Rule. Therefore applying the Golden Rule as a categorical imperative passes Kant's test. Whether or not Kant, or his philosophical admonitions, are worth the breath it takes to speak them is another topic altogether, one not germane to the question at hand, which assumes they are indeed worth the breath. 12681. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:34:16 AM Probably the least ambiguous is "none", but then I imagine the Wiccans came up with that word on purpose to be politically correct. A point of order, however minor... I do not believe the Wiccans came up with 'an it harm none, do as thou wilt', let alone to be pc. 12682. CalGal - 5/18/2001 12:38:12 AM Indeed you were, unless you're going to up and pretend now that you didn't make several posts focusing on the problem with 'other'. 12683. CalGal - 5/18/2001 12:39:42 AM I do not believe the Wiccans came up with 'an it harm none, do as thou wilt', let alone to be pc. 12684. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:50:32 AM That's hardly phrasing. I am not quibbling about words. Um. I'll take unintentional ironies of the month for 200, Alex. Nor is there any breath of "others" being thought of as an inclusionary term. Others, by definition, is an inclusionary term. The only thing that cannot be 'other' to a speaker of the word is her or himself. Anything else can comfortably fit into it. The term and for that matter the philosophical concept which sprung from it is actually defined by that fact. Sure it does. I fail to see how any principle that both you and Jenerator invoke can be considered to be categorically imperative, given how vehemently you two disagree about the interpretation. You do grasp the difference between interpretation and principle, don't you? Or do you not? It'd seem that you don't, if you can argue a problem with applying the categorical imperative to a principle by arguing that two different interpretations of it -- in other words, two different principles, can be mutually contradictory. AND, I note, you're forgetting the fact that the proffered example was laid out in legalistic and exhausting detail. 12685. angel-five - 5/18/2001 12:51:56 AM Hey, it's your link. Yes, it was. And that indeed is the Wiccan Creed. However, like most everything else you'll find in the amalgamation of traditions that defines Wicca, they didn't 'come up' with it, they adopted it. 12686. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 8:18:39 AM Elliot - 12687. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 8:51:15 AM Zojak, 12688. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 9:04:23 AM Elliott - 12689. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 9:05:17 AM Doh! Toys 12690. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 9:37:12 AM Zojak -- the fact that my arguments are applicable to a set of rules that includes the golden rule does not change their applicability to the golden rule. Yes, I have a problem with any glib moral code. And, yes, the crux of my criticism is that I think they are naive, ignorant of human nature. Were all people thoughtful, etc., then we really wouldn't need moral codes now, would we? I think that Holly is on the right track. The golden rule is not intended so much as a "law" or "moral code" but rather as a kind of exercise for helping people who want to grow more compassionate to do so. As such it might be quite effect. 12691. christipeters - 5/18/2001 9:43:39 AM "Simply restate the principle in CalGal-proof boilerplate in a manner which exactly defines 'others' as a quantified pronoun for all humanity... or remove all restriction on others and extend it to every organism or object thought capable of possessing Being." 12692. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 9:50:40 AM 12693. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 10:01:56 AM ...has to be a context for your thoughfulness, doesn't there? Well, you overlooked my "etc." But, still, it was a silly, glib, mostly pointless rhetorical question which you were right to call me on. I don't think we have a real disagreement on this point. 12694. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 10:37:13 AM Zojak -- Perhaps we should consider another moral code? Now, while there is plenty of room to argue over the meaning of this sentence, it is obvious that it is quite a bit more specific than the golden rule. This particular code was used as justification for specific action: rebellion against a tyrant. Now, can we use this moral code to justify evil? Sure, with sufficient sophistry. But it is harder. These concepts are concrete enough that some hard thought is required to wiggle around them. For example, it would be hard to claim to be respecting "these truths" and also say that only some men, by virtue of, say, their wealth, deserve rights. In particular, it would be hard to justify killing or enslaving a man by claiming that that man had no right to life or liberty. Does this clarify my point? It is not moral codes that I dislike. I really only have a problem with glib, all-purpose moral codes. 12695. christipeters - 5/18/2001 12:14:00 PM 12696. christipeters - 5/18/2001 12:14:33 PM toys 12697. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 12:36:28 PM christi -- indeed, it does leave out women. And undiscovered sentient species. And in the minds of some, black people and foreigners. It has it's faults, but I hope you will agree that it is a step in the right direction. 12698. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 12:59:37 PM Christi- 12699. Indiana Jones - 5/18/2001 1:01:48 PM Good discussion, everyone. Zojak, thanks for helping breathe life into this thread again. 12700. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 1:04:14 PM And to circle it back to religion, it seems that we're writing our own old testament code of appropriate behavior that explicitly tells me that I have to sacrifice a white dove if I use the word you in a post and inadvertently offend you. --Or a whole freakin' bull if I did it on purpose. 12701. Jenerator - 5/18/2001 1:28:30 PM Zojak, 12702. christipeters - 5/18/2001 2:27:15 PM Zojak - ElliotRW brought that one up, not me. Not to take anything away from your points, just picking a nit. 12703. ElliottRW - 5/18/2001 3:34:19 PM Zojak Ok. So I put myself out on a limb and came up with examples to try to illustrate my points. Let's get back to my original point: with the golden rule, it's up to you to decide what's right and wrong. The golden rule just says don't do wrong things to other people, but not what is actually wrong. My point, CalGals's point, Christi's point is that this is open to abuse. You have already acknowledged this; you complain that anything is open to abuse. I have shown that it is harder to abuse some moral statements than others. I have done the work of providing examples. I have tried rephrasing, restating my arguments repeatedly. I'm not sure I'm getting through. I am tired of it. Ciao. 12704. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 4:27:09 PM Elliott, I understand the point you're trying to make. I just think that it's not a point that's limited to the golden rule. That's all. 12705. Zojak Quafeth - 5/18/2001 4:35:40 PM As an example, takethe Bible as a very specific moral code. I have heard different pastors preach sermons that the death penalty is appropriate and inappropriate based on the Bible. I think it's because they themselves reached a conclusion, then found the support for that conclusion. 12706. bloodnfire - 5/18/2001 4:40:25 PM Holly. Your Message # 12676. " The subject of Jesus' relationship to God is one that has never been nailed down by anybody, in fact, didn't it lead to the idea of the Trinity? ". 12707. bloodnfire - 5/18/2001 4:41:15 PM As for the 'same-sex' sexualist, male or female (and to me Romans 1:26 and 27 would appear to refer to Lesbianism as well as Homosexuality), 12708. bloodnfire - 5/18/2001 8:24:25 PM That's John 17:20 12709. joezan - 5/19/2001 11:14:49 PM A-5: 12710. joezan - 5/19/2001 11:17:14 PM ...Although Gardner claimed to have learned Wiccan lore from a centuries-old coven of witches who also belonged to the Fellowship of Crotona, Davis wrote that no one had been able to locate the coven and that Gardner had invented the rites he trumpeted, borrowing from rituals created early in the twentieth century by the notorious British occultist Aleister Crowley, among others. Wiccans today, by their own admission, have freely adapted and embellished Gardner's rites.... 12711. CalGal - 5/19/2001 11:40:30 PM No, Joe. That's why God created archives. 12712. joezan - 5/19/2001 11:47:00 PM Cal: 12713. bloodnfire - 5/20/2001 6:46:41 AM In the Salvation Army, we practice certain of our rites in the nude..... 12714. Indiana Jones - 5/25/2001 8:53:20 AM What's God got to do with the American Experiment 12715. jexster - 5/28/2001 8:37:24 PM I've posted a link (I think) to this site B4 - BeliefNEt 12716. jexster - 5/28/2001 8:39:50 PM Please do. However, I'm pretty sure the Bible does come right out and call homosexuality, at least the performance of the practice which defines male homosexuality, an abomination in Leviticus. 12717. labwabbit - 5/28/2001 8:43:27 PM ...are there any disobedient wives out there? 12718. jexster - 5/28/2001 9:14:44 PM It was not until the 19th Century that a doctrine of biblical inerrancy developed. The insistence that every word of the Bible was directly inspired by God was largely a reaction against biblical scholarship. 12719. jexster - 5/28/2001 9:23:44 PM But if any of you MUST, please wash up B4 posting... 12720. jexster - 5/28/2001 9:35:09 PM I wonder if David washed his clothes??? 12721. angel-five - 5/29/2001 12:16:57 AM Jexter: I don't suppose you genuinely expect an argument from me on that one, did you? JoeZan (who, judging by the age of this article and therefore the length of time he's waited for me to return so that he could ask me this question, probably was the sort of child who hid snowballs in the freezer for use in June, and probably still missed anyway when he threw them...) Yeah, that article's pretty interesting and probably square on the mark as regards Gardner's claims about his tradition. Anyone conversant with Masonic or just ordinary mysticism history is familiar with the sort of claim Gardner made -- that his tradition had been passed down in secret since the dawn of time or something similar. Very few 'secret' traditions will admit otherwise, and Gardnerian witchcraft was very much a secret tradition, requiring initiation into a closed circle in order to learn the secrets. I do imagine you, and the author of the article, have managed to confuse a few things however. If the author genuinely believes there's no archaeological evidence to support the idea that Gardner's tradition was older than him (chuckle) he'd have to offer some compelling sort of evidence in order for me to believe it. Why? Because I believe Gardner? No, not really, it's just that you have to understand what it would mean for there to be "no" archaeological evidence that the tradition he espoused predated him. And that's a pretty rich joke, really, and really could only be made by someone who has no grasp of what they're talking about, because the objects used in Gardnerian rituals are as common as you can imagine. Thuribles or censers, candleholders, ceremonial knives (of no particular make or design), wooden rods (ditto) and, of course, that rarity of rarities, the broom... 12722. angel-five - 5/29/2001 12:26:22 AM Or the herbs. Do you begin to see? That's just the beginning... it's really hard to take something like this seriously as a result. Someone arguing that there was no one established tradition of witchcraft in Europe before Gardner's time? Sure, that's eminently reasonable. But when the argument is conducted on such a ludicrous basis, the argument in question is not only easily disposed of, but it correspondingly darkens any similar argument by association. Which is indeed a shame, because I suspect no one has anything to lose by promulgating a clearer understanding of the history of witchcraft. Another flawed premise would be the notion (if it is indeed a part of the scholarship, and isn't just some idiotic journalistic misapprehension of that scholarship) that modern pagans believe that their 'predecessors' worshipped an, how'd the article put it, a 'single, archetypal goddess'. Or, for that matter, a matched pair, an archetypal god and goddess. (To argue that Wiccans just believe in one or the other... imagine someone saying that Fundies just believe in the Holy Spirit but not your Father or Son, and you have an idea of how clearly the speaker has just invalidated their entire argument.) At any rate, I've never read or heard of such a supposition, at least until now. The idea seems to be rather that modern Wicca itself has come up with the idea that all the wildly varying deities worshipped in pagan traditions, including the Craft in all its forms, can be all identified with either the God or the Goddess. Wicca is what you'd call a 'big tent' religion, I suppose, something which a man of your political beliefs should probably readily understand and of which you'd approve. 12723. angel-five - 5/29/2001 12:31:42 AM As far as 'Wiccan Fundamentalists'... chuckle. You know how terms like Nazi get overapplied and overused and correspondingly weaken? I think that's what you've got here. Wiccan Fundamentalist is kind of a contradiction in terms. Can't you just see a bunch of guys sitting around, going, "Man! - wouldn't it be great to invent a religion where the women perform all the rites in the nude?" Yeah, I can. That'd pretty much kick ass. I know I'd go to church and I suspect you'd have strong temptations to go as well, no matter your protestations. I have to say, however, that to the best of my knowledge 'skyclad' Wicca is something that very few Wiccans practice. Most people I know think it's rather silly. I think most Wiccan males think a little more highly of it than the Wiccan females I know, which probably says something. 12724. Indiana Jones - 5/29/2001 7:57:45 AM jexster: BeliefNet is a good link. I've added it to the 'scotch bar. 12725. jexster - 5/29/2001 1:06:09 PM Yea Indy its REALLY comprehensive and those quizes are kick! 12726. christipeters - 5/29/2001 2:18:25 PM Interesting quizzes. 12727. CalGal - 5/29/2001 2:48:18 PM I didn't make a copy of my results, but I was a Secular Humanist and Atheist/agnostic at the top of the list (also some unitarian thing), and a Heavy Skeptic on the other. 12728. angel-five - 5/29/2001 3:01:56 PM A-5 - no I don't expect an argument BUT my point, not made clearly enough, is that in throwing up a fundie argument even in counterpoint you seem to have accepted the premise which I think is not supportable Not at all, Jexter. The premise I offered -- that the Bible does condemn practicing homosexuality in Leviticus -- is not only supportable, it's established fact. That premise was offered because someone seemed to be claiming that there was no such passage in the Bible and that the belief to the contrary was just a misapprehension. I mean, it's there in black and white. Stupid, ignorant, bigoted, wrongheaded, of course, but also there, and that point isn't really arguable. Unless of course you want to follow a Fundamentalist example, and place a little hermeneutical grease on the statement, and make the straightfaced claim that despite its literal meaning the Leviticus proscription against male homosexuality really means the exact opposite. I mean, if it's fair game for them, it's certainly fair game for you. Otherwise the statement I made is incontrovertible. NOW, of course, the immediately following point which I made, one which you and others echoed, is of course that Leviticus's proscriptions are more notable in the breach. Christians the world over routinely ignore almost all of them and focus in on the ones they favor. The ones who have a rabid axe to grind against gays are certainly a part of this group. And therefore they have very scant justification to reach out to Leviticus when it comes time to find an authority to legitimize their bigotry. I presume it is this latter premise -- Leviticus as a sturdy plank in the Christian anti-gay platform -- which you find unsupportable, and not the basic evidence which I actually did offer. If I presume wrongly, please do see fit to explain your point further. 12729. labwabbit - 5/29/2001 9:23:03 PM Somebody recently figured out that we have 35 million laws to 12730. jexster - 5/29/2001 11:14:43 PM Leviticus as a sturdy plank in the Christian anti-gay platform - 12731. jexster - 5/29/2001 11:15:45 PM Inviolata, integra, et casta es Maria 12732. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:12:26 AM You may be an ambassador to England or France, 12733. Fielding - 5/30/2001 11:12:38 AM You may be a preacher with your spiritual pride, 12734. Indiana Jones - 5/30/2001 12:24:02 PM Immortality 12735. Jenerator - 5/30/2001 1:38:09 PM From belief.net, the top 5 results for me were: 12736. Jenerator - 5/30/2001 1:46:49 PM Why I don't give any credence to the "source for spirituality, morality and religion", is for the simple fact that the information is too simplified and watered down for any real factual distinction> Identifying me as a Quaker is pretty silly. The first paragraph on the site describes me as 12737. angel-five - 5/30/2001 1:59:15 PM Leviticus is a plank in the platform of those Chrstians who are anti-gay. It is not sound. It is not Christian. To bandi such shit about is to accept as truth what is in fact a lie and a distortion. What is a lie and distortion? I'm not really following you here. I'll clarify once again. Parts of the Bible do indeed condemn the practice of gay sex. There's a lot of fancy-footwork passages in the NT which sort of hop skip and jump around the issue, but if you read Leviticus in the OT, it's there in black and white, complete with the word 'abomination'. Once again, what you call a 'lie and distortion' is the process by which people pick and choose what they like and don't like in Leviticus, all the while claiming that the entire Bible is inerrant and that one cannot treat it like a theological salad bar, selecting what they favor or find useful and ignoring what they do not. What you have to understand is that such contradictory practice in some varieties of Christian belief does not in and of itself reduce the supporting authority (in this case, the Bible) to the level of a 'lie and distortion'. It may very well be one, and if you know anything about me, you know I do personally believe it to be one, but if it is, you can't blame modern Christian hypocrisy for making it so. You can blame it for much indeed, but not for that. To take another tack: You can believe the Bible, or at least parts of it such as Leviticus, to be invidious nonsense. You can correspondingly invalidate any arguments in which that invidious nonsense supplies the root premise -- Garbage In, Garbage Out. What you cannot dismiss is that, nonsense or no, Leviticus contains proscriptions against male homosexuality. 12738. angel-five - 5/30/2001 2:01:02 PM Regardless, therefore, of the imminence of anti–aging remedies, it is most worthwhile to reexamine the assumption upon which we have been operating: that everything should be done to preserve health and prolong life as much as possible, and that all other values must bow before the biomedical gods of better health, greater vigor, and longer life. Is this really the assumption upon which 'we' have been operating? 12739. angel-five - 5/30/2001 2:10:47 PM Biological science has already massively extended the human lifespan. It will continue to do so; this is a simple question of technology. Increased lifespans have already greatly changed Western and other technologically advanced societies. One of the largest questions facing any candidate for higher government is where he stands on supporting the elderly -- prescription coverage, social security, finding ways for the elderly to continue to benefit society once they have outlived their prime laboring years and are less capable of making a contribution to society commensurate with the contributions society make to them. This problem, this process is nothing new at all. 12740. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:43:28 PM Jen....let's convert to Eastern Orthodoxy you and I! 12741. jexster - 5/30/2001 2:52:07 PM A statement on the execution of Timothy McVeigh 12742. jexster - 5/30/2001 6:13:10 PM Canticle 7 Te Deum laudamus 12743. ee - 5/30/2001 11:54:40 PM There's a lot of fancy-footwork passages in the NT which sort of hop skip and jump around the issue, but if you read Leviticus in the OT, it's there in black and white, complete with the word 'abomination'. 12744. angel-five - 5/31/2001 12:09:15 AM Every time I read that passage I imagine the Judeo-Christian god as Burt Reynolds in Boogie Nights, directing a scene. 12745. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 8:47:38 AM a-5 (12739): Wordy. 12746. jexster - 5/31/2001 11:38:01 AM A-5 the problem is not with God, its with your projections....:) 12747. Jenerator - 5/31/2001 2:07:20 PM Jex, 12748. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 2:13:25 PM Don't remember all my scores, but top four were Eastern Orthodoxy 100 percent, Catholic 100 percent, then Orthodox Quaker and Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant at more than 90 percent. 12749. glendajean - 5/31/2001 2:22:46 PM Here's my top ten: 12750. Ronski - 5/31/2001 2:25:19 PM What is particularly bizarre about the Pauline scripture about homosexuality is the curious explanation for why it exists in the first place: that God, displeased with the behavior of certain people, turned them into homosexuals. 12751. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 2:36:59 PM I took one of those tests and came out as Hardcore Skeptic...I like that; sounds racy. 12752. glendajean - 5/31/2001 2:44:46 PM I am an Episcopalian, so I think mine was fairly accurate. 12753. JudithAtHome - 5/31/2001 2:48:01 PM From now on, when asked my religion, I'm gonna say "Hardcore Skeptic". It sounds far eastern in origin. "I'm a Skeptic...Hardcore sect." 12754. glendajean - 5/31/2001 2:53:37 PM Sounds like a Greek philosophical cult. The Skeptics. 12755. glendajean - 5/31/2001 2:59:59 PM Back in the 80s, gay Presbyterians started THE GREATER LIGHT movement to move their denomination closer to accepting gay people within their denomination. I think the wording came from a church committee report that did what many protestant church committee reports did, defer the matter and seek more discussion and scholarly research. 12756. glendajean - 5/31/2001 3:01:16 PM Many indiviual parishes have made their peace with the active presence of gay members while others still argue the issue. 12757. Ronski - 5/31/2001 3:05:26 PM I come out New Age (100%), Neo-Pagan (98%), UU (98%), Liberal Quaker (93%), Mahayana Buddhism (93%), New Thought (92%), Scientology (91%), Theravada Buddhism (89%), Christian Science (87%), and Hinduism (86%). What I was raised in, Mainline to Liberal Protestantism (and what I still officially belong to) comes next, eleventh, (82%), followed by Taoism (68%). 12758. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:07:55 PM Ronski...I have many friends JUST LIKE you religiously not politically thank GOD! 12759. Ronski - 5/31/2001 3:09:28 PM jexster, 12760. Ronski - 5/31/2001 3:10:25 PM And it's funny about my score, because I find organized New Age people insufferable. 12761. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:10:58 PM Meanwhile Jen and I are off to see the Patriarch of Moscow for a Pentecostal conversion to the True Faith...or was that Mikonos I forget 12762. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:11:42 PM [17] `And in the last days it shall be, God declares, 12763. glendajean - 5/31/2001 3:13:40 PM And it's funny about my score, because I find organized New Age people insufferable. 12764. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:20:54 PM I guess Peter was admitting they'd be sloshed by the ninth hour? 12765. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:21:36 PM Me too glenda 12766. jexster - 5/31/2001 3:26:22 PM No actually Ronski just libertarians. To me they are the political equivalent of Fundies. 12767. Jenerator - 5/31/2001 6:30:35 PM Jex, 12768. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:35:53 PM Hey, Jen, how would you like to co-host? 12769. Jenerator - 5/31/2001 9:42:49 PM Indiana, 12770. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:53:20 PM Jen: Why wouldn't I? It looks like I've lost my other gig as Porn Queen Manager. 12771. Indiana Jones - 5/31/2001 9:55:44 PM I'm signing off now, but if you're game, just let the folks in New Threads know. 12772. angel-five - 6/1/2001 1:04:38 AM A-5 the problem is not with God, its with your projections....:) Really? Personally, I think the idea of God as Burt Reynolds' character in Boogie Nights is amusing enough to be a solution, rather than a problem. But to each his own. 12773. bloodnfire - 6/1/2001 9:59:22 AM Jexster. I particularly liked verse 19 in your Message # 12762. :-) 12774. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 10:14:35 AM Sci-fi fans: I would like to invite you to read and discuss Greg Egan's novel Teranesia. I have posted some comments on the book in Literature which, I hope, will explain why I have posted this invitation here. Cheers, Elliott. 12775. jexster - 6/1/2001 11:09:43 AM I just heard one of those McVeigh pieces you know the interview the victims, the Oklahomans on the street thingys. 12776. ElliottRW - 6/1/2001 11:44:20 AM Jexster: the death penalty is obviously about revenge. And, of course, (mainly due to Christian culture) revenge is a dirty word. So euphemisms are used. What you are leaving unsaid is why (absent religious doctrine) satifying people's craving for revenge is a bad idea. 12777. bloodnfire - 6/2/2001 10:36:37 AM I'm sure that revenge is part of the total motive Jexster, but there is the thought of getting rid of the threat of a repeat performance permanently. In our society, imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a fable, I believe. 12778. bloodnfire - 6/2/2001 11:16:44 AM TEL AVIV (Reuters) - "Chanting `Death to Arabs'' and throwing stones, hundreds of Israelis attacked a mosque on Saturday across the street from a nightclub where 18 people died in a Palestinian suicide bombing the night before. 12779. jexster - 6/2/2001 12:45:12 PM Jen, I am not quite sure what you mean. Perhaps you'd care to explain on the plane to Moscow? 12780. jexster - 6/2/2001 12:50:52 PM Veni Creator Spiritus, 12781. jexster - 6/2/2001 12:51:38 PM 12782. jexster - 6/2/2001 12:55:24 PM Yes BnF I thought you'd like that....I do too along with "young men see visions, old dream dreams" 12783. Jenerator - 6/2/2001 1:03:51 PM Jex, 12784. jexster - 6/2/2001 1:15:47 PM Mikonos it is! 12785. jexster - 6/2/2001 1:20:36 PM , but there is the thought of getting rid of the threat of a repeat performance permanently. In our society, imprisonment without the possibility of parole is a fable, I believe. 12786. jexster - 6/2/2001 1:21:52 PM Listen carefully to the death penalty stories on TV in the coming weeks. Count the number of times you hear revenge and the number of times you hear a morally supportable justification for McVeigh's execution. 12787. jexster - 6/2/2001 1:24:04 PM Then ask whether Presiding Bishop Griswold and the Roman Catholic Church are not telling the Truth that the death penalty fosters in us a society of death. 12788. jexster - 6/2/2001 4:17:53 PM 12789. jexster - 6/3/2001 4:42:30 PM Spiritus Domine 12790. bloodnfire - 6/4/2001 12:40:22 PM Jex. As a matter of interest, do you see yourself as being a 'Pentacostal' ? 12791. HollyW - 6/4/2001 3:24:52 PM For my father, J.B.W., born April 8th, 1946, died May 28th, 2001. 12792. HollyW - 6/4/2001 3:31:10 PM I found that song on the Oh Brother Where Art Thou? soundtrack, it's an old gospel. I started to sing it and think about him a couple of months ago, when I knew time was short. And he died at 630am on a misty spring morning, his wife and two daughters by his side. 12793. Ronski - 6/4/2001 3:44:14 PM HollyW, 12794. ElliottRW - 6/4/2001 3:44:36 PM Holly--I hear you. It sounds like you are coming to terms with your loss. I wish you health and good fortune. 12795. arkymalarky - 6/4/2001 7:46:08 PM I'm very sorry about your father, Holly. I've heard that song many a time when I was younger, and it brings chills reading it and many family memories. 12796. HollyW - 6/4/2001 10:12:38 PM Thank you. 12797. HollyW - 6/4/2001 10:34:38 PM About homosexuality and the Bible. 12798. CalGal - 6/4/2001 10:56:40 PM Holly, 12799. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:29:22 PM Don't feel hokey about it. Rituals for the living are important if they help the living deal with grief. Even if you're a stone cold atheist there's still something to be said about symbolic gestures on the part of the living, because we understand such things in symbols. To a believer, the ritual is communication -- to an atheist, the ritual helps soothe the person who is still around and needs the soothing. If it worked for you, don't scorn it. 12800. angel-five - 6/4/2001 11:30:32 PM Anyway, tossing a bloom upon the waters sounds a lot more healthy than sitting and staring at a casket and listening to people chatter and cry. I think modern funerals are pretty barbaric, especially open-casket ones. 12801. HollyW - 6/4/2001 11:33:00 PM Romans 1:26-27: "For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error." 12802. HollyW - 6/4/2001 11:37:32 PM Paul's understanding of homosexual behavior had a lot to do with the pagan practices at that time, so the image he chose to use in describing the fallen state of the Gentiles was an apt one. He is not at all referring to love, or marriage, or any type of tender, nurturing bond that may spring up between people of the same sex--he talks of being "consumed with passion", in fact, letting rampant emotion and not God dictate one's actions. 12803. HollyW - 6/4/2001 11:40:54 PM Paul's understanding of homosexual behavior had a lot to do with the pagan practices at that time, so the image he chose to use in describing the fallen state of the Gentiles was an apt one. He is not at all referring to love, or marriage, or any type of tender, nurturing bond that may spring up between people of the same sex--he talks of being "consumed with passion", in fact, letting rampant emotion and not God dictate one's actions. 12804. HollyW - 6/4/2001 11:48:19 PM I have no idea how that happened. Sorry. 12805. arkymalarky - 6/5/2001 12:09:07 AM "I think modern funerals are pretty barbaric, especially open-casket ones." 12806. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:12:09 AM My grandfather was from old Yankee stock, Mass and NH. (An old family property is actually on display at Sturbridge Village if anyone's been there.) He was the quintessential stolid New Englander and no matter how many low pitches life tossed him he just kept on going, one of those people that is like a living testament to the occasional validity of stereotypes. Harder than rock, wearing the way rock wears, that was my grandfather. He had a horrible death and a worse funeral. Open casket, one of those people who just despite the best efforts of the undertaker cannot be made to look even remotely natural in death even though there was no visible injury. Sobbing fits and silly inconsequential people busy with their silly inconsequential lives in the middle of the funeral. I remember him in the garden. That, I suppose, is his monument. The quiet and determined way he'd work the soil, the turn of his hands upon a spade, his eyes checking the plants and then the skyline as he walked, looking for rain. We had several bad years for gardening when I was young and there were several disappointments, but he loved to garden nonetheless. I know it's trite but if I want to remember someone I'm missing I do the things we both liked to do and go to the places we both enjoyed. I either find new meaning in it or else, it's nothing wasted. 12807. Shannon - 6/5/2001 1:13:10 AM Holly, I'm sorry the funeral was so awful. I hope you can find something more meaningful and comforting to do with your family. 12808. angel-five - 6/5/2001 1:15:29 AM I'd rather go out and garden and think of him walking between the rows, I suppose, than to have said 'goodbye' to a formaldehyde-run corpse and watch it be placed in the earth all dressed for Sunday like once the casket is buried he'll be able to like get out and walk around and go to cocktail parties and not worry about being underdressed. I think the people who understand these things choose to be cremated. 12809. jexster - 6/5/2001 2:52:56 AM By your own criteria, you hate yourself. That, or you're selectively hypocritical when it comes to "bashing". 12810. jexster - 6/5/2001 3:06:16 AM Too damned young Holly requiem in aeternum May he rest in peace with the saints in light. 12811. jexster - 6/5/2001 3:17:05 AM No Jen, I don't see myself as Pentecostal although I do have some attraction to charismatics the difference between Catholic and Pentecostal or other Prot charismatic piety is rather substantial. 12812. jexster - 6/5/2001 3:22:22 AM Actually Jen I've wondered from time to time whether Pentecostals celebrate Pentecost as such. 12813. jexster - 6/5/2001 3:45:49 AM I had a very similar feeling, almost exactly as you describe, when my partner of 21 years died about six years ago, with this addition: while he, too, did not believe in an afterlife and I firmly did, I had the distinct impression he was telling me that I was right, after all. 12814. jexster - 6/5/2001 4:00:45 AM And to cap it all off, he too had an horrid funeral, top 40 mush songs, sappy eulogies telling of a person I could not recognize, all put together by his grieving, well meaning former friends and his relatives whose Omaha culture was light years removed from San Francisco's Gay Mecca and the City's cosmopolitan life which he'd embraced. 12815. jexster - 6/5/2001 4:05:19 AM Sorry Ronski, misread...lover of 21 years as died 21 years ago. I saw 21 years and WHAM...all I saw! 12816. jexster - 6/5/2001 4:36:19 AM Holly...additionally Pauline nasties cannot be literally translated without regard for their historico cultural context. (FUNDIES!!!) Paul was speaking of specific practices of the Romans. He was talking about licentious, personally degrading temple cult practices in Rome (boy rape, drunken orgies, temple whores). He lists many vices which he sees as symptoms of moral and religious degeneracy. Homosexual love was likely not on the radar screen for a guy who thought it best that people not even marry or have sex at all. However, had the issue been put in the idiom of our day, Paul would not have condoned gay sex. To him, sex outside of marriage was sinful, the sin of lust, venial hardly an abomination. 12817. arkymalarky - 6/5/2001 9:21:42 AM A-5, 12818. arkymalarky - 6/5/2001 9:23:27 AM And Jex, I totally agree with 12816. 12819. jexster - 6/5/2001 10:48:36 AM I have often heard it said that open caskets are psychologically heathy because it reminds the bereaved that the dead are dead (Elizabeth Kubler-Ross redux). 12820. Jenerator - 6/5/2001 1:32:00 PM Holly, 12821. jexster - 6/5/2001 6:31:57 PM Cheeseball...Unless the liturgy was a couple cuts above standard RC Mass of Resurrection, its a cheesy thing to do and pics of the bereaved...sheesh like damned wedding. 12822. Jenerator - 6/5/2001 7:48:58 PM Jex, 12823. joezan - 6/5/2001 8:00:15 PM Not an ethnic slam or anything - but this taking photos at the wake or funeral - were these people Polish? 12824. jexster - 6/5/2001 9:17:11 PM Offends my stuffy Anglican sensibilities :) JoeZ may be right - culture thang 12825. Rama - 6/5/2001 10:02:20 PM These are the major Biblical passages people claim are strictures against homosexuality. 12826. Jenerator - 6/6/2001 11:41:25 AM Joe, 12827. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 11:45:20 AM joe: Perhaps it is an Eastern European ethnic thing; a Bohemian family I know does it as well. 12828. Jenerator - 6/6/2001 11:49:46 AM You'll have to forgive me, but I might have some of the funeral terms confused. I had never been to a Catholic funeral until this one. D took the pictures at the family gathering without the casket. It was a catered event and about 75 people were there, it took place at one of the Our Lady churhes near here. He took four rolls of photos of all people present. 12829. Ronski - 6/6/2001 11:53:43 AM I have never noticed casket albums among my Czech relatives and their friends, and my father was a photographer. But I'm sure some folks do that sort of thing. My father hates going to wakes, in fact. 12830. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 11:58:01 AM Ronski: Bohemian isn't in error, is it? These folks refer to themselves as Bohemian, so if it's a mistake on my part, it wasn't meant as a slur. 12831. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 11:58:49 AM I think Bohemia is part of what is now Slovakia, correct? 12832. Ronski - 6/6/2001 12:24:36 PM No slur that I know of. Bohemia is the English equivalent of the German (Austrian) name for the western half of the Czech lands. It is derived from the Latin Bohii, a Celtic tribe that inhabited the area until about 500 Common Era. They were replaced by Slavs, then encroached along the borders by Germans (in the Sudetenland). The eastern half is Moravia. 12833. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 12:28:04 PM Ronski: Makes perfect sense. The family is German on one side and Bohemian (or Czech) on the other. 12834. Ronski - 6/6/2001 12:31:51 PM Many such families exist, including mine. My mother is of German descent. 12835. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 12:44:30 PM This family is pre WWII. The German (patriarchal) side came over in late 19th century, and the matriarchal side I think in the 20s. The Germans are Kruegers, and the other Stoyaks or something like that (Soyaks?). The picture-taking uncle was a Stoyak. 12836. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 12:45:48 PM To clarify, the grandfather and mother were married in the 20s. 12837. Indiana Jones - 6/6/2001 12:46:12 PM grandfather and grandmother, of course. 12838. Ronski - 6/6/2001 12:47:42 PM One more and I'll desist. 12839. HollyW - 6/7/2001 11:55:06 AM Thank you all for your posts. I'm starting to make a little peace with my father's funeral. 12840. Shannon - 6/7/2001 12:07:21 PM Taking pictures of family as if this were a wedding instead of a funeral I don't understand. 12841. janjon - 6/7/2001 4:24:14 PM I seldom wander into this thread (mostly because I am about as firm an atheist as can be and don't really relate easily to discussions about the nuances of religion.) But, wander here I did and I've read with great interest the comments about funerals and the grief/coping that go with them. 12842. ChristiPeters - 6/7/2001 5:22:18 PM Holly - My father had very strong feelings about not wanting to be buried. I remember him on many occaisions grouching that cemetaries were a waste of good land. So, when he died of pancreatic cancer in 1997, we honored his wishes and he was cremated. Originally, no funeral or services were planned. 12843. bloodnfire - 6/8/2001 10:16:30 AM Jex. I think your answers regarding your being 'Pentacostal' or not were in response to my post Message # 12790, or perhaps Jen had asked the same question. Anyway, I appreciate your comments. 12844. Andonly - 6/9/2001 8:58:23 PM "...burying the dead on the day they die" 12845. Andonly - 6/9/2001 10:02:24 PM Jexster: "But when life without parole is either a statutory fact or possible by legislative enactment, killing is immoral." 12846. Andonly - 6/9/2001 10:02:37 PM One thing: the death penalty is unfairly distributed, and overused, in this country. I'll have no quarrel therefore with an argument from human fallibility, except that there will always be instances in which there's no doubt at all as to the guilt of a murderer. I am interested in your consideration of what is moral under those circumstances, and whether you believe a blanket prohibition on capital punishment morally addresses such cases. 12847. msgreer - 6/9/2001 10:12:53 PM Andonly When it comes to death in the Jewish religion, one must be buried within 24 hours. As for a pine casket, it is no longer a must within the Jewish religion. And you are correct, no flowers. Although planting trees is not always associated with death it seems to have become more of a tradition in the past 50 years. 12848. Andonly - 6/10/2001 1:13:18 PM Msgreer, 12849. Andonly - 6/10/2001 1:14:49 PM And: 12850. Andonly - 6/10/2001 1:15:06 PM In preparation for the burial, the body is thoroughly cleaned and wrapped in a simple, plain linen shroud. The Sages decreed that both the dress of the body and the coffin should be simple, so that a poor person would not receive less honor in death than a rich person. The body is wrapped in a tallit [prayer shawl] with its tzitzit [fringe] rendered invalid. The body is not embalmed, and no organs or fluids may be removed. 12851. Andonly - 6/10/2001 1:20:56 PM Here, in Hebrew with English translation, is the mourner's Kaddish, the prayer said over the dead and in memory of those who have died (mourners also recite it during the sabbath service). 12852. Uzmakk - 6/10/2001 6:23:52 PM OOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMM 12853. msgreer - 6/11/2001 9:36:04 AM Andonly Excellent posts. Thank you for taking the time. 12854. ElliottRW - 6/11/2001 10:16:16 AM I must confess that I no longer think of myself as Christian. For a long time, I did indeed think of myself as Christian, but now it is too much of a stretch. Let's just say that I share some of Jesus' beliefs, and leave it at that. Why do I feel that I should confess this? I guess it's kind of like having a funeral for the me that was. At one point, I needed spiritual simplicity. I needed some hard and fast rule by which to live; a schema for moral interpretation. That part of me has run its course and, while I have from it profited greatly, I am not satisfied with it. I have tried on other moral lenses and seen things in the world that my Christian specs filtered out. So, today, I declare myself a graduate. I am going out to explore the universe with a slightly more open mind. Wish me luck. 12855. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 10:24:04 AM The best of luck, Elliott...be sure to share with us what you discover! 12856. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:38:20 AM Elliot: In making such a public announcement, you have raised my curiosity without satisfying it. Elaborate, please. 12857. ElliottRW - 6/11/2001 11:00:18 AM Judith, thanks. The exploration will take place here, as time permits. Indy -- fair enough. I agree with many of the shoulds of Christianity (e.g. love thy neighbor) but am dissatisfied with the reasons for those shoulds (e.g. to please Jesus/God). My interpretation of Christianity (which I may eventually share with you) is wildly heretical. Here's a funny story: I consider becoming a minister, so I go talk to the pastor of my church. I explain to him that I'm considering pursuing a career as a pastor. I explain to him why I think I would enjoy the job. He seems quite enthusiastic and agrees that I am well suited to the job and that I have a realistic idea of its requirements. Then I explain that I really can't tolerate literal interpretations of the whole salvation thing and ask if that's a problem. He considers for a while, then says that he's not sure I should take communion. 12858. Shannon - 6/11/2001 11:08:36 AM IMO it's difficult to take part of Jesus and not the whole. 12859. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 11:18:07 AM I agree with many of the shoulds of Christianity (e.g. love thy neighbor) but am dissatisfied with the reasons for those shoulds (e.g. to please Jesus/God). 12860. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 11:23:53 AM Elliott: "Wildy heretical"--you really are a tease, aren't you? 12861. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 11:31:50 AM man you're good Indy. 12862. ElliottRW - 6/11/2001 11:33:56 AM Indy, I have no agument on that point, I was just trying to give an example. The "should" (love thy neighbor) is indeed about a state of mind, an attitude. The "reason" (to please God) is a reason for adopting that state of mind. As for being a tease, let's just say that I'm a cautious person and a busy person. I don't want to do unnecessary harm, nor do I want to waste time. 12863. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 11:34:14 AM It seems to me that what Jesus said/taught can easily be evaluated without addressing the fundamental theological basis for Christianity. One can easily reject the idea that he was the son of God without rejecting the principles he espoused. 12864. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 11:40:41 AM As for being a tease, let's just say that I'm a cautious person and a busy person. I don't want to do unnecessary harm, nor do I want to waste time. 12865. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 11:40:53 AM why call them Christ's principles 12866. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 11:44:03 AM Shannon, 12867. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 11:44:06 AM Jen: OTOH, Jesus when called good said only God is good. 12868. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 11:48:28 AM Sorry about the typos. My husband's mac has the tiniest keyboard I've ever seen! 12869. Shannon - 6/11/2001 11:49:44 AM I agree that the central message of Christianity is tied in with who Jesus said he was. I don't call myself Christian, because I don't accept that part of it. But that doesn't mean I don't agree with many of the principles he put forth. As you say, others have put them forth as well. It bugs me to no end when people describe an act of kindness as "Christian" without knowing the belief system of the person who performed it (ie, "It was very Christian of your neighbor to help you out like that"). Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on decent behavior by any means. 12870. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 11:50:45 AM But Jen, in order for all those quotes from the book of John to be meaningful, one has to believe in God and Jesus...when one doesn't believe, those quotes are like something from Bartletts, useful in some instances and interesting in others but not PROOF of anything except that at one time, someone wrote them down. 12871. Shannon - 6/11/2001 11:53:54 AM How does one "teach" what Jesus saidt in these passages while rejecting his divinity? 12872. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 11:57:38 AM Judith, 12873. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 11:58:56 AM Shannon, 12874. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 11:59:48 AM Well, that is the difference right there...I am not trying to teach anyone anything. I'm just trying to live my life in a moral and correct way. 12875. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 12:02:52 PM Not picking a fight, but why would you want to waste your time with ideals taught by a delusional madman? 12876. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 12:04:46 PM Jesus made some pretty fantastic claims. If they weren't true, he had to have been crazy, right? 12877. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 12:05:04 PM Stand by....granny break.... 12878. Shannon - 6/11/2001 12:05:11 PM I certainly never said it. 12879. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 12:05:25 PM Judith: I think what Jen is doing is demonstrating that Christ's teachings were not just a moral system of principles to live by, but about himself. 12880. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 12:05:58 PM xpost 12881. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 12:07:49 PM Shannon: Let's assume four cases. What Jesus taught was totally wrong, what Jesus taught was correct as it comes to human relations but wrong about the nature of God, what Jesus taught was wrong about human relations but right about the nature of God, what Jesus taught was totally right. 12882. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 12:09:41 PM "for avoiding" s.b. "by avoiding." 12883. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 12:10:40 PM Likely gone for today, but may be back this evening. 12884. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 12:14:15 PM Jesus made some pretty fantastic claims. If they weren't true, he had to have been crazy, right? 12885. jexster - 6/11/2001 12:32:51 PM The Difficult Challenge & Healing Power of Forgiveness 12886. jexster - 6/11/2001 12:33:47 PM " Everett Worthington, a Virginia Commonwealth University psychology professor, had become one of the nation's leading researchers in promoting the act of forgiveness. 12887. jexster - 6/11/2001 12:38:30 PM Wedgislation: The New Game in Town! 12888. jexster - 6/11/2001 12:40:42 PM OOPS wrong thread...Religion and Politics are being mixed of late! 12889. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 12:40:57 PM Judith, 12890. Shannon - 6/11/2001 1:45:59 PM Indy, 12891. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 2:27:02 PM Jen: 12892. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 4:17:14 PM Excluding religion, we agree more than disagree! 12893. JudithAtHome - 6/11/2001 4:43:17 PM I agree!! 12894. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 4:50:19 PM Wait. 12895. Raskolnikov - 6/11/2001 4:55:18 PM "Otherwise, I see no attraction in it. Can you describe to me exactly what "non-faith" offers you?" 12896. arkymalarky - 6/11/2001 4:55:53 PM Y'all cut out all that luvey-duvey stuff. This is the Religion thread! 12897. arkymalarky - 6/11/2001 4:56:44 PM Oops. Timing is everything. 12898. Rama - 6/11/2001 7:10:56 PM It is those that are convinced his words were divine mandates that take his teachings to some very extreme views. 12899. Jenerator - 6/11/2001 9:25:51 PM Arky, 12900. Rama - 6/11/2001 9:38:10 PM This is an interesting indicator of European values gaps. 12901. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:00:20 PM OTOH, I don't feel like I'm at any kind of disadvantage because I don't have the faith. That doesn't mean that I don't think it offers something to people who do believe. 12902. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:04:50 PM I think need goes a long way toward dictating belief and in the absence of it, belief tends toward neutrality. I also think that humans are very poor at distinguishing which of their beliefs are things they have chosen or arrived at due to free will and which their needs and environment pressed upon them. This is why I have little use for personal testimony about the existence of some deity. 12903. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:06:12 PM Rask: Are you saying that if you personally had faith in Christ you are fearful that you would become an extremist? If that's not what you're saying, then what do you personally gain by nonbelief? 12904. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:08:47 PM From the alternate viewpoint, Jones has deluded himself by thinking that he has a personal relationship with his supposed god. It is of little concern to anyone else, of course, unless Jones starts to push either his beliefs or the consequences of them on other people. But if no such god exists as the one Jones envisions then he's not only embracing a hallucination but also correspondingly denying himself the chance to encounter the truth. This is one reason why unbelievers are seldom swayed by Christian appeals to discover a personal relationship with their god. 12905. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:16:22 PM You cannot teach Christ's exclusionary claims as cool ideals to model your own life after if you reject the core authurity of those exclusionary claims. Yes you can. It's perfectly simple and easy to do. 12906. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:19:20 PM A5: 12907. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:19:26 PM It is eminently possible to look at the key lessons the Biblical Jesus is said to have taught and agree that they're a good guide for living, and follow them, excluding only the tendentious arguments that Jesus thought himself a god and the son of the same god and discarding the Church that has sprung up and fragmented from his alleged disciples. One might even conclude that it's not only possible but a better option than becoming a practicing Christian and believing in the Judeo-Christian god. 12908. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:23:14 PM Why do you think this is an important distinction? Isn't it really only important whether a belief is true or not? Why would it be? And given that we cannot know whether a belief is true or not (surely you must possess enough remnants of skepticism to acknowledge this) this importance becomes irrelevant meaningless when faced with the decision of what to believe. If by "this" you mean because you have no need for God, then perhaps to this point you have not. I certainly have no need for "God" -- I don't believe in it. But that's not what I said or meant. That was pretty straightforward -- I have no use for personal testimony, because it is so suspect. . However, if lack of a need "tends toward neutrality," wouldn't a neutral disposition mean you would also have no impetus toward persuading others that their beliefs are in error? No. Why would it? And you're amphibolizing on neutrality. 12909. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:26:39 PM Irrelevant and meaningless. 12910. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:28:00 PM a5 (12904): Congratulations on how well your "absence of need" has guided you to such an armchair neutrality. 12911. CalGal - 6/11/2001 10:28:39 PM You promised to be faithful to that person and live all the other strictures associated with marriage because you thought that was the way to have a healthy, happy, and successful marriage and home life. Yet at the same time you didn't believe in love. 12912. Indiana Jones - 6/11/2001 10:28:56 PM a5: Will read tomorrow. Fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies call my name. 12913. CalGal - 6/11/2001 10:30:35 PM but if you do struggle, many of those who wound up the "greatest" Christians struggled toward faith as well. 12914. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:32:38 PM Congratulations on how well your "absence of need" has guided you to such an armchair neutrality. You're amphibolizing again. If in contrast to my delusions, you have discovered the truth. You do understand the difference between having a chance to encounter the truth and having encountered it, don't you? Perhaps not. I don't know eternal truth, Jones. Out of the two of us, I'm the one who admits that. OTOH, my foolishness has given me much self-deluded happiness until now, and I suppose if death is indeed the end, then I'll never see my fantasy for the sham it is. Then enjoy. 12915. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:34:26 PM Enjoy the cookies, too. I think I may go prepare a chocolate milkshake. 12916. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:36:49 PM So you don't have to amphibolize a third time: I used 'neutrality' to indicate the state of not adopting any one specific belief. 12917. Raskolnikov - 6/11/2001 10:39:12 PM Indy: "Rask: Are you saying that if you personally had faith in Christ you are fearful that you would become an extremist?" 12918. Shannon - 6/11/2001 10:42:28 PM Interesting you should use a marriage example, Indy. I was thinking earlier today about your question about what my lack of faith offers me, and I thought it would be rather like me asking someone what the lack of being in love with my husband offers. Your faith may well enrich your life and contribute to your happiness, just as my love for my husband does for me, and just as many other people are enriched by romantic love. But some people are perfectly happy without it. And some people struggle to find it. Does their struggle mean that the happy people who don't have it aren't really happy, or don't have meaningful lives? I don't think it does. 12919. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:45:25 PM What I believe I gain from my generally humanist world view is some craft, as Carl Sagan put it, in the "fine art of baloney detection", as I haven't convinced myself that accepting defiance of scientific laws is a necessary precondition for salvation. I am convinced that my skills in this area have been extremely useful at my work and in my personal life. Fair warning, I intend to steal this and use it. 12920. angel-five - 6/11/2001 10:52:04 PM I honestly don't mean to offend with what I've said and am about to say: Some people are happy with comfortable fictions, some people can't stand them. People tend to gravitate toward the end of the spectrum which they're disposed toward by their life and upbringing. Jones mentions that his belief system makes him happier -- many people could not swallow it, however, and the attempt would make them miserable. The belief in some personal relationship with the Judeo Christian god is, to me, that comfortable fiction, fleshed out over time to address so many common human concerns -- the reward for goodness, the punishment for evil, what happens when you die, why things are as they are, why unpleasant things happen to nice people and so on. No doubt it is helpful to the people who are disposed to need and desire that sort of thing, and I know it isn't helpful to the people who can't bring themselves to believe in it despite the allure of having a comfortable understanding which answers all our human questions. And this, of course, presupposes that we are only considering those Christians and so on for whom their beliefs increase their net happiness, and not those for whom their religion is merely an endless source of guilt and castigation. 12921. Rama - 6/12/2001 10:13:24 AM But if no such god exists as the one Jones envisions then
Pronunciation: 'k<
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: French & Latin; French culte, from Latin cultus care, adoration, from colere to cultivate -- more at WHEEL
Date: 1617
1 : formal religious veneration : WORSHIP
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4 : a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion
Given that definition, I don't see how you can identify atheism as a cult. Christianity certainly qualifies, though. We'd just disagree on how many sub-definitions apply.
If I was Christian, though, you'd never hear me say 'the WWJD bit is overdone.'
It's frustrating to talk to wayward Christians. Part of me wants to try to convince you that you've been completely bamboozled. Part of me wants you to act more in accordance with your purported beliefs. And part of me just wants to walk away and let you muddle through on your own.
The last course of action is probably wisest.
Christianity, on the other hand, is a cult. The only thing that transforms a cult to a religion is respectability--usually indicated by popularity.
Maria thank you too for the thought about the book concerning William and Catherine Booth. How about that title ? "Blood and Fire". Now that would make a pretty good Moni......nah!
Try as you might to be compassionate, you must see how futile it is to ask me to repent -- as to entreat the lame to walk and the blind to see. No doubt their life would be better if God had given them the ABILITY.
God through Jesus commanded Christians to evangelize the world. Therefore my faith is that this task has some meaning to it. Yet at the same time, I don't think that we are saved except by the grace of God. How those two things work together (God's calling and our seeking) is, as b&f described it upthread, as mysterious as how love always works. It's not completely rational.
On the other hand, I cannot see how disobedience of the divine is ever a reasonable course.
Say you get to heaven's gate, and God condemns you. Says you had it all wrong, Indiana. You should have listened to CalGal when you had the chance. Is God so loving and just in that instance?
God is loving and just in all instances. Moreover, I don't see what Cal's alternative offers at all (the satisfaction of saying "I told you so" as one is cast into eternal flames?).
Posts like this (which otherwise are relevant) also run the risk of being moved to the Inferno:
... likes to talk about things she has no experience or true knowledge in. She can tell you all about belief and God; but bases those opinions solely on her misunderstandings and lack of any real experience. It would be like me telling you what it's like to be a man as a female.
Let people speak for themselves and what they believe, and focus on the subject rather than characterizing each other.
5 a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion.
Given that definition, I don't see how you can identify atheism as a cult.
If I use the word as loosely as you do, I can fairly say that you worship yourself.
Christianity certainly qualifies, though. We'd just disagree on how many sub-definitions apply.
I disagree because you are picking and choosing which loose definition you want to apply. One of the *MAIN* characteristics of a cult is that it is unorthodox from the orthodox perspective.
Just a few words from other people:
Dr. Martin (a key reseracher on the cults)
The average cult owes its very existence to the fact that it has utilized the terminology of Christianity, has borrowed liberally from the Bible (almost always out of context), and sprinkled its format with evangelical cliches and terms wherever possible or advantageous. Up to now this has been a highly successful attempt to represent their respective systems of thought as “Christian.”
The numerous traits that characterize a cult:
1. Faulty interpretation of the Bible
2. They question authority of the Bible
3. Salvation by grace is added to "Salvation = Faith + Works"
4. Their god or gods are not the God of the Bible
5. Doctrinal changes - " progressive revelation "
6. Add extra-scriptural writings
7. Saying one thing in public, another in private
8. Only group God deals with - " remnant "
9. Date setting - false prophecies
10. Vigorously attacks Christianity
Cont.
12. Head of the organization comes between God and man
13. Claim to answer all religious questions
14. Division of believers loyalty between church & God
15. " Us against the world " attitude
16. Eschatology, or the Doctrine of Last Things is overemphasized
17. Deny personality of Holy Spirit
18. Different view of immortality of soul
19. Definitions of human nature & sin different from Bible
#5 is very common. This is used by many of the cults to keep members in line. By being able to change their doctrines "as the light grows brighter". Cult leaders can maintain control by emphasizing that there is no where else to go to receive this special knowledge. heaven's Gate, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moonies, etc.
If I was Christian, though, you'd never hear me say 'the WWJD bit is overdone.'
I think it has been overdone because the message is lost because of it's commercial market appeal. People don't think about WWJD the way they should, instead, they buy the slogan to have.
It's frustrating to talk to wayward Christians. Part of me wants to try to convince you that you've been completely bamboozled.
Your pronouncements don't convince us. The whole "your brainwashed get over it" isn't dialogue Jonathan.
Part of me wants you to act more in accordance with your purported beliefs.
This, I want and need for myself also.
And part of me just wants to walk away and let you muddle through on your own. The last course of action is probably wisest.
Probably.
It's not an "alternative". It's a hypothetical. The issue is whether you would take God under those terms or go to hell.
Also, I wasn't aware that it was religion's job to "offer" something, like it's a sale. Are you saying that you're not an atheist because you don't like the idea that there's no heaven? That would make a mockery of belief.
Actually, that's what I said. The only thing that distinguishes a religion from a cult is its popularity. Hardly a distinction of note.
Now, if you want to set it up, I won't stop you. (g)
I'm not using the word loosely or picking and choosing which 'loose' definition I 'want' to apply. On the contrary, you are very deliberately choosing an incredibly narrow, Southern-Baptist-approved definition of 'cult' that bears almost no relation to how the word is commonly defined.
Let me paraphrase your position: 'Dr. Martin, a prominent Southern Baptist, has definitively ruled that the Southern Baptist Church is not a cult, according to a definition that he invented.'
Okay, Jen, that makes it so.
The issue is whether you would take God under those terms or go to hell.
I was responding to anomieme's question of whether my reaction would be different were I consigned to hell--not to your "other" hypothetical that I consider blasphemous and will not entertain. Rather, it's your statement that you would embrace the flames (and I know that's not the exact word you used, but I'm not scrolling back to see what it was because IMO that's close enough) because your feeling is that such a system is petty anyway. Hence, my response of not seeing a substantial difference in what one does. When one is faced with the prospect of eternal flames--never-ending torture and torment and alienation from God--it would give me little comfort to say in that relatively nothing of a second on my way down to perdition, "Here's mud in your eye!"
I don't believe that will happen. Whatever fate God chooses for me now and forever, regardless, I will assume that the infinite Lord of the Universe is right and that his justice is infinitely superior to my own.
No--I've posted at least twice now that I think we are obligated to serve the good whether heaven exists or not. Frankly, I cannot conceive of how heaven could "work," myself. For starters, what age is a person in heaven?
Just because I can't conceive of it, though, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As to your first question, of course belief offers something: "When peace like a river, attendeth my way; when sorrow like sea billows roll, whatever my lot, thou has taught me to say: It is well, it is well with my soul."
Oh, of course. It's a crappy choice: eternity with a monster or burning in hell. I never said "I told you so" was part of it. In fact, if the God is the one you describe, the world is a cruel joke. Quite depressing, actually, that something so terrific could spring up in defiance of such a little prick. But that's how it works.
As to your first question, of course belief offers something
I didn't ask whether it offered something. I asked whether it was its job to offer something.
What do you think of this...
"W.W.J.D.?"
You may have seen a trend recently for people, most especially young people, to be wearing bands around their wrist with the letters W.W.J.D.?. They stand for "What Would Jesus Do?", and the idea, of course, is to remind themselves when faced with a decision, to think through what Jesus would do in the same circumstances. (It's also very soul-satisfying when others notice the band, to be able to explain to them how very 'religious' the wearer is ! :-).
Our text for this week, suggests to me that it is a very serious mistake to be thinking...'What would Jesus do?' in any situation. Let's consider together Galatians 2:20...
"I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me".
My experience is that many people who call themselves 'Christian' have absolutely no awareness of the indwelling Presence of God the Holy spirit in their hearts and lives at all. W.W.J.D. tends to encourage that 'distance' in my humble opinion.
What we all need is such an awareness of God the Holy Spirit's presence (and Presidency) in our hearts, that instead of trying to remember (however accurately) how we feel He might react in a given situation, we remain so yielded to Him that we let Him do the reacting!
God bless you.
Jen was responding to Jon in 12255.
(nit picky nit picky over fer now)
Message # 12258
One doesn't have to be a Southern Baptist to know that a cult differs from major religions on orthodoxy.
What you leave out of your own incredibly narrow view is the possiblity of truth. You see, most Christians (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants all adhere to a core group of beliefs which are fundamental to the faith. Issues usually conecrning Jesus, God, sin and salvation.) Because Jon Ferguson doesn't believe in God (the Christian one in this example), no claims about orthodoxy can be legitimate, because no claims about truth can exist when believing in non-truth.
However, for the billions of believers, we do believe in fundamental tenets of faith and can designate truth/orthodoxy from untruth/heresy.
If you have time, I'd be interested to know how Southern Baptists are a cult to Protestantism. This should be good.
I think it is fine to think about what Jesus would do, I just believe that the WWJD? phenomenon has lost its significant focus. The whole fish eating the Darwin fish is another example.
It IS good to consider Christ when facing any decision, we should! You and I agree on that, I just wanted to clarify for Jon.;-)
Please read 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. Tell me what you find horrible about thse verses. (Seriously!)
Love
And now I will show you the most excellent way.
13 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
But then, I have a large fish of 'Truth' swallowing a smaller fish named 'Darwin' on my car, so what are you to do ? :-)
I'm trying to differentiate between 'considering Christ' when facing a decision, and allowing Him to decide and move in me (Colossians 1:27).
There is a huge difference, imho. One which many people who call themselves 'Christian' know nothing about. It serves, once again, to illustrate the difference between 'Religion' and 'A Relationship'.
One has only to open a dictionary to find out what the definition of 'cult' is. I've posted it already. Would you prefer the OED version?
I really don't care how many people have been brainwashed, Jen. There is no God. Theology is nothing more than the study of archaic mythology. The D&D tome, Deities and Demigods is as authoritative a text on the existence of the divine as the Bible is.
Be back later.
I'm not the one who delegates the struggle to define and articulate my philosophical beliefs to a deluded band of hypocritical, Bible-thumping nutjobs (the SBC). You don't get much narrower than that.
I, on the other hand, am open to an infinitely broader, and more reasoned, 'possibility of truth'. I certainly don't have all the answers. But I do require a rational basis for what I believe in.
However, for the billions of believers, we do believe in fundamental tenets of faith and can designate truth/orthodoxy from untruth/heresy.
You're playing a self-deluding, superstitious, dishonest, game. The game has rules. Bully for you. For the (greater number of) billions of us who are not Christian, we can see your game for the utterly ludicrous, hypocritical, irrational pile of medieval bunk that it is.
If you have time, I'd be interested to know how Southern Baptists are a cult to Protestantism. This should be good.
Here are the relevant definitions of cult:
2 : a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3 : a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
It's plain to me that Christianity meets both definitions. It's equally plain to me that from your perspective, it meets definition 2. Hence, Christianity is a cult.
It seems to me that both Protestantism (system of religious beliefs and ritual) and Southern Baptists (body of adherents to the SBC) also qualify. However, if you prefer to be considered a member of a sect (Southern Baptists) of a sub-cult (Protestantism) of a cult (Christianity,) I won't quibble over semantics.
Translation: The WWJD phenomenon has been overrun by self-righteous, 'holier than thou' hypocrites, drowning out its pious message.
Agreed. Of course, that's pretty much true of Christianity as a whole ... and has been for a long time (since shortly after Christ died, I'd guess.)
It IS good to consider Christ when facing any decision, we should! You and I agree on that, I just wanted to clarify for Jon.;-)
That's not what Blood said at all. I wonder who needs clarification. And certainly it wouldn't be practical, sensible, or feasible to consider Christ when facing any decision.
You are also correct in that my sister Jen misread my post. I do not subscribe to 'considering Christ' when faced with a decision.
It is "Christ in you the hope of Glory", and not my ability either to decide, or remember from Scripture how He might react in a given situation.
The 'fun' truth too is that while the W.W.J.D. people are remembering to consider what Christ might or might not do in their place, in and with others He would have already done it ! :-)
So... I found an oboe the other last week right before a night-time meeting at school. There was no ID in it or anything. I kept it becuase I knew I would give it back and didn't know what the next person who found it would do.
I posted a sign, put out a classified, even contacted the manufacturer looking for the owner.
Now I found them. They ID'd it pretty good. Apparently left it in a class.
Now my quandry. The owner hasn't mentioned a reward, but according to the company the thing is worth 2 to 3000 dollars. What would be ncouth... to directly ask _for_ one... to ask if there _is_ one... or just deal with being a nice guy who doesn't ask such questions?
I'm interested. I've never found something this expensive.
Kindness and honesty are their own reward, don't you think ?
Cal: Then I don't understand what you're asking. I could guess, but usually when I guess at your meaning I'm wrong.
but it seems to me that Jen agrees with the W.W.J.D. program (is that true Jen ?). For myself I think it's merely 'religious' and tends, for those who have not had the experience of 'His Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we're His children' (Romans 8:16), to encourage "The Man Upstairs" syndrome, as opposed to the "Christ in You" promise of Scripture.
I'm trying to differentiate between 'considering Christ' when facing a decision, and allowing Him to decide and move in me (Colossians 1:27).
There is a huge difference, imho. One which many people who call themselves 'Christian' know nothing about. It serves, once again, to illustrate the difference between 'Religion' and 'A Relationship'.
I don't disagree with the idea of thinking on Christ and his teachings when we're faced with decision making. I do not like it that his message and his ways are disregadred in marketing. There are people, as we know, who wear the WWJD? slogan because everyone else does, and that, I disagree with. I also disagree with people wearing crosses just because they're cool symbols or because you can get one at Charlotte Russe for $1.29.
Also, I tend to believe that if we're thinking on Christ and how he would handle a particular decision, it is only because the Holy Spirit has moved within our conscience to cause us to desire to seek Christ in our decision making.
I really don't care how many people have been brainwashed, Jen. There is no God. Theology is nothing more than the study of archaic mythology. The D&D tome, Deities and Demigods is as authoritative a text on the existence of the divine as the Bible is.
Says you.
Also, you haven't proven jack taco about how Southern Baptists are a cult of Protestantism. Use your definition #3.
Furthermore, if you cannot differentiate between, say, Heaven's Gate movement and Methodism, you're confused about the meaning of 'cult'.
Translation: The WWJD phenomenon has been overrun by self-righteous, 'holier than thou' hypocrites, drowning out its pious message.
Agreed. Of course, that's pretty much true of Christianity as a whole ... and has been for a long time (since shortly after Christ died, I'd guess.)
Agreed on WWJD?, but not on Christianity. There are plenty of wonderful believers in the faith that constitute the majority.
And certainly it wouldn't be practical, sensible, or feasible to consider Christ when facing any decision.
As a hardened atheist, of course not. But as a Christian, it's vital to consider Christ.
Hypothetical:
Sally, the Christian, works with five women. One of these women managed to cross one of the others. In that small group, sides are drawn and two women repeatedly bash their coworkers. The other two say things just as bad. The original woman, who said the inflammatory remark which caused the whole mess, comes to Sally. She talks trash about the others and looks for reassurance from Sally about what she did.
As a Christian, it would be entirely appropriate for Sally to not partake in the bashing and to speak the truth in love, just as Christ did. Also, she could ask Jesus for courage and discernment on what to say and how to act with the others.
Your words...:"I don't disagree with the idea of thinking on Christ and his teachings when we're faced with decision making." indicates to me that your understanding is that I go along with 'thinking on Christ'. I don't.
I'm not advocating 'mindless action', merely instinctive response as moved by Him.
Using your illustration, the Christian who is moved by the Holy Spirit would instinctively be gracious to all involved, not bad mouthing anybody. Those moments saved (by allowing the Spirit to move) instead of 'Considering Christ' and 'deciding' to do that which He would do, is vital in witness, again imho. Also, it guarantees authenticity of response, as opposed to my 'decision' which might be faulty.
This will be my last attempt to try and make this point. In sum, I am very uncomfortable with the whole W.W.J.D. 'schtick'. At the same time, I thank Him for any good He might be making out of it.
"Fear is the beginning of wisdom"? I can't even begin to understand this statement. I mean that honestly. I really want to know where you are coming from.
The destruction and acts of vengence described in the Old Testament can be looked upon as illustrations of how the ancient Hebrews understood their God at that time. When Jews first attached ideas such as "morality" and "justice" to their God, that was absolutely a revolutionary notion. Gods generally did not worry their heads with morality back then.
The story doesn't mean that God really laid waste to Sodom and Gomorrah.
In rejecting the idea of an omnipotent God, I reject the idea that we are in fact rather like a sadistic little puppet show he has scripted and directs. I reject the idea of omniscience too (but can I actually spell it?).
How far this goes, I don't know. Along the question of suffering, I see that through our deepest despair we find our greatest joy, in accepting his love and sustinence. And I know he gave us free will. Why this world is as ugly as it is, beyond what people do to each other (hmm, is there much beyond that?) I can't explain. I knew a man once who believed in God, and believed that God made mistakes. That's sort of a tough one for me to wrap my mind around, but I can sure see why he would believe that.
And yes, Jesus has saved me from myself. Sin lives inside me. Not much I can do about the sins of others, or the random tragedies of the world. I haven't met a person yet who has been saved from that...
I don't mean that I am sinless. Hahahahaha...
I mean, I have been given hope, a path out of the wretchedness and the self-consumed behavior that I was lost in, and although I am not protected from pain and suffering, I've been shown a life that makes pain and suffering almost beside the point.
Again, I did not put that well.
I guess I will go watch ER.
The beginning of ER did not look promising.
What they do say is that "Fear (i.e. 'Reverential Awe') of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom". (Psalm 111:10).
Hey, while you are here...there were Bible passages read at my wedding, and I can't figure out from where. Not the usual "love is this, love is that", it was something a lot sterner. And my Bible knowledge being spotty at best...
The minister was probably quoting Deuteronomy. Lots of 'stern' stuff in there.
Anyway, what Bloodnfire is trying to say is that perfect love casts out fear, and fear is the beginning of wisdom. So, in other words, if you seek enlightenment, act in as unloving a manner as possible.
That explains the behavior of a lot of Christians I know. (g)
That sounds like Jen's side of the WWJD discussion with Blood.
I'm with Blood on that one. It doesn't take work or thought or reflection to act in a loving way. It's as simple as letting the Holy Spirit (Blood) or one's true self (me) shine through.
I didn't 'learn' how to love animals. I didn't 'study' how to be kind and generous. That's something innate.
I did learn how to judge and criticize. I did learn how to lash out (some would say I learned rather well.)
Actually, this all sounds a tad naive. Just throwing it out there for your perusal.
I heard it cost $200. (g)
Then there is the 'Reverential Awe', 'Consummate Respect', which when given to God, is 'The beginning of wisdom'.
Hope this helps. I'm not 'scared' of God, because in His sight, thanks to Jesus, I'm perfect. Not perfect in the sight of the 'man in the mirror' I hasten to add, who still humbly acknowledges that even clean hearts can sometimes stumble. But complete, and 'Bound in the Bundle of Life' with Him. (1 Samuel 25:29).
Jon, would you think I was patronizing if I said how much I respect you for your Message # 12296 ?
I certainly don't mean to be. Every Christian learns how to criticize and judge others at first while we are so insecure in our new-found relationship with God. So longing to find someone who seems to be 'Walking the Walk' in addition to 'Talking the Talk'.
It takes the humbling of being baptized into the death of Christ by the Holy Ghost to get past that.
As for 'lashing out', that is the sign of a 'pain filled heart' imho, which 'Perfect Love' also eventually 'casts out'.
Have a wonderful day.
Suppose scientists discovered a chemical that would slow the aging process down to 1/100 the normal rate. What do you think about the merits of a such a product? Any qualms about its being legal?
If the chemical was extremely expensive ($1 million plus), would that affect your opinion at all?
What about if a side effect of the chemical was irreversible sterility?
What about if the chemical affected only a certain race?
What about if it affected only one gender?
Respect me all you want. (g)
Would you yourself take it?
Should such a drug be available to everyone or not at all?
That's a tough one. I can see why it would be appealing to have the possibility of living longer and slowing the aging process. However, the possible side-effects as well as the high price tag (maybe not one million dollars, but I'm sure very expensive) would definitely deter me from taking it.
Let's say that there were no side-effects only the high price of 1 mil. and I was able to afford it. For it to be worthwhile, I would want everyone I know to have it, too. I wouldn't want to live longer than all of my family and friends.
And 2--another subject entirely--philosophically, do people consider it more important that the persons already here live longer or that new generations continue to arise? In the non-religious view, what would the existence of a species that in massive numbers chose longer life over the possibility of procreation say about Darwin and natural selection?
Sorry this didn't work last night.
It should now, many thanks to Psychprof.
Jesus Birth
---From our Easter Pageant
Fishers of Men
The Woman at the Well
Pilate Condemns Jesus
Maria--
Thanks, no, actually that is not it--that is the wedding standard, but it wasn't at ours. I'll come across it eventually, I'm sure.
More
I would vote for new generations...
Yep...I'm Thomas. I took these photos in between my scenes Thursday night, at our first full-dress rehearsal. (I wish I could have taken photos of the last scene - the Resurrection - but I'm in it. Great special effects in that one. I'm on the list for the CD ROM of photos, so I'll post a few from there after Easter).
This is our Pageant's 12th year (my family and I have been in the last 6). And it is huge - over 200 actors, plus a 60-voice choir and 18-piece orchestra - all from our church.
The set is massive - it is stored in two semi trailers, and reassembled each year over a two-week period before the shows. The people who created the set all attend our church - art teachers, building contractors, and drama majors for the most part - and it's as good as any professional set. From inches away, the walls and well appear to be made of real stone, for instance. (They're styrofoam).
One could just have kids and then take the drug.
The obvious problem is overpopulation, which I imagine would be addressed politically.
As for your "curiosity" about one's feelings about the inequities of every day life as opposed to those imposed by a supernatural entity, you continue to apply your standards to those who don't believe.
The notion that acceptance of inequities in every day life means that one is bound to accept them imposed by a supernatural being is as purely nonsensical as anything I've heard in this thread.
Wow! What a production! We're having an Easter pageant at our church too, but not of that magnitude. I wish we were in Michigan to see yours.
That sounds great. Do you get a lot of people from other churches coming to see it? There's a fairly large one about an hour or so from here that Bob's nephew, who played with the AR Symphony until he had to move and now plays with one in SW AR, gets hired to play for every year. They do the camels and the whole bit, but I don't know about the size and quality of the production. They pay a nice chunk for Bob's nephew and other string musicians to travel there and perform for a week.
Have you ever been to the Passion Play in Eureka Springs, AR? I've never been, though I've been to Eureka several times (great town), but they say it's really good.
Thomas. The doubting Thomas?
If you and the lucky guy are ever up here around Easter, we'd love to have you attend.
Arky:
People come from all over the midwest, and even from the coasts, for this production.
We've actually cut down on the live animals (though we never used camels!). This year we're using just a few goats and sheep, and some dogs. Last year we about reached the height of production (and ostentation, imo). For the first time, we'd hired outside musicians, added 3 big production numbers (it reminded me of Fiddler on the Roof in places), and it ended up running just short of 3 hours. I had resolved not to do it again - it's just too draining. But we got a new director (our worship minister, who was a HS band teacher and conductor), and he scaled it down, added more contemporary music, and pared the time down to under 2 hours - and in the process allocated a lot more money and personnel to lighting and special effects. It works much better and proceeds more smoothly now. So I gave in and took a much less demanding role. In the past, I had always taken at least 2 different roles, and either sang or acted in all 18 or 20 scenes.
Pell:
Yup...the very same.
What can I say? I started late this year. It was either that, Judas, or Pilate.
The Sons of Thunder
Thanks JoeZ....my name is John, Son of Thunder is my cat's name!
Jesus, Son of Mary, fount of life alone,
here we hail thee present on thine altar-throne.
Humbly we adore thee, Lord of endless mighty,
in the mystic symbols veiled from earthly sight.
Think, O Lord, in mercy on the souls of those
who, in faith gone from us, now in death repose.
Here 'mid stress and conflict toils can never cease;
there, the warfare ended, bid them rest in peace.
Often were they wounded in the deadly strife;
heal them, good Physician, with the balm of life.
Every taint of evil, frailty and decay,
good and gracious Savior, cleanse and purge away.
Rest eternal grant unto them, after weary fight;
shed on them the radiance of thy heavenly light.
Lead them onward, upward, to the holy place,
where thy saints made perfect gaze upon thy face.
Words: Edmund S> Palmer, 1902, 1906
based on the author's original text in Swahili
Music: Adoro devote, Corpus Domini, Swahili, Dun Aluinn
Meter: 11 11 11 11
I think you chose the right person to portray given your options!:-) Should D and I ever make it to Michigan (which I'm hoping we will, some friends came down for the wedding, too) we'd love to go to your church.
I read your link on the Progressive Religious Partnership. I think it can best be summed up in this quote from the page:
"America’s "original sin" is the sin of white supremacy and racial division."
I predict this PRP will implode from its own self-importance - even though it's sponsored by such spiritual heavy weights as People for the American Way.
Now why am I not surprised at this prediction from a fatuous fulminating fundie!
Doesn't it seem odd to you that there are three sponsoring groups who are all abortion rights advocates? I just can't see how promoting abortion goes with love and justice.
Cal: Yes, that's the point I was getting at. If everyone is going to live to be 7,000 years old, the birthrate is going to have to decline dramatically. I should have said a condition of taking the drug is that you have never had children and you will undergo sterilization. In the Western world, at least, birth rates have declined once standard of living and lifespan passed a certain point--IMO evidence on a micro level of the choice many would make.
I'd be astonished if the overwhelming majority of affluent world citizens who don't already have children declined to take the pill. Again, I think that's interesting given how it contradicts "the selfish gene" theory as to what sort of species results from natural selection.
As for your "curiosity" about one's feelings about the inequities of every day life as opposed to those imposed by a supernatural entity, you continue to apply your standards to those who don't believe.
Once more, I'm baffled as to what you mean by this. Do you think every day life has no inequities? Do you think only believers see everyday life as having inequities?
The notion that acceptance of inequities in every day life means that one is bound to accept them imposed by a supernatural being is as purely nonsensical as anything I've heard in this thread.
No one said anything about being "bound." What I said was "I'm curious whether anyone reacts differently when it's not a supernatural being showing favoritism..." Do you react differently--or not?
I'm against it but most especially if it was only for the very wealthy or for one gender or race or IQ or whatever.
If we couldn't avoid it then I'd want it equally available to all people BUT I'd definitely want them to be infertile.
I'd be astonished if the overwhelming majority of affluent world citizens who don't already have children declined to take the pill. Again, I think that's interesting given how it contradicts "the selfish gene" theory as to what sort of species results from natural selection.
I don't follow. Could you elaborate?
What strikes me as odd are evangelical Christians.
In fact, they strike me as heretics
Haldeman had a good take on it: you "buy time". You had to come up with ten million dollars for ten years of extra life--and you lost all your money each time.
Do you think every day life has no inequities? Do you think only believers see everyday life as having inequities?
No. I am just astonished and amused by people who would envision a supposedly all knowing all perfect deity who would indulge in the same "you're in you're out" nonsense found in every day life.
What I said was "I'm curious whether anyone reacts differently when it's not a supernatural being showing favoritism..." Do you react differently--or not?
It's a false premise. I don't much care if a supernatural being shows favoritism or not--I will reject the one that does, is all. Particularly if said being has set him or herself up as a wondrous being, rather than just the same sort of petty little monster we can find on earth.
Likewise, I don't much care if human beings show favoritism or not. I resist it when it is systematized, whenever possible.
Jamie R: What I mean is, the selfish gene theory basically posits that DNA doesn't really "care" about individuals of a species--it's whole "point" is to make sure it's reproduced. We are therefore just token carriers of our genetic code and our drive to reproduce should be greater than all others. Our survival instinct is really secondary to this other instinct as a means of facilitating the latter. Consequently, why has a consciousness evolved in the human species that for so many means a willingness to preserve ourselves rather than procreate?
Cal: Do you truly not see anything at all self-contradictory about the above statement?
Any ideas ?
IIRC it was C.S. Lewis who likened it to how you treat family members. There's Uncle Bob, who tells boring stories, and Cousin Kate, who is really stingy, but at least in times past people tended to overlook their own family members' foibles, or at least love their kin in spite of them. I'm not sure that hasn't lessened over the years, however.
Of course Christ said to love others as ourselves, which takes it a step further. More in line with what you say, though, is a recent sermon I heard that I've thought about a lot since. The sermon's lesson was on not playing favorites and treating everyone the same according to what they are doing at the time.
I think there's a middle ground between always remembering a person's past history and totally forgetting it, but most of us tend more toward remembering than forgetting, even when the person is somehow acting differently now. We would probably do better--though not necessarily be more popular--if we tried to emphasize the current behavior in our reaction rather than the person.
"Of course to love someone, you really must have an element of respect for them too"
Unconditional love is what is needed, is it not? Doesn't God love us unconditionally? Aren't our relationships just a training ground for us to learn to love always, in all ways?
As I recall, you are a Gnostic, correct? Do you believe in Hell?
I think of myself as a Christian.
I think God loves all of us unconditionally, and gives (allows) us opportunities to be reconciled with Him (atonement). I believe Jesus taught us the way to do that was to love unconditionally just as God loves us. And this is what life is -- our opportunity.
And I believe that the way to be reconciled with God is to develop a friendship with Him, and that part of that process is to develop friendships with everyone else in our lives. Live by the Golden Rule, as Jesus said.
To develop friendships, with God and people, we learn to know them, trust them, love them, embrace them, use them, help them, and thank them.
Hell is a troubling concept for me. What I believe in is the concept of a second death -- when we have blown numerous opportunities, made no progress time after time after time, our souls are finally destroyed.
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me: and he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him , and will manifest myself to him."
...I see the love displayed on Calvary's Cross as being unconditional until Jesus uttered the words "It is finished". Thereafter, that Love of God (Who after all is love) is extended only to those who love Him back. John 14:21 sounds rather 'conditional' to me.
What do y'all think ?
(Good to see you here PD. How's the marriage ?:-)
The marriage is GREAT! I am incredibly happy and satisfied.
I reject the idea of conditional love, though. That God loves us unconditionally is my primary belief. I believe the concept of conditional love is a concept and belief born of human relationships which we then transfer to our understanding of God. Spiritual truth (i.e., unconditional love) is much grander, imo.
A God who says you must obey my commandments in order for me to love you sounds like a parent who says you must clean your room in order for me to love you. But of course we know that isn't true. We always love our kids, even if they make mistakes and don't live up to our expectations.
If we love God, and if we love our fellow man, we will follow the Ten Commandments.
Then what do you feel is meant by John 14:21? Why would God say..."He that loveth me, he shall be loved of My Father"...if God just loves everyone anyway regardless of how they respond to His Son.
In addition, the Scriptures also say quite clearly that "Thou (God) hatest all workers of iniquity" (Psalm 3:5). Further, that "The wrath of God abideth on those who do not believe in the Son". (John 3:36). There's that conditional love again, at least if indeed the Scriptures are inspired.
Of course, if it's just 'An old book' like any other, one is free to believe anything one likes regarding God and His love.
Congratulations again on your great marriage.
Understand, that I certainly respect you and anyone else who feels that way.
You also imply, I feel, that there are some people who will..."love God and their fellow man and keep the ten commandments"...and some who won't. You reject the idea that God views them differently, correct ?
The way God the Father deals with those who do not respond to Calvary's love with reciprocal love, is His business.
You seem to have a problem with the idea of unconditional love.
Here is what I believe:
True love is without condition, without limitation, and without need.
Because it is without condition, it requires nothing in order to be expressed. It asks nothing in return. It withdraws nothing in retaliation.
Because it is without limitation, it places no limitation on another. It knows no ending, but goes on forever. It experiences no boundry or barrier.
Because it is withhout need, it seeks to take nothing not freely given. It seeks to hold nothing not freely given. It seeks to hold nothing not wishing to be held. It seeks to give nothing not joyously welcomed.
And it is free. Love is that which is free, for freedom is the essence of what God is, and love is God, expressed.
It is the ultimate, absolute reality, beyond relativity.
What I hear you saying is that the scriptures have taught you that God is not truly love. You seem to believe in a God who practices what have been called the three great love-enders: neediness, expectation, jealousy.
We cannot truly love one another when any of these three is present. And we certainly cannot truly love a God who indulges in any one of these, much less all three of them, and God certainly cannot truly love us if any one of those three exist -- for if they do, then it is not absolute, true love.
Improperium expectavit cor meum,
Et miseriam
Et sustinui contristaretur, et non fuit:
Consolatem me quaesivi, et non inveni:
Et dederunt in escam meam fel:
Et insiti mea
Potaverunt me aceto.
the cross shines forth in mystic glow;
where he in flesh, our flesh who made,
our sentence bore, our ransom paid.
Where deep for us the spear was dyed,
life's torrent rushing from his side,
to wash us in that precious flood,
where mingled water flowed, and blood.
Fulfilled is all that David told
in true prophetic song of old,
amidst the nations, God, saith he,
hath reigned and triumphed from the tree.
O tree of beauty, tree of light!
O tree with royal purple dight!
Elect on whose triumphal breast
those holy limbs should find their rest.
Blest tree, whose chosen branches bore
the wealth that did the world restore,
the price of humankind to pay,
and spoil the spoiler of his prey.
Upon its arms, like balance true,
he weighed the price for sinners due,
the price which none but he could pay,
and spoiled the spoiler of his prey.
O cross, our one reliance, hail!
Still may thy power with us avail
to give new virtue to the saint,
and pardon to the penitent.
To thee, eternal Three in One,
let homage meet by all be done:
whom by the cross thou dost restore,
preserve and govern evermore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words: Venantius Fortunatus, 569;
trans. John Mason Neale, 1851.
Music: Vexilla Regis, Andernach, Walton, Parker, St. Cecilia
How the explosion of Christianity in developing nations is transforming the world’s largest religion
Can't Stop Us...
In 1900, the beginning of what American Protestants christened as “the Christian Century,” 80 percent of Christians were either Europeans or North Americans. Today 60 percent are citizens of the “Two-Thirds World”—Africa, Asia and Latin America... Europe itself is now a post-Christian society where religion is essentially an identity tag. In Scotland less than 10 percent of Christians regularly go to church, but in the Philippines the figure is nearly 70 percent. In Nigeria alone there are seven times as many Anglicans as there are Episcopalians in the entire United States. The Republic of Korea now has nearly four times as many Presbyterians as America.
The emergence of non-Western Christianity has many
converging causes. In Latin America, the faith that arrived with the conquistadors in the 16th century is now expanding in part because the population is exploding. In India, the growth is mainly among the outcasts, who find in Christianity hope and dignity denied them by the rigid caste system. In China, Christianity answers problems of meaning that Marxism fails to address.
But wherever it spreads, Christianity is also seen as the religion of the successful West—a spiritual way of life that is compatible with higher education, technology and globalization. American missionaries have never been more active in the developing world, providing health and education for the poor and—through television—reaching into the most humble homes with messages of miracles and salvation.
No PD, I do not. I understand it very well, because if Calvary's love had been conditional, I wouldn't have stood a chance. I am only trying to express my understanding of the reasons why Christ would say..."He that loveth me, my Father will love"...
I understand Calvary's love to be unconditional. You write..."You seem to believe in a God who practices what have been called the three great love-enders: neediness, expectation, jealousy.". I don't. I believe in a God Who, because of unconditional love became my Unconditional Substitute. However, the Scriptures I am trying to get you to address, seem to indicate that His revelation in the human heart is conditional upon our loving response to Calvary's sacrifice. Otherwise, imo, John 14:21 makes no sense.."He that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love him, and reveal (manifest) Myself to him.".
What is your understanding of this verse ?
Additionally, please address John 3:36.."He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him".
Bloodnfire, I've been thinking of your posts of this past week for two days now...and have no time to properly post anything...thank you for always making me think in directions that are unfamiliar to me. It's been fruitful. I'll be back later.
The GoJ carves out a distinct place for Christianity, quite apart from its Judaic roots. For this reason, some scholars posit that this Gospel was rewritten to conform with contemporary Church teaching, and is more of a declaration of theological principles than a source of information about the life of Jesus.
PhillipDavid. Further to your comment...""You seem to believe in a God who practices what have been called the three great love-enders: neediness, expectation, jealousy". There is a fourth love-ender...'Indifference'...would you agree ? The 'Other edge of the Sword of Truth' (a phrase that I have used before, and which irritates Kuligin, but which at least tries to pay respect to some "On the other hand" aspects of 'Theology' as I understand them) suggest that the 'Unconditional love of God' was extended to every human being on earth on Calvary's cross. The texts I mention above suggest (to me at least) that He responds to the individual who responds lovingly and gratefully to it, with His love and Presence. Those who treat it with indifference however, or scorn, apparently have His wrath abiding on them (whatever that means...
...I responded to Calvary with indifference bordering on insolent derision for the first thirty-five years of my life, and if, as the Scriptures state, His wrath was 'abiding on me' as a 'non-believer', I was not aware of it).
It funny to me. I sit here, at the beginning of a brand new day, typing away, and once again find my heart overflowing with gratitude and wonder, all because of Him, and the lovely people He has brought into my life. The lovliest being the Holy Spirit of the Lord Jesus.
If you doubt, come and say it
Fwiw I agree with Jen (as usual). I don't believe anyone ever tied Easter Eggs and Rabbits with the crucifixion and suffering of Christ. I see them as being secular celebrations of the beginning of Spring. Nor, for that matter, have I ever caught the message that the Easter Bunney lays eggs. However, assuming he does, would they be chocolate ?
For the record, for the umpteenth time, the birth, death and resurrection of One Who is 'Truly and properly God, and truly and properly Man' was (for the first thirty-five years of my life)as intellectually outrageous to me as some rabbit laying chocolate eggs.
It takes a revelation to the human heart to know that the former is true. I'd respect anyone who felt they'd had a revelation of the latter, but I'd treat them with the same mocking disdain, probably, that I and my fellow evangelical Christians are occasionally treated in this Forum.
Happy egg hunting, everyone! :-)
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? *
and are so far from my cry
and from the words of my distress?
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but you do not answer; *
by night as well, but I find no rest.
Yet you are the Holy One, *
enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
Our forefathers put their trust in you; *
they trusted, and you delivered them.
They cried out to you and were delivered; *
they trusted in you and were not put to shame.
But as for me, I am a worm and no man, *
scorned by all and despised by the people.
All who see me laugh me to scorn; *
they curl their lips and wag their heads, saying,
"He trusted in the LORD; let him deliver him; *
let him rescue him, if he delights in him."
Yet you are he who took me out of the womb, *
and kept me safe upon my mother's breast.
I have been entrusted to you ever since I was born; *
you were my God when I was still in my mother's womb.
Be not far from me, for trouble is near, *
and there is none to help.
Many young bulls encircle me; *
strong bulls of Bashan surround me.
They open wide their jaws at me, *
like a ravening and a roaring lion.
I am poured out like water;
all my bones are out of joint; *
my heart within my breast is melting wax.
My mouth is dried out like a pot-sherd;
my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; *
and you have laid me in the dust of the grave.
Packs of dogs close me in,
and gangs of evildoers circle around me; *
they pierce my hands and my feet;
I can count all my bones.
They stare and gloat over me; *
they divide my garments among them;
they cast lots for my clothing.
Be not far away, O LORD; *
you are my strength; hasten to help me.
Save me from the sword, *
my life from the power of the dog.
Save me from the lion's mouth, *
my wretched body from the horns of wild bulls.
I will declare your Name to my brethren; *
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.
Praise the LORD, you that fear him; *
stand in awe of him, O offspring of Israel;
all you of Jacob's line, give glory.
For he does not despise nor abhor the poor in their poverty;
neither does he hide his face from them; *
but when they cry to him he hears them.
My praise is of him in the great assembly; *
I will perform my vows in the presence of those who worship him.
The poor shall eat and be satisfied,
and those who seek the LORD shall praise him: *
"May your heart live for ever!"
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, *
and all the families of the nations bow before him.
For kingship belongs to the LORD; *
he rules over the nations.
To him alone all who sleep in the earth bow down in worship; *
all who go down to the dust fall before him.
My soul shall live for him;
my descendants shall serve him; *
they shall be known as the LORD'S for ever.
They shall come and make known to a people yet unborn *
the saving deeds that he has done.
Tommorrow the Triduum liturgies begin. Holy Thursday Mass commemorating the institution of the Lord's Supper followed by the Stripping of the Altar and Procession of the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of Repose; the Solemn Liturgy of Good Friday and Mass of the Pre-Sanctified, and finally, the Easter Vigil and First Mass of Easter on Saturday night. There are no dismissals at the end of the first two services as the Liturgy is continuous over the 3 Holy Days.
Angel 5, I've heard that "Hitler's Pope" is a trial of that Pope's attitude and actions. I once saw a PBS account of that Pope's time under the Nazi's. It did appear his inaction was/is under scrutiny. He making no public condemnation of the Hitler/Nazi arrest and destruction of Jews and many others.
I am an Episcoplian. We walk the same Way to Easter.
The name Tenebrae is the Latin word for "darkness" or "shadows," and has for centuries been applied to the ancient monastic night and early morning services of the last three days of Holy Week, which in medieval times came to be celebrated on the preceding evenings.
This service is marked by a reading from the book of Lamentations and the gradual extinguishing of candles and other lights until a single candle, considered a symbol of the Lord, remains. Towards the end of the service, this candle is hidden, typifying the apparent victory of the forces of evil. At the very end, a loud noise is made, symbolizing the earthquake at the time of the resurrection (Matthew 28:2), the hidden candle is restored to its place and by its light all depart in silence.
The service which follows is designed for the evening of Wednesday of Holy Week, but it could also be used in the early morning hours (before dawn) on either Thursday, Friday or Saturday. It could also be used as an extra devotion on Thursday or Friday evening before retiring.
The lights are dim and seven candles are lit in the area of worship. Enter the space in silence and allow the dim light and silence to settle in before beginning.
8
Jerusalem sinned grievously, therefore she became filthy; all who honored her despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; yea, she herself groans, and turns her face away.
9
Her uncleanness was in her skirts; she took no thought of her doom; therefore her fall is terrible, she has no comforter. "O LORD, behold my affliction, for the enemy has triumphed!"
10
The enemy has stretched out his hands over all her precious things; yea, she has seen the nations invade her sanctuary, those whom thou didst forbid to enter thy congregation.
11
All her people groan as they search for bread; they trade their treasures for food to revive their strength. "Look, O LORD, and behold, for I am despised."
12
"Is it nothing to you, all you who pass by? Look and see if there is any sorrow like my sorrow which was brought upon me, which the LORD inflicted on the day of his fierce anger.
"Is it nothing to you that one day Jesus came
All our sorrow and suffering to share?
He came as a light of new hope for a world
In the day of its darkest despair.
Is it nothing to you that one day Jesus gave,
Gave in love of His measureless all?
So richly He poured out His limitless life
When He answered out pitiful call.
Is it nothing to you that one day Jesus died,
That men mocked Him and, heedless, passed by?
No sorrow was e'er like the sorrow He bore
When they scorned Him, and left Him to die.
Is it nothing to you that today Jesus saves?
Though we stand all condemned before God
He carries our sin on His own loving heart,
And He saves by His pardoning blood.
CHORUS:
Is it nothing to you that His cross speaks our shame?
Is it nothing to you, for whose cleansing He came?
That our guilt built His Calvary and pierced his hands through?
Is it nothing to you? Is it nothing, nothing to you?"
Have a joyfilled Easter, everyone. 
Malcom Muggeridge--The Words
What's to be said about human nature with regard to gawking at suffering and death? Like this Mcvay execution that could be televised, are so many people cold as ice, that death is to be a focus for public consumption?
My personal thoughts lean toward a hope that our public focus would move toward unselfish giving.
Then, my blood gets hot, thinking about the unjust treatment of individuals and populations. For example, that 19 year old black youth, executed by white, racists cops in Philli.
I think many people consider there is a balance between good and evil. Faith in a Higher Power is one way a lot of us find that balance. I think that the resurrection of Jesus is a beautiful example of unselfish giving. Described to us as the love of God, shedding blood, once, and for all time, that believing in Jesus, humankind may find forgivness and the eternal love of God. An amazing example of love in my humble opinion.
I've seen many agnostic and atheist views that the the bloody and brutal death of Jesus describes a defect with Christian belief. That's a dismissive argument which misses the whole point of Jesus' death, which is the resurrection.
Happy Easter
Happy Easter to you too. I'll think about your post and respond later today.
Tomorrow, Good Friday is always an emotional day for me. I meditate on God's word and I envision what all Christ had to endure his last day before crucifixion. I enjoy most any movie version on the life of Christ as it helps me to think on all that Christ gave up for me, what terrible punishment he received, even by his own people, and how wonderful his nature was and is.
It makes me incredibly sad thinking about his time in Gethsemane and his subsequent betrayal. My heart breaks thinking about those nail spikes piercing his wrists and ankles, and yet my soul shouts *hallelujah* when I hear Jesus proclaim "It is Finished", knowing he will rise triumphant and conquer death.
Praise God for his unselfishness and love, may we truly seek him in our hearts and minds this Easter weekend (and forever.) 
23
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread,
24
and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.
27
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
28
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
29
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
of the glorious Body sing,
and the Blood, all price excelling,
which the gentiles' Lord and King,
in a Virgin's womb once dwelling,
shed for this world's ransoming.
Given for us, and condescending,
to be born for us below,
he, with men in converse blending,
dwelt the seed of truth to sow,
till he closed with wondrous ending
his most patient life of woe.
That last night, at supper lying,
'mid the twelve, his chosen band,
Jesus, with the law complying,
keeps the feast its rites demand;
then, more precious food supplying,
gives himself with his own hand.
Word-made-flesh true bread he maketh
by his word his Flesh to be;
wine his Blood; which whoso taketh
must from carnal thoughts be free;
faith alone, though sight forsaketh,
shows true hearts the mystery.
Therefore we, before him bending,
this great Sacrament revere;
types and shadows have their ending,
for the newer rite is here;
faith, our outward sense befriending,
makes our inward vision clear.
Glory let us give, and blessing
to the Father, and the Son,
honor, might and praise addressing,
while eternal ages run;
ever too his love confessing,
who from both with both is one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words: Thomas Aquinas, thirteenth century
SOUL of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me.
Within Thy wounds, hide me.
Separated from Thee let me never be.
From the malignant enemy, defend me.
At the hour of death, call me.
To come to Thee, bid me,
That I may praise Thee in the company
Of Thy Saints, for all eternity.
Amen.
Christ's passion also is that of an innocent man suffering, whereas in some cases the human need to watch an execution comes from a bloodthirst for revenge.
Yet I think we ought not to shrink entirely from the death and rush quickly to Easter's resurrection. Some points for possible discussion:
From the last:
"[I]n like fashion Christ's voluntary suffering was such a good act that, because of its being found in human nature, God was appeased for every offense of the human race with regard to those who are made one with the crucified Christ...."
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify thy Son that the Son may glorify thee,
2
since thou hast given him power over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom thou hast given him.
3
And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.
4
I glorified thee on earth, having accomplished the work which thou gavest me to do;
5
and now, Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.
6
"I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.
7
Now they know that everything that thou hast given me is from thee;
8
for I have given them the words which thou gavest me, and they have received them and know in truth that I came from thee; and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9
I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine;
10
all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.
11
And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
12
While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.
13
But now I am coming to thee...
What do y'all think ?
First off, I don't understand what you mean by "It is finished"..."It is accomplished" is another acceptable translation...
And note the Farewell Discourses in John.
Jesus said, in fact he gave as a NEW commandment, love one another as I have loved you
This is noteworthy because, as we all know, the Golden Rule in various iterations was quite well known to his audience.
What is NEW about what he said for he said it was a NEW commandment?
Therein lies the answer to your question IMO
On Thursday of Holy Week, the Church remembers as Christ gathers his disciples in an upper room for a special meal before moving toward the events culminating in his crucifixion. It was on this occasion that Jesus took bread and wine and offered them as his body and blood.
He also washed the feet of his disciples, giving the new commandment, "Mandatum" in Latin, to "love one another." Finally, this is the night when Jesus prayed in the garden before he was arrested and taken away for trial.
my Savior's love to me,
love to the loveless shown
that they might lovely be.
O who am I
that for my sake
my Lord should take
frail flesh and die?
B&F,
I remember that from last year. That is really neat. Thanks for posting it again.
Jexster. You ask..."First off, I don't understand what you mean by "It is finished"...'It is accomplished' is another acceptable translation...".
Well the question really is "What did Jesus mean by...'It is finished' or 'It is accomplished' which (I agree with you) expresses that same thought.
I take it to mean that..."Payment in full of the debt owed by Jexster and Bloodnfire (and everyone else) to God for having been deliberately disobedient, is now made". The moment that He reveals the validity of this sacrificial act to the individual in their behalf is the moment that he or she falls in love with God as I understand Scripture. "We love Him because He first loved us" (John 4:19). It is this wonderful love relationship, and the realization of the way in which He loves each individual that enables us to..."Love our neighbor as ourselves".
God bless you this Easter jexster, and thanks again for your lovely posts.
Psalm 22 Deus, Deus meus
1
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? *
and are so far from my cry
and from the words of my distress?
2
O my God, I cry in the daytime, but you do not answer; *
by night as well, but I find no rest.
3
Yet you are the Holy One, *
enthroned upon the praises of Israel.
4
Our forefathers put their trust in you; *
they trusted, and you delivered them.
5
They cried out to you and were delivered; *
they trusted in you and were not put to shame.
6
But as for me, I am a worm and no man, *
scorned by all and despised by the people.
7
All who see me laugh me to scorn; *
they curl their lips and wag their heads, saying,
8
"He trusted in the LORD; let him deliver him; *
let him rescue him, if he delights in him."
9
Yet you are he who took me out of the womb, *
and kept me safe upon my mother's breast.
10
I have been entrusted to you ever since I was born; *
you were my God when I was still in my mother's womb.
11
Be not far from me, for trouble is near, *
and there is none to help.
12
Many young bulls encircle me; *
strong bulls of Bashan surround me.
13
They open wide their jaws at me, *
like a ravening and a roaring lion.
14
I am poured out like water;
all my bones are out of joint; *
my heart within my breast is melting wax.
Psalm 15
My mouth is dried out like a pot-sherd;
my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; *
and you have laid me in the dust of the grave.
16
Packs of dogs close me in,
and gangs of evildoers circle around me; *
they pierce my hands and my feet;
I can count all my bones.
17
They stare and gloat over me; *
they divide my garments among them;
they cast lots for my clothing.
18
Be not far away, O LORD; *
you are my strength; hasten to help me.
19
Save me from the sword, *
my life from the power of the dog.
20
Save me from the lion's mouth, *
my wretched body from the horns of wild bulls.
21
I will declare your Name to my brethren; *
in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.
22
Praise the LORD, you that fear him; *
stand in awe of him, O offspring of Israel;
all you of Jacob's line, give glory.
23
For he does not despise nor abhor the poor in their poverty;
neither does he hide his face from them; *
but when they cry to him he hears them.
24
My praise is of him in the great assembly; *
I will perform my vows in the presence of those who worship him.
25
The poor shall eat and be satisfied,
and those who seek the LORD shall praise him: *
"May your heart live for ever!"
26
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, *
and all the families of the nations bow before him.
27
For kingship belongs to the LORD; *
he rules over the nations.
28
To him alone all who sleep in the earth bow down in worship; *
all who go down to the dust fall before him.
29
My soul shall live for him;
my descendants shall serve him; *
they shall be known as the LORD'S for ever.
30
They shall come and make known to a people yet unborn *
the saving deeds that he has done. 
Were You There When They Crucified My Lord? (midi)
I notice the author of the hymn in the latter closed with..."God's own sacrifice complete;
'It is finished!' hear him cry;
learn of Jesus Christ to die.". Another wonderful interpretation of those words. 'Finished' ('Completed'). All self-centeredness and foolish worldliness put to death with Christ.
Lovely ambition. Glorious hope. Wonderful promise.
To paraphrase: The Way of the Cross is the Way to Desolation. The life of prayer is nothing more or less than the stripping away of all attachments. We do not know “the essence” of God only God’s emanations and our Way is to strip away attachments to all of them (including the Blessed Sacrament, itself but an emanation of God). Referring repeatedly to his favorite Saint, John of the Cross and his Ascent of Mt. Carmel (a mind ripper of a book), he mentioned John’s drawing of the Mount where at the top, the Saint writes the words “Nothing, nothing, and then again nothing.”
The Void is the point of real communion with God. Amen.
"EASTER COOKIES" (To be made the evening before Easter Sunday)
You need: 1C Whole Pecans - 1tsp Vinegar- 3 Egg Whites -Pinch salt 1C Sugar - Zipper baggie - Wooden spoon - Tape - Bible.
Preheat the oven to 300 degrees F.
Place the pecans in zipper baggie and let the child(ren) beat them with the wooden spoon to break into small pieces. Explain that after Jesus was arrested He was beaten by the Roman Soldiers.
Read John 19:1-3
Let the child(ren) smell the vinegar. Put 1tsp Vinegar into a Mixing Bowl. Explain that when Jesus was thirsty on the cross he was given vinegar to drink.
Read John 19:28-30
Add egg whites to vinegar (eggs represent life). Explain that Jesus gave His life to give us Life.
Read John 10:10-11
Sprinkle a little salt into each child's hand. Let them taste it and brush the rest into the bowl. Explain that this represents the salty tears shed by Jesus' followers, and the bitterness of each 'dirty-hearted' thing we ever do.
Read Luke 23:27
So far the ingredients are not very appetizing. They represent the 'Bad News' of the need for our Salvation. Add 1 Cup of Sugar. Explain that the sweetest part of the story is that Jesus died because He loves us. He wants us to know Him, and
allow Him to live His life in us and through us.
Continuing...
Read Psalm 34:8 and 1 John 3:16
Beat with a mixer on high speed for 12 to 15 minutes until stiff peaks are formed. Explain that the color white represents the purity in God's eyes of those whose 'dirty-hearts' and 'dirty-hearted acts' have been cleansed by Jesus blood shed in death.
Read Isaiah 1:18 and John 3:1-3
Fold in broken nuts. Drop by teaspoons onto a wax paper-covered cookie sheet. Explain that each mound represents the rocky tomb where Jesus' body was laid.
Read Matthew 27:57-60
Put the cookie sheet in the oven, close the door and turn the oven OFF. Give each child a piece of tape and seal the oven door. Explain that Jesus' tomb was sealed.
Read Matthew 27:65-66.
GO TO BED! Explain that they may feel sad to leave the cookies in the oven overnight. Jesus' Friends were sad when the tomb was sealed.
Read John 16:20 & 22.
On Easter Morning, open the oven and give everyone a cookie. Notice the cracked surface and take a bite. The cookies are HOLLOW!
Explain that on the first Easter Jesus' friends were amazed to find the tomb open and empty.
Read Matthew 28:1-9
------------oOo------------
May God bless the truths of this simple little activity to your hearts and the hearts of those you love, this Easter and always.
The Resurrection is no more symbolized by the Easter Bunny than Christmas by Santa Claus less so in fact for the latter at least has some Christian connection..Nicholas of Smyrna
The Lighting of the Paschal Candle
Dear friends in Christ: On this most holy night, in which our Lord Jesus passed over from death to life, the Church invites her members, dispersed throughout the world, to gather in vigil and prayer. For this is the Passover of the Lord, in which,by hearing his Word and celebrating his Sacraments, we share in his victory over death.
This is the night, when you brought our fathers, the children of Israel, out of bondage in Egypt, and led them through the Red Sea on dry land.
This is the night, when all who believe in Christ are delivered from the gloom of sin, and are restored to grace and holiness of life.
This is the night, when Christ broke the bonds of death and hell, and rose victorious from the grave.
How wonderful and beyond our knowing, O God, is your mercy and loving-kindness to us, that to redeem a slave, you gave a Son.
How holy is this night, when wickedness is put to flight, and sin is washed away. It restores innocence to the fallen, and joy to those who mourn. It casts out pride and hatred, and brings
peace and concord.
How blessed is this night, when earth and heaven are joined and man is reconciled to God.
I love your recipe for Easter cookies!! I will save it for the day I have a grand child to share it with.
Cassian Folsom, OSB
For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.... 
He also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
Hell took a body, and discovered God.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took what it saw, and was overcome by what
it did not see.
Full Text
can no longer, death, appall us;
Jesus lives! by this we know
thou, O grave, canst not enthrall us.
Alleluia
Midi 
On a philosophical plane, is it reasonable to assume that, if God were good and all powerful, He would not allow evil and suffering? Further, can we conclude that, given evil and suffering, there is no God at all? What answers can we expect as human beings--now or ultimately? Where do reason and faith come into play and how do they interplay? We begin exploring these issues in our special focus.
We don't believe in a vending machine God. We believe in a paradox God at once all powerful and weak who embraces all without remainder, the Alpha and the Omega, who created all that is and died on a cross in agony and shame.
The other and related point is that God created us in his image, transcendent and free. That God "allows" evil and suffering means that he "allows" creation and us to be
Faith is made perfect in weakness and in suffering for that is where Our Paradox God reveals himself most powerfully. Ultimately though, faith has as its object knowing God as he is, not mediated through the created order in a glass darkly but to know even as we are known. As I related on Good Friday, and faith's life of prayer then is nothing more or less than a relentless and often faltering process of freeing ourselves from all attachment to this world - its joys and its sufferings - to clear out the underbrush of the created order.
Its a bit trite but I found Why Bad Things Happen to Good People to be useful.
And of course, with Job in the depths of his afflictions
I know that my Redeemer lives and at the last day he will stand upon the earth. After my awaking, he will raise me up; and in my body I shall see God. I myself shall see, and my eyes behold him who is my friend and not a stranger.
But he said unto her, 'Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?' In all this did not Job sin with his lips" (Job 2:9 & 10).
The point Job makes it seems to me cuts to the heart of the problem - we are ever tempted to the Vengeful Vending Machine God because we fear the free will and the transcendence God placed at the core of our nature.
Now my cat has the right to "curse me and die" if I don't clean his litter box or don't care for him. He may lay legimate claim to only good from me as his guardian god but human beings are called to a harder way.
The other and related point is that God created us in his image, transcendent and free. That God "allows" evil and suffering means that he "allows" creation and us to be
Absolve, Domine, animas omnium fidelium defunctorum ab omni vinculo delictorum. Et gratia tua illis succurrente, mereantur evadere judicium ultionis. Et lucis aeternae beatitudine perfrui
Bryon Rasmussen 1956-1981
As some observers pointed out when the Taliban destroyed two monumental statues of the Buddha in Afghanistan last month, the spiritual leader would have considered both the effort to erect the sculptures and the fight to save them (as well as, mostly likely, the crusade to annihilate them) sadly misguided; he himself was not the point. A faithful biography of the Buddha would have to be a kind of anti-biography in which everything that we in the West consider "interesting" about the man eventually falls away like, to use his own metaphor, the discarded skin of a snake or the scabbard of a sword, leaving behind a being who is serenely "impersonal."
Or perhaps there is a reason to allow pain and suffering?
Or perhaps pain and suffering are a natural consequence of allowing us free will and there is a reason for allowing free will?
The world not being perfect does not lead me to the conclusion that there is no God.
Well said. At the risk of gilding the lilly, I'd like to elaborate on your response:
Let's assume that there is some sort of superflous evil and suffering. Then we have to conclude that there is no "good and all powerful" God. But, heck, there sure might be a good but not-quite-all-powerful God. I'm cool with that.
Well it's obvious to me that evil is a part of life. But we don't have to like it, and we don't have to view it as inevitable, and we don't have to conclude that there's no God. We don't have to buy into radical materialism. However, the presence of evil does seem to imply that it's up to us to deal with it.
No comment at this time.
Thich Nhat Hanh Living Buddha, Living Christ (1995)
he community in Big Sur is situated in the rugged coastal mountains overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Located on 899 acres at an elevation of 1300 feet, the Hermitage is surrounded by California chaparral, redwood, madrone, bay laurel, and an oak forest. The view is of both ocean and woods - a natural setting profoundly conducive to the contemplative way of life.
The PBS Faith and Reason Site
The point I was trying to make with the "mystic" posts above is this Faith/Reason, Good/Evil, Joy/Suffering are what Buddhists and many Christian contemplatives have through the ages called "dualities". Thus the point Reality is free from all notions....It is our duty to transcend words and concepts to be able to encounter reality
Indeed Jesus may have had the same concept in mind when he said that his followers should be in the world, not of the world.
Not being a Buddhist myself nor more than a play contemplative, its hard for me to articulate this but aren't the question Faith/Reason..Good/Evil traps or barriers through which and beyond which Followers of The Way (Buddhist or Christian)must move on the Way to apprehending Reality (a term which itself is a concept which posits its opposite unreality)
As I said, I am getting beyond myself here, so does this make sense??????
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the upcoming execution of Tim McVeigh.
I haven't seen anyone defend his "right to life", but only that televising his execution is wrong.
Personally, as you probably know, I am for the death penalty and people like McVeigh are the best examples as to why. What he did to his fellow citizens was appalling and deserving of the most serious punishment.
So far, it doesn't seem that there are any McVeigh defenders. Perhaps people support the death penalty when it comes to acts of extreme terrorism.
When I was younger, I had an extremely close person to me murdered. I would rather not discuss it because I don't believe in airing too much personal laundry in public, and I don't think it's relevant to the discussion except to counter one argument: the idea that I would "feel differently" if it had happened to one I cared about. Personally, I didn't want the murderer executed because under the circumstances I thought nothing good would be accomplished. YMMV.
FU's argument about Oklahoma City is a compelling one, despite its reliance on emotion rather than reason. I remember watching Full Metal Jacketed--I think--with the person who was later killed. At one point there's this sequence where a sniper keeps shooting one of the platoons' members to pieces in an attempt to lure them out into the open. She blasts off a kneecap and works her way on up the leg.
Eventually, one of the other soldiers runs out to try to pull the guy back, and she starts in on him, same treatment. At last, they finally wound her in return.
So I understand the need for "vengeance." And I also think it's not my place to jump in and tell the people of Oklahoma City, you can't do this! Moreover, my own human nature wants to see men like John Wayne Gacy and the misfit who raped and strangled that little girl in a Las Vegas casino punished "to the uttermost farthing," but my Christian beliefs prohibit me from totally giving into that human nature.
If I was on a jury in such a case as Timothy McVeigh and had to decide, I would vote to execute him, so I guess ultimately that's all that really matters. But it's like abortion: it's not within man's power to make such actions good--we just have to choose what we think is the lesser evil.
Increasing reliance on the death penalty diminishes us and is a sign of growing disrespect for human life. We cannot overcome crime by simply executing criminals, nor can we restore the lives of the innocent by ending the lives of those convicted of their murders. The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life.40
National Conference of Catholic Bishops
That said, if there are multiple paths to God--which personally I don't believe--I would still choose Christianity because as a product of Western civilization and consequently the Christian tradition I think it's the only religion that would ever "talk" to me.
I find it ironic that people use the relatives and loved ones' wishes as justification to kill McVeigh. By that logic, the relatives and loved ones who think McVeigh ought not to be killed should be given just as much credence. No one pushing the death penalty for McVeigh seems to be quite as concerned about them, for some reason.
The desires and wishes of the relatives of victims are irrelevant to the legal process and always have been. I find using them as justification in any way to be extremely repugnant.
I don't think McVeigh should be killed because I oppose state-sponsored murder. Like Indy, I would appreciate it if they wouldn't do it in my name.
I just find most of the debate on capital punishment to be false rhetoric, on both sides. It's pretty simple, to me. You either believe it's okay for the state to execute, in which case no excuse or rationalization about how helpful it is for the victim's loved ones is needed. Or you don't believe it's acceptable, and in that case I don't think there's any need to argue that McVeigh is better off stewing over his misdeeds for 50 years.
The people themselves, on both sides, are irrelevant to the debate.
I don't believe it, but some of your posts on this thread seem right on to me. How can this be?
Actually, Jen, the McVeigh execution has been discussed in at least three threads. So don't go drawing any conclusions.
Maybe I should have qualified it with no discussions in here for you. I don't follow all of the other threads, so I don't know where McVeigh's execution was discussed. I was surprised, though, that no one brought it up in here, as did a bunch of people when Karla Fay Tucker was executed.
I find it ironic that people use the relatives and loved ones' wishes as justification to kill McVeigh. By that logic, the relatives and loved ones who think McVeigh ought not to be killed should be given just as much credence.
If there are 168 families related to his loved ones who support his right to life, then maybe this would apply. But as it is, he murdered many, many people and not 1/3 of that number are willing to support him.
The desires and wishes of the relatives of victims are irrelevant to the legal process and always have been. I find using them as justification in any way to be extremely repugnant.
I'm interested in the evolution of justice and revenge. It used to be that a criminal had to "make it up" to a victim's family, so historically, the wishes and desires of the relatives have been important.
I don't think McVeigh should be killed because I oppose state-sponsored murder. Like Indy, I would appreciate it if they wouldn't do it in my name.
I respect your opinion. I am in favor of state sanctioned execution. IMO it's not murder because McVeigh is not innocent.
Indy,
I respect your opinion and I also understand not wanting to air dirty laundry. As some in here know, my former step-brother is on death row for a brutal rape and murder. I was a prosecution witness and it wasn't easy. So, in some ways, I have a closer relationship to this issue than most.
Say has anyone around here ever done any Zazen Buddhist mediation stuff???
Five doors down from my apt., the SF City Zen Center...a very active place...several friends, Catholic and Recovering Catholic have suggested I check it out....am thinking about this Sat or next for their beginners session....
I'm not considering becoming a Buddhist but obviously have great respect for the tradition and some curiousity.
Unlike most Christian denominations, the Zen Buddhist's at least do not require you to believe their theology - dogmatic or moral. There is indeed no conflict from their point of view.
Many people use Zen practice to deepen their faith. Its a Holy Spirit thing theologically.
Also, many Jesuit priests I have heard tell have become Zen priests as well...just to illustrate the non-conflict point...
I think many would be surprised to see how similar much Buddhist thought is with that of many Christians, esp. the Desert Fathers, the Russian Orthodox mystics, St. John of the Cross, Thomas Merton, Theresa of Avila just to name a few
Yoga is the same way, but try sitting through one session without being inundated with eastern thought. Sure you're not "forced" to believe, but you're certainly encouraged to practice it.
But I think my faith is strong enough to withstand the assault ;)
Bob Bellah, a sociologist, and Bill Countryman, a scripture scholar, suggest that we look a little closer at our ideas about families, and what the Bible really says about them.
Yesterday, they shared the podium at an Episcopal seminary in Berkeley for the day-long forum, "Whose Family? Whose Values?"
Despite all the family values rhetoric from the religious right, Bellah said, conservative evangelicals have a much higher rate of divorce than mainline, liberal Protestants.
More
In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence. He rebukes his disciples for wishing to call down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of hospitality (Luke 9:55). Later he admonishes Peter to put his sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest (Matthew 26:52). At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above—that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41).
Catholicism & Capital Punishment
What do you think of:
Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.
In which case, should clergy argue publicly in favor of the death penalty as the writer is doing? (Though he appears to be an academic theologian, rather than representing the church. I think the "Cardinal" is just part of his name.)
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 "The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm--without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself--the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity 'are rare, if not practically non-existent.' (NT: John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56)
"YOU SHALL NOT KILL"
(GOD'S HOLY LAW)
54. As explicitly formulated, the precept "You shall not kill" is strongly negative: it indicates the extreme limit which can never be exceeded. Implicitly, however, it encourages a positive attitude of absolute respect for life; it leads to the promotion of life and to progress along the way of a love which gives, receives and serves. The people of the Covenant, although slowly and with some contradictions, progressively matured in this way of thinking, and thus prepared for the great proclamation of Jesus that the commandment to love one's neighbour is like the commandment to love God; "on these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets" (cf. Mt 22:36-40). Saint Paul emphasizes that "the commandment. . . you shall not kill . . . and any other commandment, are summed up in this phrase: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'" (Rom 13:9; cf. Gal 5:14). Taken up and brought to fulfilment in the New Law, the commandment "You shall not kill" stands as an indispensable condition for being able "to enter life" (cf. Mt 19:16-19). In this same perspective, the words of the Apostle John have a categorical ring: "Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him" (1 Jn 3:15).
55. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God's commandment prohibits and prescribes.[43] There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God's Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one's own life and the duty not to harm someone else's life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself" (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
Moreover, "legitimate defence can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another's life, the common good of the family or of the State".[44] Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.[45]
56. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. .. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[48]
Could Christ's death on the cross have been possible without capital punishment?
Jexster: Why do you believe Christ's death was necessary?
Whenever the State, where bloodless means are sufficient to defend society, takes the life of a human being "in whom the image of God is present" it is committing a grevious sin, a mortal sin on your behalf and mine.
I believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a sin, a grevious sin.
No Indy, I don't think a good Catholic can be for capital punishment in the US
The culture of death and a society dominated by the powerful
63. Nowadays, in America as elsewhere in the world, a model of society appears to be emerging in which the powerful predominate, setting aside and even eliminating the powerless: I am thinking here of unborn children, helpless victims of abortion; the elderly and incurably ill, subjected at times to euthanasia; and the many other people relegated to the margins of society by consumerism and materialism. Nor can I fail to mention the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when other “bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'”. (229) This model of society bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message. Faced with this distressing reality, the Church community intends to commit itself all the more to the defense of the culture of life.
Thanks MG....
I believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a sin, a grevious sin.
Was it the Father's will?
How is it that Christ could sin and how is it that his sacrifice for us is considered sin? IMO, that sounds like a blasphemous accusation Jex.
When St. Peter shows up, they ask him. St. Peter says, "I don't know, this is the first time anyone has asked. Let me go find out," and he
leaves.
The couple sits and waits for an answer. It takes a couple of months. While they are waiting, they discuss whether or not they should be
married, what with the eternal aspect of it all. "What if it doesn't work?" they
wondered, "Are we stuck together forever?"
After yet another month, St. Peter finally returns, looking somewhat
bedraggled.
"Yes," he informs the couple, "You CAN get married in Heaven."
Great!" said the couple, "But we were just wondering. What if things don't work out? Could we also get a divorce in Heaven?"
St. Peter, red-faced, slams his clipboard onto the ground.
"What's wrong?" asks the frightened couple.
"OH, C'MON!" St. Peter shouts, "It took me three months to find a priest up here! Do you have ANY idea how long it'll take me to find a lawyer?!"
Why couldn't St. Pete marry them?
If a captain of a ship or your local notary...?
And joezan is indeed there.
Joezan, is that a pic from Mclean? If so, great program.
Jenerater, I don't think he said it was Christ's sin to be crucified. He said it was a sin to crucify Christ, unless I missed something from an earlier post somewhere, which is quite possible.
What I was asking jexster was in the context of a debate on capital punishment.
I wondered if he believed Christ's death was necessary for remission of sins. In which case, regardless of who was the instrument of his crucifixion, was it then in accordance with the will of the Father (i.e., a blood sacrifice)?
And what does that say about the justness of capital punishment?
The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death." Moreover, those who aren't saved must face a second death.
This isn't an all-trumping argument for me in terms of capital punishment because even if God can execute a death sentence upon individuals I don't see that the state or society inevitably inherits the same power (at least not without some additional arguments). But if God demands Christ's death as a necessity for the intercession of sins, then that would at least indicate that death is in some cases necessary to fulfill justice (God's will).
Before reaching that conclusion, however, I think we have to agree on the reason for Christ's death--whether he was indeed the perfect Lamb, who forever paid the debt of sin, or whether earlier sacrifices were not in fact to placate God but only to symbolize Christ's future death.
I'll bite. I've got some concerns with your argument, but will answer the questions posed so as to give context to the discussion.
"I wondered if he believed Christ's death was necessary for remission of sins."
Yes. Christ said "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom to many." Matt. 10:45
"In which case ... was it then in accordance with the will of the Father?"
Yes. See previous reference as support and Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to His crucifixion "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me: yet not my will, but yours be done." Matt. 22:42
I'm going to take the next part a little out of order.
"I think we have to agree on the reason for Christ's death--whether he was indeed the perfect Lamb, who forever paid the debt of sin,"
Yes, "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Heb. 10:10
"or whether earlier sacrifices were not in fact to placate God but only to symbolize Christ's future death."
I believe there were several different purposes for OT sacrifices. One type, however, was for the forgiveness of sin. "Moses said to Aaron, 'Come to the altar and sacrifice your sin offering and your burnt offering and make atonement for yourself and the people; sacrifice the offering that is for the people and make atonement for them, as the LORD has commanded.'"
Leviticus 9:7 I don't think that earlier sacrifices were merely symbolic. I think that we were given the OT laws, we couldn't comply and made sacrifices for atonement. Christ becomes the perfect sacrifice and introduces the concept of Grace.
The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death." Moreover, those who aren't saved must face a second death.
OK.
(con't)
"And what does that say about the justness of capital punishment?.... This isn't an all-trumping argument for me in terms of capital punishment because even if God can execute a death sentence upon individuals I don't see that the state or society inevitably inherits the same power (at least not without some additional arguments). But if God demands Christ's death as a necessity for the intercession of sins, then that would at least indicate that death is in some cases necessary to fulfill justice (God's will).
OK, here's where you lose me. How does Christ, as the perfect sacrifice, have anything to do with capital punishment? I just don't see any relationship to the question. Christ's sacriice was a voluntary sacrifice for the forgivenes of sin. Capital punishment is man's method of punishment, deterrence, and retribution. I think the concepts are totally different.
Thus, if Christ had not died, would our death be punishment and retribution (and failed deterrence in the sense that God told Adam he would die if he disobeyed)?
Christ's sacriice was a voluntary sacrifice for the forgivenes of sin. Capital punishment is man's method of punishment, deterrence, and retribution. I think the concepts are totally different.
One may look at it as God taking advantage of man's retributive techniques to have his son sacrificed 'voluntarily'?
What could have possibly been proved if capital punishment weren't part of social retribution then?
Suicide being a sin. Murder being a sin. Captial punishment is not?
I think that puts the cart before the horse. It almost sounds as if you're saying that God is mimicking man. That I don't buy. Are you saying that capital punishment is someone's view of man mimicking God? I can see where you might have an argument there. (i.e. that that might be one of the facets of capital punishment.)
Again, however, I just don'tsee how Christ's crucifixion fits into an argument as to whether capital punishment is right or wrong.
What could have possibly been proved if capital punishment weren't part of social retribution then?
I think that capital punishment is a form of retribution or vengeance (at least in part). I don't know that it proves anything however. What do you mean?
Suicide being a sin. Murder being a sin. Captial punishment is not?
I don't believe I ever said it wasn't a sin. If you take Christ at his word, I think it is a sin. The only thing I'm saying is that Christ's crucufixion doesn't fir into an argument over whether capital punishment is right or wrong.
Punishment, yes. Retribution, yes. Failed deterrence, yes. But how does Christ being crucified relate to whether it's ok for us to kill?
Christ wasn't killed for retribution for his crimes, he was totally innocent. That was the point.
Jexster said: I believe that Jesus's crucifixion was a sin, a grevious sin.
I said: How is it that Christ could sin and how is it that his sacrifice for us is considered sin?
You said: I don't think he said it was Christ's sin to be crucified. He said it was a sin to crucify Christ, unless I missed something from an earlier post somewhere, which is quite possible.
I do not consider Christ's crucifixion as a sin. It's original definition is to "miss the mark" and it is considered a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). If it was God's will for Jesus to be crucified, then it could not be "missing the mark" or a "transgression" of His law.
Actually the question you asked just made me think about something I hadn't thought about before.
-God had a plan for his son right?
-God chose to use capital punishment to 'off' his son from mortal bearings?
-Therefore, capital punishment, was not only a method that men used to punish crime, but God also used this aspect of mankind to achieve the means to His end?
Unless of course he had no idea before of how to present the sacrifice before the fact, OR, His plans went awry?
Just questions to ponder. My last post here for 3 weeks.
Now everyone behave themselves, till I get back.
No...it's from our humble Wesleyan church here in Michigan.
Welcome, btw!
However, one theological doctrine is that because the "wages of sin is death" someone had to pay the "death-burden" of sin for remission to occur. The reason Christ was able to pay it for all of us is that he was perfect and without sin. Yet if God's justice demands that sin's debt be paid by death, then I do think that's an argument for the "righteousness" of capital punishment.
(As I said, though, even if one accepts that doctrine, human beings don't inexorably inherit the same divine judicial prerogative, so it's not sufficient in and of itself for mandating capital punishment within a human system of justice.)
OK, I see where you're going with the argument now. And it looks as if we agree as to the foundations of the question. But... it seems to me that the opposite argument could be made with equal, if not greater, force.
Let me see if I can do this without muddling it all up.
From Adam up to Christ, man continually failed and sinned. The price paid by man was death. Why? Because God demanded death as the price for sin. Using the OT, I think your argument has some weight - again with the caveat that we'd have to discuss whether man can assume God's prerogatives.
From Christ to the present, man still continually fails and constinues to sin. Because of Christ's sacrifice, however, the price of that sin is no longer OUR death, because the price has been paid once and for all. Why? Because through the sacrifice of his son, God gave us all Grace. If the lesson of the crucifixion is free forgiveness of sin, past, present, and future, which I think it is, wouldn't that argue against capital punishment? The execution, to end all executions so to speak.
I do not consider Christ's crucifixion as a sin. It's original definition is to "miss the mark" and it is considered a transgression of the law (1 John 3:4). If it was God's will for Jesus to be crucified, then it could not be "missing the mark" or a "transgression" of His law.
Are you saying it was not a sin for the Romans/Jews to crucify Christ? If so I'd have to disagree. look at Christ's own words on the issue:
Just before His arrest: "Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'" Matt. 26:45
During the crucifixion: "When they came to the place called the Skull, there they crucified him, along with the criminals--one on his right, the other on his left. Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.' And they divided up his clothes by casting lots." Luke 23:33-34
At the last Supper: "When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, 'I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me.' They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, 'Surely not I, Lord?' Jesus replied, 'The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.'" Matt 26:20-24
I agree people can grow and learn through mistakes, but they don't always do so. I don't think that all mistakes are sins. I don't think that all sins are mistakes. I agree people can learn and grow from their sins, but they don't always do so. People can also learn from their successes. It's like working out. I think to say that a life without mistakes is intensely boring is a gross overgeneralization and inacurrate. I think you can say a life without mistakes is impossible. I'd agree that a life without risks is boring, but that's another topic.
Is Timothy McVeigh a better person for having bombed the federal building in OKC?
Was Mother Teresa failing to grow because she helped so many? Should she have kicked a few starving kids in the ribs in order to grow?
I suppose that the actions of the Roman and Jews were considered "sin". I think what turned me off of Jex's statement was that it cast Jesus' crucifixion as a whole as sin. I do believe that God was able to use the sinful action of unsaved men as part of His plan for redemption from sin. An interesting twist!
Also intersting are the differing words for sin in both the Old and New Testaments used to describe the concept of sin.
By the way, I did a quick web search on your moniker. The results indicated that either you are named after a spell, or you are a character in a Dungeons & Dragons type of game. What's your take?
LOL. You caught me. I like to play a Microsoft internet game called Asheron's Call. It comes from that game.
Back to topic... Are you suggesting that the concept of what sin is has changed from OT to NT?
Exodus 9:13-16 says:
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Get up early in the morning, confront Pharaoh and say to him, `This is what the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me, or this time I will send the full force of my plagues against you and against your officials and your people, so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth.For by now I could have stretched out my hand and struck you and your people with a plague that would have wiped you off the earth. But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.
OK, so we have God knowing that pharoah would disobey and then using that disobedience to show His power to the world.
But...It looks like pharoah's ready to call it a day after God sends the plague of boils. But this time, God hardens pharoahs heart so that he will not listen to Moses (v.11-12):
The magicians could not stand before Moses because of the boils that were on them and on all the Egyptians. But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.
That's where I have a problem. Disobedience to God is sin, right?
God knew pharoah would disobey/sin and was going to use pharoah's pride as a lesson on God's power. But then when pharoah is apparently ready to throw in the towel, God essentially throws him back in the ring.
Is God causing pharoah to sin?
Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them
that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."
It reminds me of Revelation 22:11, where God says "And he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still".
It's as though (to me) God allows us to choose up to a certain moment, and from then on He 'forces' us to continue in the state (hardened or tenderized) as the case may be, as indeed He did with Pharaoh.
What do you think ?
Blasphemy is a capital crime in this volatile Islamic nation, so Dr. Younus Shaikh, while teaching at a medical college, might have wisely avoided any discussion of the personal hygiene of the holy Prophet Muhammad.
But the topic came up duiring a morning physiology class. And the doctor talked briefly about 7th century Arabia and its practices regarding circumcision and the removal of underarm hair.
some students found his remarks deeply offensive. "Only out of respect, because he was our teacher, did we not beat him to death on the spot," said Syed Bilal, 17.
Instead they informed a group of powerful mullahs, wh in turn filed a criminal complaint. Lest the matter be treated with sinsufficient urgency, these clerics dispatched a mob to the medical school and the police station, threatening to burn them down.
Precisely what Dr. Shaikh said in class last Oct is now a matter of mortal dispute, but he has been jailed ever since, awaiting trial and pondering the noose.
Pakistan, a nearly bankrupt nation with 150 million people, a military govt and an expanding nuclear arsenal, is drifting toward religious extremism. [Imaging a mullah with his hand on the nuclear button!] Blasphemy cases are its version of the Salem witch trials [or the McCarthy hearings], with clerics sniffing out infidels, and enemies using the law to settle personal scores.
Only the most sensational cases get much notice: when vigilantes murder the accused, or the bold judge who set him free. When a man is condemned to die if a few pages in the Koran are torn. When a newspaper is shut down after publishing a sacrilegious letter.
Dr Shaikh is charged under Procision 295-C of the law: the use of derogatory remarks about the holy Prophet Muhammad. Whether the offense is intentional or not, the mandatory sentence is death.
Dr Shaikh was a member of peace and environmental groups. But while he might have asked an occasional dissenting question at a public seminar, he was not a well-known activist. His few writings have appeared mostly in cyberspace, and at least some of them accuse organized religion of mass murder, bigotry and the degradation of women.
But 11 students, the entire class did sign a letter that listed Dr. Shaikh's possible crimes. They claimed he had said that the Prophet was not a Muslim until age 40; that before then, he did not remove his underarm hair or undergo circumcision; that the first wed, at 25, withougt an Islamic marriage contract; that his parents were not Muslims.
Mr. Alfridi was chosen to deliver the letter to the MOVEMENT FOR THE FINALITY OF THE PROPHET, a group well known for pursuing blasphemers.
"For Dr. Shaikh's own protection, we sought his arrest," said Abdul Wahis Qasmi, sec general of the organization's Islamabad chapter. "Otherwise he might have been killed in the streets."
Non-muslims make up about 3 percent of Pakistan's population and while they have obvious reasons to fear the blasphemy statutes, there is no shortage of opposition among Muslims as well. Even a strong advocate, the minister for religious affairs, Mahmood Ahmad Ghazi, says the law requires revision. He has reviewed numerous cases and said the majority originate form "ill will and personal prejudice."
At the movement's headquarters, the law also comes under ciriticism, though the complaint is sluggish justice. Blasphemers may get locked up, but not one has been executed.
"Even if someone is only half-conscious when speaking against the Prophet, he must die," said Mr. Qasmi, wh managed to sound amiable. "In Dr Shaikh's case his relatives have come to see us, saying the man is sorry and that he repents. BUT TO BE SORRY IS NOT ENOUGH. EVEN IF A MAN IS SORRY HE MUST DIE."
KILL FOR JESUS!
KILL FOR MUHAMMAD!
Do you have an email I can write you? You can get me at msgreer@home.com. Again, sorry for the spam.
Not, "In ways that you're willing to be treated, but in ways that you want to be treated. A very important difference.
It boils down to unconditional respect. Always (and unfailingly)treating everyone else with the kind of respect and consideration with which you would like always to be treated yourself.
A very, very rare quality in human beings, in my experience. Every student referred to this Reformatory where I work can quote the 'Golden Rule' pretty accurately. However, almost without exception they "Do unto others the way that others are doing unto them"...usually 'with interest'. Getting them to change, (getting anyone to change) takes a work of God in the human heart.
Always (and unfailingly)treating everyone else with the kind of respect and consideration with which you would like always to be treated yourself.
But as you yourself have been told on any number of occasions, you are extremely disrespectful, at times when I am sure you consider yourself to be acting on the Golden Rule.
So it clearly isn't that simple.
When would it be inapt to follow the golden rule?
My mom is very bluntly honest and expect the same. "What did you do to your hair, do you really like it that way?" for example was interpreted as rude when first said to my wife 12 years ago.
In large measure it's cultural. My wife is American, my mom is not. My mom expect to be treated the same way.
My wife began figuring out that my mom was just that way when she heard my mom say to her best friend, who also is not from the USA originally: "Who cut your hair, you look like a sheared sheep?" True story.
The friend wasn't offended.
I guess the story is an inept way of saying, I can understand that there may be confusion in application/interpretation of how to apply the Golden Rule, but I don't understand where it would be inappropriate to at least try to apply it.
That's the sort of thing I am thinking of. However, I am skeptical that there is any society where it is considered polite to tell someone that they look like a sheared sheep. The onus is on the person who is comfortable being told such things to realize that in fact they're just a bit odd. Nothing wrong with that, but life will be difficult at times until they figure that out.
It is absurd to think that following the Golden Rule will always get you the best results, really. Sometimes politeness will yield the optimum response--ergo, rude and blunt people have to break the rule. Likewise, there are plenty of times when kindness and respect gets you nowhere.
That's just "polite" vs. "rude". Take any other attribute and you'll find plenty of times when your preference is just exactly not what is called for.
I know I must be missing something but I just don't think this is so...have you a few instances where respect is futile or kindness is uncalled for?
Trust me. Head over to to the community where I grew up and sit and listen to people for a while. You'd be amazed. I don't think it's about politeness. It's about blunt honesty. That's what my mom and frankly a lot of the people I grew up with want or expect. Maybe their skins are a little thicker for it and they don't take every perceived slight as a personal insult which sets them off in a little tiff, but is that really so bad?
It is absurd to think that following the Golden Rule will always get you the best results, really.
If you look at it that way, you're right. If the only issue really is you and getting what you want, then you're right. There are times when yelling, screaming and just being an ass at the ticket counter of a major airline will get you that upgrade you wanted. We've all seen it. It will also probably get a loogie in your drink.
The problem is though, Cal, that the golden rule is not about about selfishness and getting what you want. It about creating a better world. Would life as a whole be better if I (along with everyone else in line with me) didn't have to put up with the asshole at the front of the line yelling to get what he wants?
I guess I'm not thinking it through either. How about an example?
This is what I was hoping to debate by posting the two views: not only the obvious question of "will I (personally) be rewarded for following the Golden Rule," but whether the Golden Rule is in fact a good idea at all (in the big scheme of things).
Also, I'd like to remind everyone that this thread has a low tolerance for personally phrased criticisms (i.e., using the second person). It's a nuance, but I think argument gets heated much more quickly when that construction is used--and besides, avoiding it is an easy guideline to follow.
Let it not be thought that the common "quod tibi non vis fieri, etc." could serve here as the rule or principle. For it is only a deduction from the former, though with several limitations; it cannot be a universal law, for it does not contain the principle of duties to oneself, nor of the duties of benevolence to others (for many a one would gladly consent that others should not benefit him, provided only that he might be excused from showing benevolence to them), nor finally that of duties of strict obligation to one another, for on this principle the criminal might argue against the judge who punishes him, and so on.
I was thinking of it primarily on the individual level,whereas the second link discusses it more globally. But it asks excellent questions. For example, in thinking of Nazi Germany and the liberation of the concentration camps, are the "others" we "do unto" the Nazis or the Jews? If the Jews, then we want to be liberated. If the Nazis, then we want to be left the fuck alone and stop trashing our country, thanks so much. Just give up, let us conquer you (or let us stalemate) and we'll go on from there.
American history would be far different if we had done unto the native tribes the way the colonists would wish to be treated had they been the downtrodden, and quite arguably the worse off for it.
A child molester or a murderer would no doubt we do unto them they way they would do unto others--namely, they'd let the other murderers and child molesters go unharmed. Any takers?
So it seems quite obvious to me that it is one of those silly things that people say without really thinking it through. I was amused at the notion that it was "proto-liberal", but there's some truth to that.
Your parents might be that way, and their circle of friends. I don't know of any culture that uniformly accepts personal insults as anything other than rude. But if you have documentation that says, for example, that everyone in country X or religion Y or region Z thinks that "my god, did a lawnmower get you?" is an appropriate way to comment on a stranger's hair, I'd be delighted to see it.
In any event, it is clear that your mother wasn't following the golden rule, since I am sure she would expect to be treated politely, by her standards--and yet she has failed to do the same with your wife. I don't consider this a bad thing, mind you.
. If the only issue really is you and getting what you want, then you're right.
Well, the entire human race is pretty much about self-interest. In some cases, communities perceive self-interest in the greater good of the community, that's all.
In any event, I think it is quite clear that the Golden Rule is very little more than a useful rule of thumb when interacting with those of a common culture--and even then, it starts with the basic presumption that polite behavior will be productive, which is hardly a given.
Well Cal, if you know my culture better than I, so be it. Perhaps you know my mother better than I do too. I always thought she expected people to be bluntly honest with her. I am saddened to know I have been offending her for all these years. Thanks for letting me know. I also thought she knew my wife. Thanks for clearing that up. I'll be sure to introduce them now.
In any event, I think it is quite clear that the Golden Rule is very little more than a useful rule of thumb when interacting with those of a common culture
Yes, the Golden Rule works best among those of a common culture. I would add several subgroups, however, since it's a bit more complicated than than that.
...it starts with the basic presumption that polite behavior will be productive, which is hardly a given.
Treating someone the way you yourself would want to be treated does not always require POLITENESS. The Golden Rule is broader than that.
Ex: If one has a close friend engaging in personally destructive behavior, it may be in that person's best interests to be confronted on the issue, and maybe not politely. Confronting them, however, would be following the Golden Rule.
As to the inaptness of the Golden Rule, all I've heard is generalities. I haven't seen one example. Only that I must not be thinking it through. Edumacate me.
OK I saw your example after I posted my response to your earlier post:
For example, in thinking of Nazi Germany and the liberation of the concentration camps, are the "others" we "do unto" the Nazis or the Jews? If the Jews, then we want to be liberated. If the Nazis, then we want to be left the fuck alone and stop trashing our country, thanks so much. Just give up, let us conquer you (or let us stalemate) and we'll go on from there.
That's a VERY narrow-minded, and I think, inaccurate, interpretation of the rule.
First, Cal, I assumethat we can accepta premise that genocide is wrong.
Second, can we accept the premise that if you were doing something wrong, you'd want to know?
Third, can we accept the premise that if you were doing something that was both personally destructive and destructive to your family, community, society, that it you'd want it to stop?
If we can accept those premises, then the application of the Golden Rule works just fine, doesn't it?
Yes it would be different. Arguably worse off - unfettered specualtion. Just as arguably better off.
Go back to my response to your Nazi Germany example. I don't think any of the examples presented work.
If you note, I asked for documentation. I'm all for learning about cultures where I can go and insult people's hair. So if this is a generally acknowledged cultural norm, by all means let me read up on it.
Treating someone the way you yourself would want to be treated does not always require POLITENESS.
I have said as much. However, both you and Judith were incapable of coming up with an example where being polite would be actively harmful. So does this mean you can indeed come up with times when being rude is a good thing--i.e. following the Golden Rule?
Sez you. "Do unto others". Which "others"?
Yes it would be different. Arguably worse off - unfettered specualtion. Just as arguably better off.
But anyone who stopped the Americans (of European stock) from doing what they wanted to the Americans (of native stock) would not be following the golden rule.
I'm sure there are all sorts of more elegantly worded arguments on this. Did you read Indy's second link?
You're changing the premise now. You said in an earlier post that there are times when following the Golden Rule could be "inapt."
You then tried to equate the Golden Rule to "politeness."
I've explained, I think, that the Golden Rule is not simply "politeness."
I can STILL think of no examples where following the Golden Rule would be wrong.
You cited your Nazi Germany examples. I responded.
Yes, I read Indy's second link. I don't buy the argument there. I think the argument turns the Golden Rule on its head -- as did the Nazi Germany example -- in a vain attempt to discredit the rule.
Remembering the Holocaust is like placing a live hand grenade in a room full of small children. It is no good to them in any way, and sooner or later they will play with it, and kill or injure themselves. Only an evil person would do such a thing.
Yeah.... Well ok, then. I'm sorry, but Treanor is just a little whacked.
If you leave out spiritual aspects, yes, there's the rub. The question in a material, natural sense is whether preceding generations had a better chance of seeing their DNA reproduced in succeeding generations if they followed the Golden Rule or not. Hence, is there any reason for us to have altruistic empathy programmed in biologically? How about a biological imperative now?
Or does such behavior go against everything natural selection teaches us?
Then, of course, there are the spiritual questions as well...
Even then, it starts with the basic presumption that polite behavior will beproductive, which is hardly a given.
This presumption I don't concede, at least not for believers and in the material sense. When Jesus says to turn the other cheek, the implication is that you will be struck on that cheek as well. When Jesus says to offer your neighbor more than he has asked, the assumption is that your neighbor will take that too.
In Christian theology, at least, the Golden Rule is for its own sake or perhaps in hope of a heavenly reward--it's not predicated on expecting any behavioral change in others.
Even spiritually speaking, self-interest is involved IF you look at the application of the Golden Rule "perhaps in hope of a heavenly reward."
I think it's difficult to pull self-interest out of anything a human does.
Yes.
You then tried to equate the Golden Rule to "politeness."
Nope. See Message # 12569: It is absurd to think that following the Golden Rule will always get you the best results, really. Sometimes politeness will yield the optimum response--ergo, rude and blunt people have to break the rule. Likewise, there are plenty of times when kindness and respect gets you nowhere.
That's just "polite" vs. "rude". Take any other attribute and you'll find plenty of times when your preference is just exactly not what is called for.
A clear statement that politeness is just one of many aspects of the Golden Rule. It was you and Judith who then distracted onto politeness. Your examples all had to do with politeness. All I did was answer your questions. You have not answered mine. Why is it that, in the Nazi situation, you assume that the "others" are the Jews? If "others" are Nazis, then had we treated them by the Golden Rule we would have let them alone.
I suggest that you remember, again, that one can have ethics and morality without spirituality or religion, and cease making insulting assertions. It is an essential part of the human condition to be self-interested, with or without "spirituality". Whether kindness and integrity and other positive values are developed via self-interest or are another part of the essential human condition is an open question. But it is most assuredly not necessary to accept some weird little view of the afterlife in order to have such finer qualities--and lord knows a number of monsters bought into the afterlife and still neglected the Golden Rule. I'm not sure at what point in life you'll realize that spirituality and all other human qualities--negative and positive--are orthogonal, but I sure as hell wish you would hurry.
You introduced these links without reference to religion. Had I known we were in for another proselytizing session I wouldn't have bothered responding in the first place. Why not warn people if you're going to force the conversation down that path?
For example:
This presumption I don't concede, at least not for believers and in the material sense.
Well, you'll have to, unless you can prove that all believers act one way and all non-believers another. Since you can't, I suggest you concede with a fairly basic premise and move on. Polite behavior is very often unproductive. This is so obvious that even the godly can grasp it.
It is about the rise of fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, basically the why and the how of it.
According to Armstrong, before the modern era, people used religion to explore the meaning of life. Religion and reason were complementary, not mutually exclusive and not mistaken for each other. Religious myth was not considered to be true in a literal sense, but neither would one say "oh, this is only a symbol". There was no "only" about it. Through practicing religion, performing the rituals, telling or meditating upon the stories, truth was expressed,or rather, revealed.
Since the development of the scientific method, the way people think of the big questions has changed radically. Armstong states that fundamentalism, which seems to want us to move backward in time, is really an extremely modern and forward-thinking movement. The ancients did not think of their religions the way fundamentalists do; they were simply incapable of it.
In this age, we do not understand how to think of myth. Christians taking the Bible literally is an example of this. Christians thinking of their religion as a way to move the world, or themselves, to a better and better place is also a modern way of thinking. In past times, religion had concerned itself with what was constant and unchanging.
I'm only on page 83.
I did answer. See post #12580.
That's your answer? Well, then, you're incorrect. You certainly can't assume that anyone wants to know what you think of their actions. So no, you can't assume it. And no, you can't assume that genocide is wrong.
I assume by now you've realized that you can't make that third assumption either.
In fact, you are proving my point for me.
If you really won't concede even a basic point of "genocide is wrong," then what's the use of even discussing the issue? Let's be serious. And if you are being serious, well then, enjoy the rest of Treanor's writings.
Zojak, some people just like to argue even after it's gotten ridiculous.
Country A colonizes Territory Z, murdering most of the inhabitants and enslaving the rest. Country B does the same to Territory X. Both countries considerately offer the other assistance in their goals--after all, it's what they would expect as well.
Territory Z inhabitants realize that maybe they can get together with those of territory X and rise up and overwhelm their captors, murdering and enslaving them for profit. They approach Territory X with this idea, but Territory X didn't even know of territory Z until that point. Upon this discovery, X realizes that they are slightly larger and more powerful than Z,and that Z represents a chance for them to grow and become more powerful--they invade Z and begin selling the inhabitants to Country C.
Country B notices a dropoff in Z population and, upon discovering the cause, is tempted to smash territory X to pieces. But, following the Golden Rule, they notify Country A and Country C of the problem and explain that they expect it to cease.
Country A is appalled at the poor behavior of its territory--they have received no revenue from this income stream. They apologize immediately to B, and send a large number of X inhabitants off to B as restitution--while killing the instigators of the slave trade, of course. Country C is recalcitrant and invades Territory Z, which causes B to invoke a Golden Rule treaty signed with A and they both send off their slave warriors to beat the snot out of C, murdering and enslaving their inhabitants and splitting the country into two territories for further exploitation.
And Countries A and B, the only to follow the golden rule, live happily ever after.
So you see, genocide could very easily be part of the Golden Rule.
Country A colonizes Territory Z, murdering most of the inhabitants and enslaving the rest. Country B does the same to Territory X. Both countries considerately offer the other assistance in their goals--after all, it's what they would expect as well.
Territory Z inhabitants realize that maybe they can get together with those of territory X and rise up and overwhelm their captors, murdering and enslaving them for profit. They approach Territory X with this idea, but Territory X didn't even know of territory Z until that point. Upon this discovery, X realizes that they are slightly larger and more powerful than Z,and that Z represents a chance for them to grow and become more powerful--they invade Z and begin selling the inhabitants to Country C.
Country B notices a dropoff in Z population and, upon discovering the cause, is tempted to smash territory X to pieces. But, following the Golden Rule, they notify Country A and Country C of the problem and explain that they expect it to cease.
Country A is appalled at the poor behavior of its territory--they have received no revenue from this income stream. They apologize immediately to B, and send a large number of X inhabitants off to B as restitution--while killing the instigators of the slave trade, of course. Country C is recalcitrant and invades Territory Z, which causes B to invoke a Golden Rule treaty signed with A and they both send off their slave warriors to beat the snot out of C, murdering and enslaving their inhabitants and splitting the country into two territories for further exploitation.
And Countries A and B, the only to follow the golden rule, live happily ever after.
Moron, that I am though in thinking that at some point some sense will prevail, I'm gonna try one more time.
So, I'm apparently supposed to find the application of the Golden Rule somewhere in your hypo Cal. I'm certain that I'm just not thinking it through and will be told so momentarily without explanation, but if, as you say:
Country A colonizes Territory Z, murdering most of the inhabitants and enslaving the rest. Country B does the same to Territory X.
Then how do you reach the conclusion that:
And Countries A and B, the only to follow the golden rule, live happily ever after.
Essentially, along with being intellectually inconsistent, the hypothetical set forth above argues an interpretation of the Golden Rule that turns it on its head.
Explain pray tell, how Countries A and B were doing unto territories X and Z what they would like done to themselves?
Elliot has made my answer. Your interpretation of The Golden Rule tacitly assumes that everyone is equal. But no such premise is permissable.
I also don't think that Cal would be found at a skinhead party. As to challenging me, well fine, I'm happy to be challenged, but I think that means we also have to find some basic propositions we can agree on to form the basis for an argument one way or another. At a minimum, we need to understand what the other person's position is and why.
Maybe I'm dense, but I haven't seen an example from Cal that supports her position.
As to the points you raise, let's take them in reverse order. Genocide first. I can say it's wrong for several different reasons. For example, as a Christian, I could say it's against God's teachings. Well fine, that would convince a certain number of people, but probably wouldn't impress an atheist or someone of a different religious bent. We'd then have to look to the lowest common denominator as to why it's wrong. At that level we'd be talking basic morals and basic right and wrong. I happen to believe that yes, there's a basic gut principle that tells me that it's wrong to exterminate an entire race of peoples and that most everyone would agree with that. Am I wrong there?
Yes. You are demonstrably wrong.
I just gave you an excellent example of a situation where supporting genocide in one's neighbors is following the golden rule.
As to the flexibility of the rule, well I find it hard to believe that anyone can legitimately say, as a general rule, "I'm going to kill someone, because I'd like to be killed too."
Granted, you could come up with an example of a psycho with a death wish, but an exception like that doesn't invalidate the rule.
I think to discuss the golden rule you have to give it some context. For example, let's take Christ's perspective, since it seems that it is the one most often quoted. To apply the Golden Rule, you'd have to consider the context of Christ's other teachings as well wouldn't you? If you do that is the rule stil too flexible?
In that context, your example of a smart people killing retarded people fails.
If he were retarded, he'd want to be eaten. That's the Golden Rule.
If it were, he'd know that the justification of intellect would be entirely subjective by the person doing the murdering and eating.
But the Golden Rule is subjective. That's the whole point.
Um, no. You can't take anyone's perspective. You can't say, "what he meant was...."
....other than the person applying the Golden Rule, of course.
Besides, you're surely not going to use the Bible as an example of consistency on this subject, are you?
Christians discriminate against gays. Ask any Christian--hell, ask Jen, who just praised the Golden Rule--how she'd want to be treated if she were gay.
Sorry Cal, but no you didn't. It's do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Your excellent example doesn't work Message # 12600 Answer the question in 12600 andthen tell me howthe example is excellent.
The example is ridiculous and the Golden Rule is inapplicable. Show me a retarded person that wants to be killed and eaten. Better yet, show me any culture that would support "kill others and eat them as they will do unto you."
Nonsense.
Hasn't that been what the entire discussion is about? What does it mean? And how do you apply it?
If I were gay, I'd want people to have the moral fortitude and spiritual integrity to challenge my lifestyle. I would also hope that in that process, they would help me.
You really don't appear to be tracking. Explain where the Golden Rule says how "others" are defined.
There you go, Zojak. Country A has just spoken.
Cal's examples only work if you completely disregard ethics and any sense of right and wrong entirely.
In such a world the golden rule would be irrelevant, since no one would really give a rat's ass what anyone else thought.
Me responding to CG's inquiry as to what I'd do if gay:
If I were gay, I'd want people to have the moral fortitude and spiritual integrity to challenge my lifestyle. I would also hope that in that process, they would help me.
Her response:
Murder and enslavement are synonomous with desiring moral strength, spiritual strength, and support.
Um, CalGal, *you* are the one who isn't "tracking".
Show me a retarded person that wants to be killed and eaten. Better yet, show me any culture that would support "kill others and eat them as they will do unto you."
Please give me an example!!
Do unto OTHERS as you would have THEM do unto you.
If I were gay, I'd want people to have the moral fortitude and spiritual integrity to challenge my lifestyle. I would also hope that in that process, they would help me.
Why do you equate that to discrimination? Disagreeing with a certain lifestyle isn't discrimination. I agree that it can be a short step if one isn't careful. But Ithink Christ teaches that we should take everyone as we find them and love them as we find them.
That doesn't mean you don't try to change things, does it?
But there are two objects. Country B and Territory Z. Country B is filled with those that Country A regards as people. Territory Z is filled with those who Country B thinks of as "not people" or less than equal. Country A, too, thinks of some as less equal. The Golden Rule is silent on the subject of equality. It makes no demands.
So Country A is treating Country B in exactly the way it would expect to be treated. Territory Z is less equal and therefore not a part of the rule, as far as they are concerned.
You have also failed to note that Jen has just given you a perfect example. Jen believes in the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule allows her to discriminate against homosexuals because if she were a homosexual, she would want to be discriminated against. ("discriminated" = "helps cure")
Jen is completely incapable of most abstraction, of course, so she misses the point. She is also the person who posted 12621, not me.
But there are two objects.
Then you have to consider them both.
Again to say that one country is considered unequal is throw the ridiculous into the equation and to violate the golden rule. You're essentially saying that a country thinks it's dealing with subhumans. the golden rule would prohibit that thought wouldn't it. Country a wouldn't want to be thought of as subhuman.
And what does what you think of Jen have to do with our argument?
I thought that you had responded to her post as if I had written them, but I see now that I was mistaken.
You have, instead, declared that it is acceptable to treat some as less equal than others, provided that you don't kill them. How odd.
No, I don't. Please tell me where in the Golden Rule it says I have to define "others" as you see fit, rather than as I see fit.
Instead, turn it around this way. suppose a homosexual told you in full and complete sincerity that they know (because a religious text tells them so) that being attracted to the opposite sex is a grevious sin for which you will go to hell. Therefore, because they love you, they are going to try to convince you to become homosexual or, at the very least, convince you that you must be celibate for the rest of your life. Otherwise, you will burn in hell for eternity and they love you too much to let that happen without trying to do something about it.
OK. Is that how you would want to be treated?
Now, how many people, when they think of the golden rule, think of it that way?
And of course, no one is under any requirement to think of the Golden Rule as you describe it. Jen doesn't when she's speaking of homosexuals, and Zojak doesn't when he's wailing about the genocidists. (genocidalists? killers? Pol Pots? What's the right word.)
What some people may think of as a good result from applying the golden rule in what they think is the "right" way, would appall other people.
ee,
I have no idea what your point is.
Now I shall go back to catching up with the thread.
Sure, I'd want someone to tell me. Why is it that DISCUSSING an issue would be considered wrong?
I'd say first that any Christian you tells someone that that person is going to hell for any reason is erring. That's God's decision. Not mine. Not yours. having said that, the Bible provides guidance on what's right and what's wrong and every single one of screws it up in some way. I don't think there is any one sin that is necessarily worse than any other. They're all disobedience.
Cal -
I guess I get worse and worse huh? Because I disagree with your point of view I'm rude to my mother, have no cultural identity and now I wail.
I always say that earnest people wail. It was rude, but then you've been no picnic, either. However, it has nothing to do with whether or not you agree with me. I am far more impatient with people who don't understand--worse, who blithely engage in the same behavior they condemn in others--than I am with those who disagree with me.
I never said you were rude to your mother or had no cultural identity, though. I asked several times if you coudl document this country where it is considered polite behavior to tell people that they look awful, so that I could learn more about this wondrous place.
It always gets worse and worse when one argues with CalGal.
I'm not sure I could find you a book entitled "I Can Call You a Sheared Sheep and Not be Rude." I'll look on Amazon and see if someone wrote one. Failing that, all I've got to convey are my experiences.
As to not understanding, I understand, I just disagree and think that I have pointed out some huge holes in your examples which you have pointedly ignored.
The Golden Rule has to do with compassion.
People tend to look at others as "others", baring little similarity to ourselves. So it is easy to say, "That monster!" about somebody like Timothy McVeigh rather than face the obvious fact that he is not a monster, he is human, and we are also human, and isn't that a rather sobering thought? Does a Timothy McVeigh live in all of us?
But compassion without reason is dangerous. It is dangerous to go patting killers on the head and saying "there,there" for example.
The Golden Rule is a radical idea because it tries to meld the "me" with the "you". It breaks down the walls between people, something Jesus tried to do during his life--mixing with prostitutes, etc.
There is no moral absolute in this, it is a touchpoint. The hard part is, obviously, weeding out the subjective and the eternal.
And I'm not going to consult a sociopath on the proper application of the Golden Rule.
While your example works as stated, so does an example about genocide if you can find me someone who who wants his/her entire race to die. That is an exception, an extreme one, and doesn't invalidate a rule. If we can agree that as a basic principle genocide is wrong - and you set forth one of several simple arguments that can be used that it is indeed wrong -- then we know that no one would want it done to them. The same can be said for the example of eating the mentally challenged.
It's akin to arguing that there should be no speed limits of 20 mph in residential neighborhoods because doctors live in residential neighborhoods and at times need to get to hospitals quickly to save lives and the 20 mph speed limit therefore kills people who would otherwise be saved by doctors.
Well, as a practical matter, the one extreme example might be true, but it doesn't invalidate the rule as a whole.
All I've seen here is extreme examples like that. Give me a real life practical example where following the Golden Rule is inapt.
No, but it seems to me that your assertion that it is a cultural and country norm ought to be easily backed up. ("The goatherders of Yersatz consider it a compliment to say exactly what they think of another's appearance.")
I understand, I just disagree and think that I have pointed out some huge holes in your examples which you have pointedly ignored.
No, you don't understand, given that you consider legitimate application of the Golden Rule as a "hole".
Oh. So THAT'S what they are doing!
Here, it always looked to me like badgering and condemning. Like telling a person with blue eyes that choosing to have blue eyes is evil and cuts you off from God's love and only if you really believed and tried hard enough you could turn your eyes brown.
"I'd say first that any Christian you tells someone that that person is going to hell for any reason is erring. That's God's decision. Not mine. Not yours."
Well, that's also what I was taught. However, I sure have met a lot of people who call themselves Christians and seem to feel it is their duty to tell a lot of people that they are going straight to hell.
oh yeah....
So there...
nuh huh....
But seriously Cal, go back and look at
Message # 12600
one of the several you chose to ignore and explain the errors of my ways.
I think that doctors, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending.
I think that atheists, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending.
I think that roller skaters, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending.
I think that .... aw shucks, why don't we make it humans in general, while believing themselves to be compassionate, are often paternalistic, even condescending.
I have already done so several times.
Show me one place where you answered it and I'll eat... well... someone who's mentally retarded.
In fact, see youse all tomorrow. I'm outta here!
Buh-bye.
12602, 12615, and 12625 are all responses. You have,in every case, left unanswered the basic question: how are "others" defined?
You see Jews as "others". The Nazis did not. You see homosexuals as "others". Jen does not. You see Territories Z and Y as "others"--but Countries A and B do not.
Show me in the Golden Rule where they must define "others" as you do.
I still think my point is a good one. As far as I can tell, the Christians here are saying that Jesus' words "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" can and should be literally and consistently applied to all circumstances.
That seems rather ripe for error, to me. Any moral teaching has to be tempered with thought, it can't be knee-jerk. Jesus was talking about compassion. I hear a lot of talk of splitting hairs in this discussion.
What a wonderful post!
The Bible itself says that.."God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world"...(John 3:17) so the New Testament emphasizes redemption for everyone. My experience is that people tend to be very tolerant of sins into which they themselves have fallen, and perhaps 'condemn' sins in others from which they have been protected, in order to make themselves feel better about their own.
The Scriptures have a number of passages condemning 'same-sex' activities by men and women (e.g. Romans 1:26 & 27), and while you may find many who have profound concerns about sodomy, etc. between homosexuals and heterosexuals, (primarily for health reasons), anyone who feels led to 'condemn' them, would probably be guilty of looking at the 'mote' in the sodomites eye, and trying to feel better about the 'beam' in their own. (Matthew 7:3).
I think you know what I am saying, though. A lot of Christians, and at least one poster here, think that homosexuality is a sin, and that it says so in the Bible.
I've done some reading on the subject, and have discovered that the Bible is being misinterpreted when Christians come to that conclusion.
I would love to discuss the specific passages, if anyone is interested. It makes me more than a little sick at heart that Christians think that gay people are going straight to hell. It is one more way that damage has been done in Jesus' name, and it REALLY bothers me.
concise and general principle of ethics. It is a condensation in one principle of all longer lists of ordinances such as the
Decalogue...
Sorry, it's hard not to be a wise ass in reference to the Leviticus argument against homosexuality. It's just so ridiculous.
It doesn't matter what the phrase is, the same issue exists. As I'm sure you will agree, given that you linked in a page with dozens of restatements all with the same problem. And usually the problem is with the word "others", if you note. But "neighbors", "brother", "men", "creatures", "baby bird"--they all have the same problem. Probably the least ambiguous is "none", but then I imagine the Wiccans came up with that word on purpose to be politically correct.
The Golden Rule works if it is seen more as a starting point, a way of shaking up the usual configuration of "me, me, me, and then there is of course me myself."
But yes, there is that danger of using it to circle back right onto myself again, as Jen did with her homosexual example. She never left herself at all--she only switched pronouns.
That's hardly phrasing. I am not quibbling about words.
There's not even a breath of 'others' being thought of in any way as an exclusionary term.
Nor is there any breath of "others" being thought of as an inclusionary term.
it doesn't make much difference to the principle as it's understood, nor does it impugn the usefulness of invoking the categorical imperative of that principle
Sure it does. I fail to see how any principle that both you and Jenerator invoke can be considered to be categorically imperative, given how vehemently you two disagree about the interpretation.
Hey, it's your link. In any event, I was goofing around. The point is that "harm none" is less ambiguous than the others. Of course, I think "harming none" is a foolish rule, too, but at least it's less open to misinterpretation.
(chuckle)
As I've been saying, human's generally do a poor job of applying the golden rule. It is too flexible. It is too simple. Real compassion, which I admire, is carefully considered, complex and conditional, reflective and humble. The golden rule, while perhaps a good guide to a thoughtful, humble, sensitive person is a club in the hands of a thoughtless, arrogant, narrow-minded person.
I don't really think that's a criticism of the golden rule. It's a criticism of humanity's fallibility in general isn't it? A thoughtless, arrogant person can use anything as a club, including "compassion." Let's take an example that's already been criticized here, someone you really gets in your face because they think your lifestyle is wrong. In their mind, they're being compassionate when they try to correct the error of your ways. Or at least argue that they are.
In short, you can take your statement, change it into:
{Insert Moral code of rule of action here}, while perhaps a good guide to a thoughtful, humble, sensitive person is a club in the hands of a thoughtless, arrogant, narrow-minded person.
and it would be just as accurate wouldn't it?
{Don't commit adultery} is a rule that doesn't require a whole lot of thought. It is a useful guide to all humanity.
{Don't bear false witness} is, again, specific and clear.
{Don't hang out with Angel-five} is, again, specific and clear.
Need any more examples?
Good point. I have to modify the insert to:
{Insert Moral code of rule of action which requires any human to use discretion here}
That works, doesn't it?
You know, it would have been better to stop at the word "organism", as there have been times in history when some have sincerely believed that women, or 'barbarians', or people of dark or red skin, or the Irish, or Scots, or.....
were thought to be NOT capable of possessing Being. That is they were thought to be less than human, not human, or souless, quite neatly removing them from being "others" to whom one would apply the Golden Rule.
I'd agree that in its application -- or mis-application rather, that the Golden Rule has just as many problems as any other you (or I), could come up with. In fact, I agreed right up until: Were all people thoughtful, etc., then we really wouldn't need moral codes now, would we?
There has to be a context for your thoughfulness, doesn't there?
What is a moral code but thoughtfulness, whether in the context of Christianity where there's a guidebook, or someo ther basis you choose?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Of course, that one leaves out women, doesn't it
Well, I don't know, if we're going to analyze the statement critically, and look at how it's been applied, then I think one can argue that statement is at least as problematic as the golden rule hass been argued to be.
First, by its terms it seems to be excluding women, unless its using the word "men" as a synonym for mankind. (I would argue that it meant white,land owning males, mostly protestant, - since just about every other category was excluded in some way).
Second, if the statement was, in and of itself sufficient, we wouldn't need a constitution with a bill of rights would we?
Does that mean that the statement is a glib, all-purpose moral code?
I don't think it does. I just think humans have a way of ignoring/rationalizing/violating the codes they set forth to the point where we need a tax code that fills antire shelf in a law library.
I mean if we really meant "all people are created equal" why would we need the bill of rights? Why would we need anti-discrimination laws?
The original statement says it all. Unfortunately, we look at it, twist it, ignore it to the point where it's meaningless unless supported by 17-24 redundant, but more specific rules.
And to circle it back to religion, it seems that we're writing our own old testament code of appropriate behavior that explicitly tells me that I have to sacrifice a white dove if I use the word you in a post and inadvertently offend you. --Or a whole freakin' bull if I did it on purpose.
let me throw another statement out there for discussion:
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength, and your neighbor as yourself.
To clarify, a silly example I know. And I didn't mean you specifically. I re-read it. I meant it to sound playful -- and it didn't. Sorry, I'm a ham-handed lout.
How about Proverbs 3:4,5?
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight.
When dealing with other people ANY philosophy we use can mis-fire. Your own words illustrate this:
The other day I saw my son struggling to get his cup from a countertop. He had pulled a chair over, but still couldn't reach it. He looked frustrated. So I gave him his cup. He was so angry with me he threw his cup on the ground. In retrospect, I "helped" him because of selfish motives: I didn't want to hear him whine. But at the time, I thought I was being kind, compassionate.
Does it really matter under what philosophy we label your conduct.
Whether you thought that in the same position, you'd just want your freakin' cup ala golden rule or you thought, gee, it would be nice if I helped my child in the situation b/c it sure would be a compassionate thing to do, you still came to the wrong decision vis a vis what your son wanted. We all do, every day. That's because what you said about the golden rule:
Let's get back to my original point: with the golden rule, it's up to you to decide what's right and wrong.
Is true about any moral code we choose to follow. It's not limitedto the golden rule and it's not because the golden rule is either too vague or too specific. It's b/c we as humans generally will decide what we think is right or wrong and find SOME WAY to justify it under whatever moral code we calim to follow.
You think the golden rule is too simple, but I think blaming the golden rule for leading to inappropriate conduct attimesis also too simple. I didn't think we were so far apart on the issue, but c'est la vie. Yia-sou.
You could justify the invasion of iraq under numerous codes of ethics, even if your only real reason for invading was guaranteeing a cheap oil supply.
OK, I'm done now.
If indeed the words of John 17 are those of Jesus in His prayer to the Father, then consider the following...
"As Thou hast given Him power over all flesh, that He should give Eternal Life to as many as Thou hast given Him" (Verse 2)
"And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine Own Self, with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was" (Verse 6)
"And the glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as We are One". (Verse 22)
"I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be made perfect in One; and that the world may know that Thou hast sent Me, and hast loved them as Thou hast loved Me". (Verse 23)
These comments pretty much 'Nail Down' Christ's relationship to God the Father, wouldn't you say?
At the same time, I have in the past posted that I doubt that Jesus wrote the words of His prayer down on an envelope (a la Gettysburg Address), giving them to John afterwards saying..."Here, you'll need this for Chapter 17 of the book you'll write eventually". Nor do I see John creeping up and feverishly writing down the words as Jesus most generously prayed them out loud for our future edification!
:-)
The fact that many of us are absolutely convinced that these are the actual words of His prayer, has been the cause of much derision from the more 'Intellectually Brilliant' among us.
:-)
Continuing...
thank God, no one is excluded from those mentioned by Jesus in verse 17:20 because of whatever they may or may not have done with their bodies during this 'Schoolroom' we call 'Life'.
Bless you, and thank you for your kind words.
Good to have you back.
Have you read this article from the Atlantic Monthly?
...In all probability, not a single element of the Wiccan story is true. The evidence is overwhelming that Wicca is a distinctly new religion, a 1950s concoction influenced by such things as Masonic ritual and a late-nineteenth-century fascination with the esoteric and the occult, and that various assumptions informing the Wiccan view of history are deeply flawed. Furthermore, scholars generally agree that there is no indication, either archaeological or in the written record, that any ancient people ever worshipped a single, archetypal goddess -- a conclusion that strikes at the heart of Wiccan belief.
IN the past few years two well-respected scholars have independently advanced essentially the same theory about Wicca's founding. In 1998 Philip G. Davis, a professor of religion at the University of Prince Edward Island, published Goddess Unmasked: The Rise of Neopagan Feminist Spirituality, which argued that Wicca was the creation of an English civil servant and amateur anthropologist named Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics -- mostly men -- in natural forces, especially those linked with women. Gardner admired the Romantics and belonged to a Rosicrucian society called the Fellowship of Crotona -- a group that was influenced by several late-nineteenth-century occultist groups, which in turn were influenced by Freemasonry. In the 1950s Gardner introduced a religion he called (and spelled) Wica.
...If Internet chat rooms are any indication, some Wiccans cling tenaciously to the idea of themselves as institutional victims on a large scale. Generally speaking, though, Wiccans appear to be accommodating themselves to much of the emerging evidence concerning their antecedents: for example, they are coming to view their ancient provenance as inspiring legend rather than hard-and-fast history. By the end of the 1990s, with the appearance of Davis's book and then of Hutton's, many Wiccans had begun referring to their story as a myth of origin, not a history of survival. "We don't do what Witches did a hundred years ago, or five hundred years ago, or five thousand years ago," Starhawk told me. "We're not an unbroken tradition like the Native Americans." In fact, many Wiccans now describe those who take certain elements of the movement's narrative literally as "Wiccan fundamentalists."
Unfortunately, I lost the link. It's a very good article - if you'd like, I can post the entire thing.
a 1950's concoction. That's wonderful. Someone who hangs out at MWT, please, please post it there, too.
Davis wrote that the origins of the Goddess movement lay in an interest among the German and French Romantics -- mostly men -- in natural forces, especially those linked with women.
Can't you just see a bunch of guys sitting around, going, "Man! - wouldn't it be great to invent a religion where the women perform all the rites in the nude?"
Our congugal rites.... Rimshot. :-)
[O]ur political order has never been able to resolve the issue of the proper relation between religion and political life, and hence...there is a need to examine it more closely. For the standard liberal position on that matter, presented here with unusual clarity by Alan Wolfe, is inherently problematic. Wolfe asserts that “faith is a private matter between an individual and his or her God.” But because he is aware of the close relation that has always obtained between moral virtue and religion, Wolfe realizes that in order to exclude religion from public life, he must defend public life as constituting “a zone of amoral Machiavellianism” for us. “Such Christian virtues as humility and charity” in our political leaders “may make us proud,” he claims, but our survival depends on “duplicity, dishonesty, even disrespect for human life.” These vices are even “duties” for our public leaders.
They recently posted another of their quizes which I often to be a real hoot and occasionally illuminating.....Here is the Belief-O-Matic which will tell you what your religion should be....
FYI among my recommendations:
Eastern Orthodox - 100%
Roman Catholic - 100%
Liberal Protestant - 90%
Hindu - 90% (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
1. Eastern Orthodox (100%)
2. Roman Catholic (100%)
3. Mainline to Liberal Christian/Protestant (90%)
4. Hinduism (90%)
5. Unitarian Universalism (90%)
6. Liberal Quaker (89%)
7. Orthodox Quaker (81%)
8. Neo-Pagan (78%)
9. Theravada Buddhism (76%
15. Islam (67%)
16. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (65%)
18. Mahayana Buddhism (63%)
24. Secular Humanism (45%)
26. New Thought (40%)
27. Atheism and Agnosticism (23%)
And Leviticus, I am SUPER SURE, says you can't eat pork; you must stone a disobedient wife; kill bad kids etc.
Which do YOU choose to believe? Besides fag bashing that is......
Fundie Freaks
ahhhh...
Wanna get stoned?
The foundation of Old Testament religious practice in the Torah (first 5) contains a legal code in Leviticus that prohibited acts that would undermine the mores and socio-economic basis of a nomadic people. Many old Testament teachings appear to reflect the need to build and maintain tribal strength (see Gellner's discussion of this type of society in Sword, Ploughhshare etc) in a hostile setting. This explains the strong strictures against not only homosexuality but many other draconian strictures as well.
Jesus Christ did not see obedience to the law contained in the Torah as the path to redemption. Jesus introduced a new covenant rooted in God's grace, and the teachings of the Old Testament thereby found their fullfillment and true religious importance in that context.
So if ya wanna know the real deal, forget the fundie bullshit, pray for discernment, and start reading the Gospels.
The LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: When any man has a discharge from his member, his discharge makes him ceremonially unclean. 3The uncleanness of his discharge is this: whether his member flows with his discharge, or his member is stopped from discharging, it is uncleanness for him. 4Every bed on which the one with the discharge lies shall be unclean; and everything on which he sits shall be unclean. 5Anyone who touches his bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening. 6All who sit on anything on which the one with the discharge has sat shall wash their clothes, and bathe in water, and be unclean until the evening.
1Sam.18
[1] [1] When he had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
[3] Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul.
20
[17] And Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own soul.
[4] And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his bow and his girdle.
A-5 - no I don't expect an argument BUT my point, not made clearly enough, is that in throwing up a fundie argument even in counterpoint you seem to have accepted the premise which I think is not supportable
The What is you spirituality one said I was: "Old-fashioned Seeker -- Happy with my religion but searching for the right expression of it"
The What is the right religion for you one said:
1. Neo-Pagan (100%)
2. Liberal Quaker (98%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (97%)
4. New Age (95%)
5. Reform Judaism (89%)
6. Mainline to Liberal Christian/Protestant (88%)
7. Theravada Buddhism (78%)
8. Baha'i (78%)
9. New Thought (78%)
10. Mahayana Buddhism (75%)
11. Sikhism (75%)
12. Jainism (72%)
13. Scientology (71%)
14. Secular Humanism (70%)
15. Orthodox Quaker (69%)
16. Orthodox Judaism (66%)
17. Hinduism (65%)
18. Taoism (61%)
19. Islam (56%)
20. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (52%)
21. Seventh Day Adventist (44%)
22. Roman Catholic (39%)
23. Atheism and Agnosticism (38%)
24. Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (37%)
25. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (35%)
26. Eastern Orthodox (32%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (26%)
Unexpected.
enforce the Ten Commandments.
Leviticus is a plank in the platform of those Chrstians who are anti-gay. It is not sound. It is not Christian. To bandi such shit about is to accept as truth what is in fact a lie and a distortion.
Many from many faiths are anti-gay. They don't need Leviticus to be that.
Quae es effecta fulgida coeli porta
O Mater alma Christi carissma
Suscipie pia laudum praeconia
Te nunc flagitant devota corda et ora
Nostra ut pura pectora sint et corpora
Tua per precata dulcisona:
Nobis concedas veniam per saecula.
O benigna!
O Regina!
O Maria!
Quae sola inviolata permansisti.
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance,
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world,
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
You might be a rock 'n' roll addict prancing on the stage,
You might have drugs at your command, women in a cage,
You may be a business man or some high degree thief,
They may call you Doctor or they may call you Chief
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
You may be a state trooper, you might be a young Turk,
You may be the head of some big TV network,
You may be rich or poor, you may be blind or lame,
You may be living in another country under another name
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
You may be a construction worker working on a home,
You may be living in a mansion or you might live in a dome,
You might own guns and you might even own tanks,
You might be somebody's landlord, you might even own banks
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
You may be a city councilman taking bribes on the side,
You may be workin' in a barbershop, you may know how to cut hair,
You may be somebody's mistress, may be somebody's heir
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
Might like to wear cotton, might like to wear silk,
Might like to drink whiskey, might like to drink milk,
You might like to eat caviar, you might like to eat bread,
You may be sleeping on the floor, sleeping in a king-sized bed
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
You may call me Terry, you may call me Timmy,
You may call me Bobby, you may call me Zimmy,
You may call me R.J., you may call me Ray,
You may call me anything but no matter what you say
You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody.
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
(This link harkens back to the Fountain of Youth discussion upthread.)
[E]very death is increasingly regarded as premature, a failure of today’s medicine that future research will prevent. In parallel with medical progress, a new moral sensibility has developed that serves precisely medicine’s crusade against mortality: anything is permitted if it saves life, cures disease, prevents death. Regardless, therefore, of the imminence of anti–aging remedies, it is most worthwhile to reexamine the assumption upon which we have been operating: that everything should be done to preserve health and prolong life as much as possible, and that all other values must bow before the biomedical gods of better health, greater vigor, and longer life.
1)Orthodox Quaker, 2)Seventh Day Adventist, 3)Mainline to Conservative Christian Protestant, 4)Roman Catholic, 5)Eastern Orthodox.
The last five results for me were:
23) Mahayana Buddhism, 24)New Thought, 25)Secular Humanism, 26) Atheism/Agnosticism, 27) Taoism
one who believes that we all posess the presence of God within ourselves as 'an inner light'
I do not believe this.
Anything to save me from the Hindus!
I am appalled by the events developing around the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Reports of people wanting to sell t-shirts and buttons conjure up images of executions in the Middle Ages and Roman times when these events were public entertainment. Such an atmosphere demeans our judicial system as it promotes frenzy and revenge. A public ritual of death can only coarsen our spirits and deaden our sensibilities, placing us in danger of becoming persons of death, rather than life. Though undoubtedly Timothy McVeigh committed one of the most heinous crimes in the history of our country, I fear that execution as spectacle can only poison the soul of our nation.
We can't fully know the pain of those so tragically affected by the Oklahoma City bombing, most particularly their families. I am concerned, however, that the provisions being made for them to witness the execution may only deepen the trauma they have already experienced, rather than help them recover from it.
Nothing is served by revenge. And here I note that the Episcopal Church, along with many other faith communities, is on record as being opposed to capital punishment.
I pray for Timothy McVeigh as he prepares to encounter the God who made him, even as I pray for his victims and their families. I invite all persons of faith to join me in these prayers as we seek with God's help to become instruments of God's peace and make our own the prayer of St. Francis: "Where there is hatred let us sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is despair, hope; where there is sadness, joy…"
The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church, USA
April 19, 2001
We praise thee, O God; we acknoledge thee to be the Lord.
All the earth doth worship thee, the Father everlasting.
To thee all Angels cry aloud,
the Heavens and all the Powers therein.
To thee Cherubim and Seraphim continually do cry:
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth;
Heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory.
The glorious company of the apostles praise thee.
The goodly fellowship of the prophets praise thee.
The noble army of martyrs praise thee.
The holy Church throughout all the world
doth acknowledge thee,
the Father, of an infinite majesty,
thine adorable, true, and only Son,
also the Holy Ghost the Comforter.
Thou art the King of glory, O Christ.
Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father.
When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man,
thou didst humble thyself to be born of a Virgin.
When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death,
thou didst open the kingdom of heaven to all believers.
Thou sittest at the right hand of God, in the glory of the Father.
We believe that thou shalt come to be our judge.
We therefore pray thee, help thy servants,
whom thou hast redeemed with thy precious blood.
Make them to be numbered with thy saints,
in glory everlasting.
Romans chapter one is pretty straightforward
26
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
27
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion
For every passage that condems homosexuality there are probably 20 that condem fornication.
Why anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ would be concerned about the levitical law is something I can't understand.
Welcome back. Heh.
I don't think I'll "convert" to Eastern Orthodoxy, but I do respect that branch of Christendom very, very much (especially concerning early church matters!)
The church I attend would be classified as the last.
1. Mainline to Liberal Christian/Protestant (100%)
2. Liberal Quaker (91%)
3. Orthodox Quaker (90%)
4. Reform Judaism (82%)
5. Unitarian Universalism (81%)
6. Eastern Orthodox (74%)
7. Roman Catholic (74%)
8. Neo-Pagan (73%)
9. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (71%)
10. Mormon (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) (68%)
There are many things in the Universe I do not understand, but I am certain homosexuality did not originate as Paul claims.
Meanwhile, churches have parishoners who have come out of the closet. Clergy members have come out of the closet. Clergy have had children who have come out of the closet (see the recent story about the Lutheran bishop who resigned after ordaining a gay minister -- this bishop has a gay son).
In the Episcopal church, reaction to gay people vary greatly. When I lived in Texas, the bishop of my diocese wouldn't even allow gay church groups to have a booth at the diocesean convention. In DC and in Indy, the bishops allow gay unions, gay ordinations, and in both dioceses, there are gay rectors of parishes.
The bottom three are Atheism and Agnosticism (29%), Roman Catholic (26%), and Eastern Orthodox (21%).
I am also a "Spiritual Straddler."
A cafeteria spiritualist, if you will.
All of them who have taken the Belief-o-Matic Quiz reveal a to me striking correllation between high scores in Buddhism (YEA!) and New Age (BOOOOO!)
So you approve of my religious beliefs and detest my political ones or detest both?
1] When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place.
[2] And suddenly a sound came from heaven like the rush of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
[3] And there appeared to them tongues as of fire, distributed and resting on each one of them.
[4] And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
[5] Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven.
[6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.
[7] And they were amazed and wondered, saying, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans?
[8] And how is it that we hear, each of us in his own native language?
[9] Par'thians and Medes and E'lamites and residents of Mesopota'mia, Judea and Cappado'cia, Pontus and Asia,
[10] Phryg'ia and Pamphyl'ia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyre'ne, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes,
[11] Cretans and Arabians, we hear them telling in our own tongues the mighty works of God."
[12] And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?"
[13] But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
[14] But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.
[15] For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day;
[16] but this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams[18] yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days
I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy.
[19] And I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth beneath,
blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke;
[20] the sun shall be turned into darkness
and the moon into blood,
before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and manifest day.
[21] And it shall be that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall
be saved.'
Happy Pentecost Folks!
I share the same antipathy toward the New Age, their rocks, their smells and their music.
TIRED all caps tired.
As opposed to my politial intolerance which is notorious and most often venomous, I am with one exception (God forgive me) not only tolerant but embracing of others religious beliefs save 2 exceptions - Fag Bashing Fundies and Christian Bashing Anybodies.
By your own criteria, you hate yourself. That, or you're selectively hypocritical when it comes to "bashing".
I would be honored, but only on the condition that you promised to still be active, too.
Thanks.
P.S. I'm sure you realize that anybody who 'bashes' anybody for anything, be it their sexual orientation, religion or color of skin,
is walking in darkness. We need to learn to feel compassion for the 'Bashers', and try to 'win them to the light', don't you think?
Blessings.
Next time you hear one yourself, listen very carefully. Its hard to do because if you've seen one of those pieces be it on McVeigh or some other killer, you've heard a thousand.
What you will notice is an unmistakable and uniform motive of revenge. Then as Christians if that is what you are consider Message # 12741 or perhaps, if you can find them, previous posts relating to Catholic Doctrine on the question of the death penalty.
Consider these, and ask yourselves if arguments like "he was convicted by the court based on overwhelming evidence" or "we need closure" or "the death penalty is a deterent" are not just mere words covering what you REALLY hear in those pieces "REVENGE!"
For revenge is the true motive for the death penalty be it in specific application or in general policy argument. Its the true and only motive and it is not Christian.
ElliottRW. "What you are leaving unsaid is why (absent religious doctrine) satifying people's craving for revenge is a bad idea". It seems to me that we live in a society where, many people either ignore or are unaware of 'Religious doctrine', and are intent upon 'satisfying their cravings' regardless of the pain and suffering it causes to themselves, their families and friends, and their communities.
Also, revenge begets revenge, and the next thing one has is anarchy. Wasn't McVeigh, in a sense, seeking revenge for himself at his perceived 'violations' of Ruby Ridge and Waco ?
My conclusion is that the death penalty is 'wrong', but until imprisonment without the possibility of parole is strictly enforced, it at least permanently deters the killer.
I'm grateful that 'religious doctrine' leaves revenge up to God.
`They deserve it. Look what they did to us,'' one Israeli woman said outside the Hassan Bek mosque"
The most recent illustration of my point regarding the escalation of revenge, from this morning's headlines.
Remember our Pentecost date with the Patriarch? ;)
Anyway, its not with pride that I admit to religious intolerance of fundies....its probably sinful or at least a cause for temptation
save us from the time of trial eh?
Mentes tuorum visita:
Imple superna gratia
Quae tu creasti pectora
Music - Come Creator Spirit Come
Tommorrow is Pentecost.
Salves festa dies!
Happy Happy to all especially to Pentecostals!
I hear ya. I do not think that you admit to religious or non-religious intolerance with pride, rather, I think you do so with a zealousness that is alarming. Also, I'd rather go to Greece if I'm converting to Eastern Orthodoxy, if you must know!;-)
Elliot,
Revenge or not, I do not have a problem with the execution of McVeigh. Let him make the final restitution with his own life.
Used to be. Not any more, not since about the early 90's for most states. And I could be wrong but I believe that in those states where there is capital punishment, you will find more of those states HAVE solid life-without-parole statutes.
Societal protection is certainly a legitimate reason, a justification for killing as is individual self defense. But when life without parole is either a statutory fact or possible by legislative enactment, killing is immoral.
Moreover, you never hear the "protect society" argument anymore for the very reason that it is insupportable given present statutes in most jurisdictions.
Sin has a way of exceeding the direct bounds of its effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come, O Creator Spirit, come,
and make within out heart thy home;
to us thy grace celestial give,
who of thy breathing move and live.
O Comforter, that name is thine,
of God most high the gift divine;
the well of life, the fire of love,
our souls' anointing from above.
Thou dost appear in sevenfold dower
the sign of God's almighty power;
the Father's promise, making rich
with saving truth our earthly speech.
Our senses with thy light inflame,
our hearts to heavenly love reclaim;
our bodies' poor infirmity
with strength perpetual fortify.
Our mortal foes afar repel,
grant us henceforth in peace to dwell;
and so to us, with thee for guide,
no ill shall come, no harm betide.
May we by thee the Father learn,
and know the Son, and thee discern,
who art of both; and thus adore
in perfect faith for evermore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Words: Latin, tenth century;
trans. Robert Bridges, 1899
Music: Veni Creator (Mechlin)
Replevit orbem terrarum, alleluia!
Et hoc quod continet, alleluia!
Scientiam habet vocis, alleluia!
Vidi aquam egredientem de templo
A latere dextro, alleluia!
Et omnes, ad quos pervenit acqua ista
Salvi faci sunt
Et dicent, alleluia, alleluia!
The Spirit of the Lord
fills the whole world, alleluia!
and that which contains all things,
has knowledge of the voice, alleluia!
I saw water pouring forth from the temple,
on the right side, alleluia!
and all those to whom this water came
obtained salvation,
and they exclaimed: "Alleluia, Alleluia!"
One bright morning when this life is over, I'll fly away
To some home on God's celestial shore, I'll fly away
I'll fly away, oh glory, I'll fly away in the morning
When I die, hallelujah by and by, I'll fly away
When the shadows of this life have gone, I'll fly away
Like a bird from these prison walls I'll fly, I'll fly away...
Oh so glad and happy when we meet, I'll fly away
No more cold iron shackles on my feet, I'll fly away...
Just a few more weary days and then I'll fly away
To a land where joys will never end, I'll fly away
I'll fly away, oh glory, I'll fly away in the morning
When I die, hallelujah by and by, I'll fly away
I'll fly away
He had brain cancer. His suffering is now over.
I love you, Dad. I know you will always be with me.
I'm perfectly willing to believe he no longer with me. I'm not trying to force myself to feel anything. But I keep feeling him, in my gut, and there is such peace and joy there. It is an incredible feeling, it tips over into knowledge. Nothing I can empirically prove, of course.
And he was a dyed-in-the-wool atheist too. Ha.
I had a very similar feeling, almost exactly as you describe, when my partner of 21 years died about six years ago, with this addition: while he, too, did not believe in an afterlife and I firmly did, I had the distinct impression he was telling me that I was right, after all.
My condolences to you, and thank you for posting that.
His funeral was horrific, and I can't even describe it without feeling that I'd be dishonoring him in some way. (It was truly that terrible. I'll just say this--somebody had a camera, and was taking FLASH PICTURES. Like it was a springtime family outing.) I left it feeling sick at heart, and weeping--not crying, but painfully weeping. Since then I've been doing small things to honor him, like visiting a beach he used to love to take us to when I was a kid and saying my own farewell--I threw a red rose into the ocean, which I thought was hokey and my dad was not a flower kind of guy anyway, but I had to do something--and I knew I wanted to share that song, so I decided to do that here.
Being denied a meaningful ritual around someone's death is harsh. I shouldn't make a blanket statement like that but believe me, don't try it.
I realize that a lot of people here probably don't hold much stock with Biblical scholarship and instead read the Bible using the guidance they believe lies in their own hearts, so I'm going to post what I've read on the subject with the idea that nobody is going to change their mind about anything when I'm done. (Just so people like Angel-five don't think I'm naive. Ha.)
The passages in Leviticus read, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman, it is an abomination," and "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination, they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them."
As has already been pointed out, these passages refer to the Jewish Holiness Code and do not apply to Christians. The word "abomination", which is translated from the Hebrew "toevah", does not usually refer to that which is intrinsically evil, but to that which is ritually unpure, and often refers to "that which the Gentiles do". The behavior these passages prohibit were associated with idolatry, not with sexuality. The Jews were concerned with carving out a place for themselves, with cultural and ethnical strength, with separating themselves from the Gentiles. Christians are not concerned with ritual purity in this way, they are concerned with purity of heart. These passages do not speak to this.
Now for Romans.
I'm so sorry about the funeral. I would have done something drastic with the photographer. Was the beach visit enough of a ritual, or have you considered anything else?
Sexual or even relational behavior is not the point of this passage. Paul is illustrating how a people have turned away from what they have known to be the truth, God's truth, and have instead followed their own thinking as truth. This leads to self-worship, which is depicted in this passage as men having passions for men and women for women. It is very important to see here that the men and women described are apparantly heterosexual by nature, engaging in homosexual behavior. They have "given up" their true path; they are not seen as lacking some sort of capacity for the truth, as a gay person could be seen as lacking sexual/romantic attraction for the opposite sex. This passage is not talking about gay people.
The terms "natural" and "unnatural" have a different meaning to Paul then to us. We understand "nature" as synonymous with "God's Law"; people exclaim, "But that's not natural!", with horror. Paul means "according to one's disposition". There is no underlying supposition that the preforming of homosexual acts is against God's Law. It is merely uncharacteristic of these people. It shows how far removed from themselves and their true path they have gone, it is not a wholesale condemnation of homosexuality on moral grounds.
These are the major Biblical passages people claim are strictures against homosexuality.
And it is quite late, so off I go.
Oh yes, back to the Holiness Code, the Jews were concerned with procreation and nation-building, so spilled seed was not seen as a good thing.
And I'm not surprised to see the cross-posts, it took me FOREVER to get my thoughts straight and write this. Is why I put it off for so long.
Now to read them...
These are the major Biblical passages people claim are strictures against homosexuality.
And it is quite late, so off I go.
Oh yes, back to the Holiness Code, the Jews were concerned with procreation and nation-building, so spilled seed was not seen as a good thing.
And I'm not surprised to see the cross-posts, it took me FOREVER to get my thoughts straight and write this. Is why I put it off for so long.
Now to read them...
A typical open-casket rent-a-clergy funeral would've been fabulous compared to what happened. I know I'm sounding cryptic as hell, and I'm sorry, but it weighs on me. Just venting into cyberspace.
I'd like to do something eulogy-ish with other family members, but I still need to think about it.
In a way it is, but somehow I prefer an open-casket funeral. I know it's just a shell of a body, but if I don't see the person I don't feel like I was able to say goodbye. There's not much logic in it, I don't guess, but it's just how I feel at a funeral of someone I'm close to.
Holly,
A memorial/eulogy sounds like it would be nice and might replace the unpleasant images that are sticking in your mind from the funeral.
Are open caskets more common in the South? They seem to be the norm among the funerals I've attended.
No question that is a fair charge for many attitudes and behaviors, one with a scary abundance of evidence to back it up.
Not this one, though, sorry. I may be guilty of a serious sin against the Holy Spirit by being religiously intolerant of fundies and a bit condescending toward New Age pagans...but self-hate? A strech.
My beef with fundies is essentially well fundamental. I won;t be tempted into a rant at this point but suffice it to say that the fundamentalist approach to Scripture leads inexorably to fundamental perversions of the Christian faith....Not to broad brush all you understand, the power of the Spirit to lead into Truth is greater than the shallow fundie churchmanship but it IS the starting point for me in pereiving a huge faith gap between Catholic Christianity and these most fallen of vine leaves. In fact, as I have often said, I am more apt to discern the Spirit in non-Christian faiths.
The Holy Spirit is God, a co-equal Person of the Trinity, and thus to undertand and discern its often subtle and disorienting operation is to approach God as he is in himself.
The Holy Spirit constitutes us as Church, it is our life force, our guide our comforter individually and corporately. The Holy Spirit, the very power of God, is a still small voice that speaks in the very center of each person, a place so deep a communion so profound it can never be directly experienced.
In the liturgical year, of course, Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit as Christ promised caps the Easter Season and is with Christmas and Easter one of the three high holies.
Sadly coincidental Ronsk, my one and only partner was killed in an accident (fell from a balcony at a party in Acapulco on solo vacation) about the same time as your sweetie did.
A deeply spiritual person, far more than I was then, he had been gravely wounded by his fire breathing fag hating pastor and had basically cast aside his religious heritage. His religiosity, though it remained formless and without direction or nourishment, was still very much alive. He didn't however place much faith or at that age thought into after life issues. It all caused him deep pain because his Church did such a fine job of convincing him of his damnation, that his life was ultimately groundless and absurd yet his heart said otherwise.
His death woke me up from my lethargy. I felt such powerful connections with him. It was almost as if he were guiding me to some deep new way of understanding, of knowing.
I reappropriated my faith. I found that these awakenings were re-presented, reflected, confirmed in the liturgy and tradition that I had grown up in and grown so lazy about. In his spiritual wounds I found shelter from the Christian hate that had created them.
For all the apparent commonality of these sorts of experiences, they remain unique "peak experiences". Trials like death and pain often crush not enliven. The understandings and insight are miracle not formula, faith knowledge not arrived at by reason or by scientific method through our senses, but through our hearts and our souls
He was buried at his parents insistence in Omaha which was contrary to wishes he often told me. Indeed he had asked me to promise not to let them bury him there. No will, no domestic partnership, no chance.
I put together a memorial eucharist in the Episcopal Church a couple weeks later for his SF family. That was not only theologically and aesthetically more sound but Catholic Christian liturgy is infinitely more penetrating in impact and profound in its depth. It really made a connection for all that was totally missing.
Wounds like that never really heal. They just get buried under layers of scab and sca
Its sad how the four? or five(?)Biblical mentions of same sex relations attract such attention and arouse such hate and such flawed hermeneutics. Why nothing, not murder, not robbery, not rape, prompt such hue and cry in so-called Christian circles. Hell, Jesus never even mentions homosexuality at all. He saved some of his harshest most unambiguous teaching on sex for divorce and adultery.
Of course, for many Christians divorce is but a pecadillo, a trifle compared to such an Abomination.
I absolutely agree with you logically, and there are some funerals where an open casket would be very bad, depending on the situation and the death--children's funerals, for instance. I've attended too many children and teens' funerals and only one was open casket. It was the most gut-wrenching service I've ever attended. I don't know if that had anything to do with it, but it didn't help. It stands out in contrast with Mose's friend I mentioned in Parenting, whose closed-casket funeral was a celebration of her life. There were the same tears shed, but the feeling was very different and much healthier, imo.
I believe Shannon is right about the South. Maybe I feel that way about family funerals because I grew up with them (open casket funerals) and associate funerals more with reuniting family and remembering the ones who are gone and so they're not really bad memories for me. Most funerals around here are like that.
I never liked them for all the reasons stated. I have washed bodies of friends who had died. Being with a person in the last days, hours, minutes, seconds holding hands praying receiving the last rights with her, washing the corpse, is sacramental, outward and visible signs of inward and spiritual grace. As real as real can be.
Spare me the bad makeup and bad hair days of the dead. The dead do not look like they are taking a long nap in a suit. They look like they've struggled to leave this life just as they struggled to enter it and oddly at peace for all that.
My husband's next door neighbor passed away last summer from brain cancer. We expressed our sympathy in many ways...offering condolences, bringing over dinner, mowing their yard, etc.
They're Catholic and had a wake and mass. They contacted D to take pictures at the mass! (He's a photographer) So there we both were, except he was hired to walk around and take pictures of all of teh family and friends.
It was quite awkward.
Ahh well. The funeral rite is as A-5 correctly states a matter for the living who are enjoined as all Faithful are to intercede for the departed souls and who in the liturgy discharge their duty and are offered deep grace and healing for themselves.
The widow wanted pics of all of the family gathered together. The one I can't get out of my mind is the one of the aunts, uncles, and cousins lined up on the church balcony; smiling.
I grew up Catholic, and the only two times I ever witnessed picture-taking at such times were both at Polish wakes.
I remember asking my dad about it, and he shrugged and said "Hey -that's how Polish people do it".
So, I've always associated this with Poles.
These are the major passages that legalists and those who are big on proof texts tend to cite.
I find Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 to be much more interesting regarding this discussion.
That's a good question, I'm not sure.
One uncle of my Bohemian friend literally had a couple of photo albums with nothing but casket shots.
Now the guy (who looked like Bela Lugosi) is likely a picture in someone else's album.
Slovakia lies to the east of Moravia.
Some Czechs do call themselves Bohemians, or Bohemy, but most just call themselves Czech.
Germans originally from Bohemia are more likely to use Bohemian than ethnic Czechs are.
I realize this is more than you, or anyone, wanted to know.
World War 2 proved in that region that familiarity may indeed breed contempt.
There is a movement in Czechia to have it informally recognized as the eighth "Celtic nation," joining Ireland, Scotland, Isle of Man, Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, and Galicia in Spain.
Eventually, Turkey, I suppose, as it was once home to the Celtic Galatians of the New Testament.
(See how I managed to get back on topic?)
He was cremated. He never wanted to be embalmed, so he was cremated right away, and at the wake there was just a box of his ashes, covered with a cloth and a bunch of flowers. The wake was very, very nice. I'm holding on to that.
Taking pictures of caskets I can really almost understand. Taking pictures of family as if this were a wedding instead of a funeral I don't understand.
The mind boggles. Um, at least it wasn't video.
Forgive the comments of a rank intruder, but I feel like just saying a bit.
Perhaps I was unduly colored by my first experience with same (a Catholic funeral at age 5 where the incense burning part freaked me out), but if I had my way, there would be no public funerals or viewings of bodies. Quiet cremations with memorial services following in a few days or weeks, depending on convenience factors.
But, what about grief and coping? For me, here also this is more a quiet and private matter rather than public. A-5 strikes a deep chord with me when he talks about remembering the shared experiences one had with the deceased.
However, I'll be the first to acknowledge that grief and coping come in many different forms. Public wailing and the catharsis of seeing an open casket and then watching it being lowered into the ground might be a necessary component for some. Certainly in some societies or perhaps for certain ethnic groups.
In short, a simple room, a bouquet of simple flowers, a few comments by close friends or relatives. On to the buffet.
However, my mother had been working as a grief counselor for their church and knew that the people left behind needed something for closure. Also she asked my brothers and myself specifically if we felt we needed something. I don't know what my brothers said, but I said yes.
So, she set up a Memorial Service at the church.
The "ceremony" in the church sanctuary consisted of a few words by the minister, my Dad's favorite hymns, and then family members and friends went up to the front to share some memories of my Dad and what he meant to him.
Afterwards, we all gathered the church's banquet room which was set up with a series of bulletin boards where my Mom put pictures of my Dad from throughout his life, provided by my Mom and the other relatives. There we looked at the pictures, shared more stories, and cried a bit more.
JanJon. We're all 'rank intruders', so feel welcome to share any comments you ever may have.
I agree with the general sentiments regarding funerals. In the Salvation Army they are always a celebration of the life, and we refer to "Promotion to Glory", rather than 'dying'. This of course, based on our convictions regarding the 'hereafter'. There is usually a lot of laughter and fond remembrance, and since the Army is such a relatively small denomination, a lot of shared experiences.
My wife and I don't care for open caskets either.
I feel that the Jews have the most gracious and mature approach, burying the dead on the day they die, without embalming and usually just wrapped in a shroud. No flowers, but stones. Not a dying tribute but a living tribute.
I also share AngelFive's habit of going to places where the deceased and I have had special times, and enjoying those memories.
Holly, I'm on vacation in Los Angeles, and didn't log on until some days after your initial post regarding your Father. I'm so sorry you had such bad experience at the funeral, and hope that the love which I see extended to you from our fellow 'Moties' in recent posts, and from me, in some way helps to assuage your grief.
You honor us by choosing to open your heart in this thread, and I embrace you for it. Bless you.
No, that's usually impossible. I believe the rule is that the dead must be buried within two days, except not on Shabbat.
"...without embalming and usually just wrapped in a shroud."
Not sure about shrouds. I've always heard it was supposed to be a pine casket (pine readily decomposes). But perhaps customs vary; the point is that the body is not preserved.
"No flowers, but stones. Not a dying tribute but a living tribute."
Right.
From your remarks I infer that, according to your moral calculus, life is precious and society has a duty to protect itself from the future actions of a murderer. However, for some reason you don't consider retribution itself a legitimate human activity.
Presumably, someone who commits a crime less dire than murder can, in your estimation, morally be punished by incarceration. This punishment may or may not rehabilitate the criminal (we hope it would); but is it's purpose not primarily retributive?
Most people, not only in the US but in Europe, consider the death penalty an appropriate retribution for murder. They do not, if the polls are correct, consider life imprisonment to be sufficient retribution for murder, particularly in cases where a person has already murdered serially, or killed terroristically, or tortured his victims, raped and killed children, etc..
So I have two questions for you. 1) Is it moral to deny the living victims of murder the societal support that comes of a just and collective revenge? Why should morality entail renouncing a just, appropriate revenge only where that entails taking a life? 2) Of murderers condemed to die and those condemned to live out their lives in prison, if sincere repentance is achieved more readily by those doomed to face the ultimate human retribution, then isn't it possible that exactly such retribution is a part of God's order for human beings? In which case, is such retribution not our duty?
I believe you're imputing to all Jewish practice a standard that isn't cast in stone. From a site on Jewish ritual:
"From the time of death to the burial, the mourner's sole responsibility is caring for the deceased and preparing for the burial. This period is known as aninut. During this time, the mourners are exempt from all positive commandments ("thou shalts"), because the preparations take first priority. This period usually lasts a day or two; Judaism requires prompt burial."
"After a person dies, the eyes are closed, the body is laid on the floor and covered, and candles are lit next to the body. The body is never left alone until after burial, as a sign of respect. The people who sit with the dead body are called shomerim, from the root Shin-Mem-Resh [Sh-M-R], meaning "guards" or "keepers".
Respect for the dead body is a matter of paramount importance. For example, the shomerim may not eat, drink, or perform a commandment in the presence of the dead. To do so would be considered mocking the dead, because the dead can no longer do these things.
Most communities have an organization to care for the dead, known as the chevra kaddisha (the holy society). These people are volunteers. Their work is considered extremely meritorious, because they are performing a service for someone who can never repay them.
Autopsies in general are discouraged as desecration of the body. They are permitted, however, where it may save a life or where local law requires it. When autopsies must be performed, they should be minimally intrusive.
...
The body must not be cremated. It must be buried in the earth. Coffins are not required, but if they are used, they must have holes drilled in them so the body comes in contact with the earth.
The body is never displayed at funerals; open casket ceremonies are forbidden by Jewish law. According to Jewish law, exposing a body is considered disrespectful, because it allows not only friends, but also enemies to view the dead, mocking their helpless state.
Jewish law requires that a tombstone be prepared, so that the deceased will not be forgotten and the grave will not be desecrated. It is customary in some communities to keep the tombstone veiled, or to delay in putting it up, until the end of the 12-month mourning period. The idea underlying this custom is that the dead will not be forgotten when he is being mourned every day. In communities where this custom is observed, there is generally a formal unveiling ceremony when the tombstone is revealed."
...
For starters, I'll throw this out: IMO it's difficult to take part of Jesus and not the whole.
Now, I totally disagree with this. It seems to me that what Jesus said/taught can easily be evaluated without addressing the fundamental theological basis for Christianity. One can easily reject the idea that he was the son of God without rejecting the principles he espoused.
And what Elliott said about the shoulds vs. the reasons for them made a lot of sense to me as well.
Elliott: I don't think that's the entire reason. It's significant, for example, that the action alone is not sufficient, but involves the state of mind/soul (i.e., "love thy neighbor"). As the famous chapter in Corinthians says, all our charitable acts mean nothing without love behind them.
From a materialist view, the state of mind shouldn't matter. What difference does it make whether you love your neighbor as long as you treat him well? So once you take God out of it, do motives ("reasons for") mean anything, or just the acts themselves ("the shoulds")?
Pleasing God is part of loving God, but there's a reason that the two commandments are "like unto each other," yet distinct. To the extent we do well unto others we are pleasing him, but somehow the process requires that love be present in our hearts as well. And my interpretation is that the practice of love is at least as much for our own benefit as God's.
Regarding your anecdote, don't let any man (including me) convince you one way or the other about your salvation or worthiness for communion. The state of your personal relationship with God is known best by the two of you.
Elliot,
What I noticed when studying theology at university is the great desire most of us have to be in prominent positions within the faith, not just believers. It seems that we want to be Billy Graham or Mother Theresa or Charles Spurgeon. Never do we aspire to be just Joe Christian. (I include mysef in this!)
I seriously considered Yale Divinity School for a masters in divinity. I knew that other schools had more rigorous and conservative scholarship, and that they would probably be better places for me to learn, but *I* wanted to go somewhere and make a difference. I wanted to be at Yale and be the only Southern Baptist, conservative, Jesus-loving Christian on the campus. It went so far as the recruiter, Helmut Koester (Harvard Div.) and I arguing about Christ!!
Shannon: Well, I think there are several problems with that. For starters, if we're talking about general "feel-gooderisms"--choose one at your leisure--why call them Christ's principles? I doubt he was the first in history to espouse many of them. Moreover, if others espoused the same thing, why listen to an obvious crank, who surrounded himself with a legion of liars?
The central message of Christ and what makes it "Christian" is tied inexorably with who he was/is.
Elliott: Kierkegaard wrote, "The press of busyness is like a charm. Its power swells. It reaches out seeking always to lay hold of ever-younger victims so that childhood or youth are scarcely allowed the quiet and the retirement in which the Eternal may unfold a divine growth."
(You may want to look at the above link for a general essay about rush and the spiritual life.)
Thanks for the compliment, Jen.
Because if one espouses principles like "do unto others" or "help your neighbor" or "be kind to others" or any such thing along with stating they aren't Christian, someone comes along and asks "How can you believe in Christs principles but not believe in Christ?" It is often the Christians who lay claim to the principles and demand to have them acknowledged as Christian.
Just a few passages from the book of John:
John 8:57-59 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"
John 10:7 John 10 John 10:6-8 Therefore Jesus said again, "I tell you the truth, I am the gate for the sheep.
John 14:6 John 14 John 14:5-7 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
John 14:12 John 14 John 14:11-13 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
John 16:7 John 16 John 16:6-8 But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.
John 16:23 John 16 John 16:22-24 In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
Given that you believe
one can easily reject the idea that Jesus was the son of God without rejecting the principles he espouse
How does one "teach" what Jesus saidt in these passages while rejecting his divinity? It seems that his position as Son of God is fairly important when covering such exclusionary claims as Jesus being the only way to the Father. Also, how does one espouse such principles while rejecting the core authority in these passages of scripture?
I can only come up with silly examples...
Jesus, while a good man, but a complete raving lunatic said he was the only way to God, what we must remember is that we he said here is important in the sense that we can all go to that spirit in the sky that may or may not exist through our own Jesus.
But mortal me appreciates it anyway :)
Indy,
Have you ever known someone who, when you ask them how they're doing, replies, "God is good"?
I have one friend, that no matter what I am ask him, if he's having a bad day, he only acknowledges the goodness of God and not his personal problems.
I certainly don't go around thinking I should behave in certain ways, love my neighbor, etc., because Christ said so. But I don't disagree with that part of his message either. That's all I'm saying. In the sense that I do try to do many of the things he espoused, I am "taking" that part of the message.
I've been exposed to a fair amount of Christian teaching. Some of the principles seem good to me. Sure, most of them could be found elsewehere. But I'm most familiar with them as Christian teachings. That doesn't mean I can't agree with them, nor does it mean I feel the need to find another source for them which I do agree with more fully. As I said, I don't tend to think of them as explicity Christian, but when it comes up, I can say I agree with certain Christian ideals.
I don't. I don't believe ALL of his principles. He said many things that did not address his divinity. I agree with a number of those.
I understand that, but if you're going to teach what Christ taught, it seems that who he was has relevance on the teaching! You cannot teach Christ's exclusionary claims as cool ideals to model your own life after if you reject the core authurity of those exclusionary claims.
Yes, there are some scriptures that you can take a la carte, but for the more significant ones, you cannot.
Not picking a fight, but why would you want to waste your time with ideals taught by a delusional madman?
I don't look for snippets of wisdom from Charles Manson.
Where did anyone say this?
We can dispense with one easily. He could not have been right about the nature of God but wrong about human relations (will elaborate if necessary, but I think this is clear).
Of the other three cases, we'll leave the first to another discussion (he was wrong about everything). So between the other two, I think the distinction is a question of you and I having a certain faith or not, correct? I mean, if you believe that what Jesus taught in terms of human interaction is correct, then you will at least try to make your day-to-day actions live up to his teachings. You would also encourage others to do so because you think they're good principles. The difference between you and me would be what we have in our hearts and souls whereas our outward conduct would be identical.
In such a situation, it appears to me that I have the advantage. You are living the exact same way as I do, but while I have all the advantages of a personal faith (call it a crutch, if you will) you do not. It seems to me the only advantage a nonbeliever has is that he can proclaim his unbelief and not be thought a fool by his fellows for avoiding nasty superstition.
Otherwise, I see no attraction in it. Can you describe to me exactly what "non-faith" offers you?
Not necessarily...you only have the word of others that he made these claims at all.
Then his 76-year-old widowed mother was murdered by a teenage burglar.
As his brother relayed the police description of the killing, forgiveness was the last thing on Worthington's mind. "I was so angry. I pointed to a baseball bat and said, 'I wish whoever did that was here. I would beat his brains out.' "
The People of the USA v. Moron & Delay
No, YOU only have the word of others that he made these claims.
I believe in the veracity of scripture because of its internal and historical integrity and consistency, the historical and archeological evidence that supports it and because I believe in God and His claims as revealed by the Bible, to be true.
Yes the difference comes down to faith. As for your last question, it's not a matter of what it offers me. I simply do not believe it. Do you think you could make yourself believe something just because it offered you some advantage?
OTOH, I don't feel like I'm at any kind of disadvantage because I don't have the faith. That doesn't mean that I don't think it offers something to people who do believe.
We disagree...what's new?
Excluding religion and politics we agree!
I still love ya anyway!
The knowledge that the faithful are using a "crutch", as you called it. I have seen that some self-doubt helps a lot in practicing many of the principles that Jesus taught. It is those that are convinced his words were divine mandates that take his teachings to some very extreme views.
There are people who are convinced that His words were a divine mandate, who still have plenty of self-doubt, and who do not have the "very extreme views" you fear.
Theism is neither neccessary nor sufficient for frightening extremism.
You troublemaker!
Shannon: Between this morning and this evening I was thinking about this debate and it reminded me of the fiery dispute recently in the Sex thread re marriage, especially because of our discussion of love.
Suppose you were going to marry someone. You promised to be faithful to that person and live all the other strictures associated with marriage because you thought that was the way to have a healthy, happy, and successful marriage and home life. Yet at the same time you didn't believe in love.
You would be self-sacrificing for your family and fulfill all your duties because marriage seems to you to be a worthy institution and the best way (structure) for a man and a woman to get along and form a family, including the raising of children. Yet because you could neither see love nor any proof of it, nor feel it toward your mate, you chose not to believe in that part of it.
To me that is what one does when choosing a moral code for utilitarian purposes but denies the existence of a personal relationship with God. First, I think it makes the work harder than necessary (much as performing one's duty in a loveless marriage). Second, the rewards of success are lessened--and unnecessarily.
Do you think you could make yourself believe something just because it offered you some advantage?
I can't say how this works for others. Belief has never been a problem for me, but if you do struggle, many of those who wound up the "greatest" Christians struggled toward faith as well.
(I think you posted previously you are somewhat of a nonbeliever, perhaps an agnostic, but not a Christian. If my memory is wrong, please correct it.)
I also think that humans are very poor at distinguishing which of their beliefs are things they have chosen or arrived at due to free will and which their needs and environment pressed upon them.
Why do you think this is an important distinction? Isn't it really only important whether a belief is true or not?
Substitute, for example, "the need for social cooperation" for "faith in God."
This is why I have little use for personal testimony about the existence of some deity.
If by "this" you mean because you have no need for God, then perhaps to this point you have not. However, if lack of a need "tends toward neutrality," wouldn't a neutral disposition mean you would also have no impetus toward persuading others that their beliefs are in error?
But if no such god exists as the one Jones envisions then he's not only embracing a hallucination but also correspondingly denying himself the chance to encounter the truth.
If in contrast to my delusions, you have discovered the truth. I shant allow my hallucinations to obscure this truth from me. Explain to me all that your truth does for you so that I can enjoy similar enlightenment and freedom.
OTOH, my foolishness has given me much self-deluded happiness until now, and I suppose if death is indeed the end, then I'll never see my fantasy for the sham it is.
You are putting your own values on this--which is fine, until you demand others submit to logic that is only imposed by said values.
There is no requirement that anyone do these dull things. One can marry and boogie til they just can't boogie no more and still reap all the advantages. Or, one can truly love the person they marry but still find no pleasure in the marriage because the other person doesn't live up to those things which aren't required for a marriage to exist (remember, a marriage is nothing more than a legally recognized relationship).
So your whole premise is completely fucked. But that's okay, because you then turn around and present a supposed analogy that is completely inapt.
To me that is what one does when choosing a moral code for utilitarian purposes but denies the existence of a personal relationship with God.
Yes, but what matters is not how it appears to you, but to the person who chooses it. See, some people don't think of moral codes as the equivalent of getting laid after you put out for a nice dinner and wear a decent suit. Some people develop moral codes because they themselves discover values they find worth holding to--without the rather offputting notion of a promise from God to put out at the end.
Really? I see more that the power and authority of a God in whom they already believe that causes them struggle; how to address the various conflicts and contradictions they find in the belief system (cobbled as it is from a variety of rather suspect sources).
In any event, one can't struggle to believe. One either believes or one doesn't. It's not a choice, as I've mentioned before. It's a capability.
I was more speaking about what society has to gain, by avoiding extremists and the perils of living with people who tend to make decisions based on faith rather than evidence.
"If that's not what you're saying, then what do you personally gain by nonbelief?"
I rarely participate in theological discussions, but this one jumped out at me, as you seemed to be justifying Christianity based on utility maximization.
I think this is a very strange question. What do you personally gain from your nonbelief in Hinduism, Scientology, the Unification Church, and paganism?
What I believe I gain from my generally humanist world view is some craft, as Carl Sagan put it, in the "fine art of baloney detection", as I haven't convinced myself that accepting defiance of scientific laws is a necessary precondition for salvation. I am convinced that my skills in this area have been extremely useful at my work and in my personal life.