Attenborough's response to creationists' hate mail
Sir David Attenborough gets a lot of hate mail because he doesn't give credit to God in his documentaries.
In an interview with this week's Radio Times about his latest documentary, on Charles Darwin and natural selection, the broadcaster said: "They tell me to burn in hell and good riddance."Attenborough's response to creationists' hate mailTelling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give "credit" to God, Attenborough added: "They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."
Trashumansit day on Boing Boing!!
Every time I start to thing creationists are basically harmless, I hear some more crap like this.
It wasn't clear from the article...do they really write him hate mail because there isn't a line in the credits thanking God?
These. People. Are. Insane.
"All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN."
I think the creationists should take Attenborough head-on, and volunteer as subjects for an Eyeball Worms for Jesus program.
I mean, if God didn't mean for his followers to be blinded by His Creation, why would they produce Bibles in braille?
spread it David, the more people hear that the fundie message is "god is hate", the safer our children are.
"I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator"
This is what always confuses me about creationists-- they presume a benevolent creator. You'd think even a cursory look at the world would suggest the religious might be more like, say, Cthulhu worshippers-- trying to get stepped on the least by a cruel and malevolent deity.
@6 The idea of a benevolent creator is a fairly modern marketing strategy for religion and it confuses the adherents as well - usually when they go looking for some real support for the idea and find it isn't the texts which many think they can somehow quote without reading. Talking to most creationists (in my experience) is like getting the scripture through a big game of telephone
Attenborough rocks.
"We're a mob,
Being perhaps just a tad overzealous.
Unwashed slobs,
Stinking so bad that a goat would be jeeeeeaaaa-lous!"
Nature, red in tooth and claw.
Sir David Attenborough is one of the greatest Britons of the twentieth century, and it's a damn shame that his brother received a baronetcy over him. He's been using the eyeball-worm explanation for decades, which was particularly brave in the days when the UK was still priest-ridden.
The best way to treat Creationists and ID'er is exactly as you'd treat flat-earthers or moon-landing deniers. Just ignore them. Don't let them troll polite society with their ravings, and don't waste time rebutting them.
I don't see why these people get the time of day from anyone, much less Attenborough.
Several of Attenborough's best series aren't available domestically in the US because they deal with evolution and/or climate change.
wow, I had no idea Attenborough was so dark...I like him even more now.
No. Ignoring them is not a valid option. Hatred and ignorance can be spread like a disease. By way of indoctrination these poor saps preach and praise ignorance, sometimes unknowingly but often saying that flat out. Belief in god is blind faith. You MUST trust anything said by the bible or whomever interprets it for you.
Interesting case in point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw&eurl=http://www.facebook.com/home.php?
It is our duty as not being complete morons to enlighten, teach the value of life and how stuff like logic should even apply to religion (which of course makes SOME people realise the logic fallacy of YAHWEH, The Flying Teapot and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Of course, preaching to extremists is unlikely to work, our job is just to spread information and sanity to others, trying to make the world a little less dangerous.
Make people think. That's the trick.
If you make one person think for themselves (not necessarily turning to YOUR point of view, though) you have achieved success.
Be careful though not to try to use the religious indoctrination methods and push logic, reason and science as a religion. Anybody who starts thinking logically is likely to end up thinking in our near science by themselves.
Those little children in east Africa are born into sin, and that is why God created an eyeball worm specifically to punish them for their transgressions.
Heck, even I can come up with an example of their puerile arguments off the cuff.
A "religious faith" that opposes science or evolution is not really spiritual but tribalism, xenophobia, nationalism, fear of new knowledge, or some other form of fear-mongering wrapped up in religious symbols. Our species has been gradually weaning ourselves from these things for millennia.
A science that seeks to deny the spiritual side of humanity in favor of pure rationalism risks turning away from music, poetry, myth, and much of what makes us human.
Before things get too carried away here: The nut jobs that are sending these letters are an unfortunately noisy fringe. They are dangerous to education, and need to be fought against. But it doesn't help to attack all religious thought. Plenty of people with religious faith do not see God as a benevolent puppet master in the sky, but as a matrix in which everything exists- including the eye-worm and the child. If one's religious faith is threatened by science, then your faith is too small. Creationists have a very shallow and superficial grasp of even the religious tradition they claim to follow.
Science is good at dividing things and showing how they work together. Religion, at its best, provides a vision of the whole, in so far as we can grasp it. Science no more conflicts with religion than Holst's suite "The Planets" conflicts with Astronomy, they are different responses to experience.
It is really very bad that anyone would write anyone hate mail because they don't believe in God or because they don't believe that God created anything. That is pretty weird too. But I would say that anyone that says that if you are a creationist then you are crazy is basing their Diagnosis on Anecdotal evidence. I would hardly say that is a "Scientific" assumption. It really shows an angry bias of some type.
There are many people who are thrill killers that don't believe in God at all and during the crimes let it be known that they don't believe in God. I would hardly say that those people are representative of Non-Believers.
People have very strong feelings about Religion and if you choose to draw a cartoon of Mohammad they riot and commit various forms of Mayhem but I would not say that all Muslims are crazy.
Your just looking for reasons to think that you are superior to people that don't share your beliefs by using an extreme example of a fool to make your point.
So much for tolerance and understanding of other cultures. If I made a biased and foolish statement about Muslims everyone rightly here would cry out and many would ask me to be banned but when it comes to Christians all insults and cockeyed assumptions are A-OK.
I am a Buddhist so I don't believe in creationism at all. But I try to understand why people think the way they do because it helps me to communicate with them. At least they are not trying to chop off Good Sir David’s head or meeting him in a park to slit his throat because they didn't like his movie as happened to Mr. Theo van Gogh. If I said all Muslims are throat slitters I would be terribly incorrect.
There are degrees of Religious zealotry and so far I don't have to worry about any Christians blowing them selves up in the market to make a point. Until then hate mail from a misguided former alter boys is to be ignored and not given publicity or used as a way to exalt your self unless you it makes you feel better about your self.
Just ask Salmond Rushdie. If someone misspells something in a statement does that indicate that what they said isn't true?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
Based on what I've seen of the world, I might concede the ID'ers the "Designer" part, but never the "Intelligent" part.
@Oceanconcepts
Good post. I have had to reconcile some rather irreconcileable ideas recently. I was an avowed, outspoken and quite vitriolic atheist at high school, and took a great deal of joy terrorising the Christian Fellowship there. However during tertiary education I had my horizons broadened somewhat, and have come to see God and spirituality as a metaphor for a living universe and the absctract constructs of the human psyche.
Then I married a Catholic gal, and we've had a son. We decided to baptise him, and I got baptised at the same time.
It has been a sticky wicket at times, maintaining my integrity and being true to the spirit of the vows I took, but we live in a cool area and Catholicism is practiced in a relatively open and tolerant way.
The one thing that I had to be absolutely, 100% sure of before I went through with it was that creationism was not even on the table, and it wasn't.
@ Raj77 - Agreed, unfortunately this mirrors the relative importance that people place on entertainment over education. David more or less invented the nature documentary as we understand it today and is probably responsible for more people becoming interested in and working in the natural sciences that just about anyone I can think of, Richard made some movies. Sad
When I first saw the headline, I thought of the character from Gurren Lagann.
Resista@18: "Your just looking for reasons to think that you are superior to people that don't share your beliefs by using an extreme example of a fool to make your point."
No, Christians in the United States dominate the culture, and us atheists, agnostics, SubGenii, Pastafarians, and Discordians enjoy fighting back with the truth.
If I made a biased and foolish statement about Muslims everyone rightly here would cry out and many would ask me to be banned
You seem to be operating under the assumption that Creationism is a Christian concept. As far as I know, it's a tenet of most or all god-centered religions. I would guess that the majority of the world's people would side with Creationism if you grilled them about their beliefs.
I'm thinking a new one, true Church: The God Eaters.
We welcome all, and consume their gods as they bring them. Who want's to help write a Testament?
@ROBULUS
I sometimes use a music metaphor: I profoundly respond to Western Classical Music. Not all of it, of course, I chose what is most personally meaningful. Not everyone is touched by the same things I am. I might try to share some of my enthusiasm for a particular performance, say (proselytizing?), but I won't be (too) offended if the other party just doesn't see what I do.
Conversely, I can accept that other people are just as moved by Chinese Opera as I am by Mozart's Requiem, but it doesn't do anything for me That does not mean there is anything wrong with them- their experience is just different.
I find the fact of evolution and natural selection profoundly moving in a spiritual as well as intellectual way, in that the connectedness of all life on the molecular level is so apparent.
@ 24 ANTONOUS
There is a lot of difference between having a creation story/ myth/ metaphor that explains something about existence in a poetic or spiritual fashion, and taking that story as literal truth. I expect most people in modern societies understand this difference.
The God Eaters
I think that one's already covered.
I expect most people in modern societies understand this difference.
A goodly segment of the US population flat out believes in Creationism. An even larger group claiming to believe in evolution actually describes Intelligent Design when asked to explain it. Where is this modern society? And more importantly, are they accepting emigrants from the US?
yum...
I'd imagine more wars have been fought and more people killed because of religion than anything else. And oddly, religion probably spawns more hate than anything else.
I believe in God - My belief hasn't caused me to write hate mail so far. I think I would act pretty much the same if I didn't believe in God. I generally try to treat people the way I'd like to be treated. I'm not sure if its just my nature or because I was brought up in a religious atmosphere that makes me, IMO, a nice person. I have noticed a lot of not-nice people in these anti/creationist posts.
MMmm who would be good to eat ? Would Jesus be "Just right" Would Mohammad be "A bit stringy".. How many times would you have to turn the Buddha over before he was done? C'mon folks we need yer Deity Recipes!
I, too, am a fan of Attenborough. Learned lots from him. However, he skims over the creation of life issue by suggesting [Life On Earth, page 19]that strands of DNA were just laying around the primordial pool. Little programs, carrying detailed information on how to sustain one's life, how to split each of their components and divide into two individuals, each capable of injesting nutrition, growing to adult size, then dividing again. I find that hard to swallow. Rediculous, in fact. Life is too intelligent, too tenacious to not have intelligence behind it.
except in your case
Good posts, all round. And while Christians dominate the culture (@ Mark's post, 23), please don't think they're all like the hate-mailers (ironically, MOMENTS before going to boingboing I had been reading a fundie classmate's blog wherein she was actually praising Attenburough).
But back to that worm in the eyeball:
I did not create myself. I did not grow the food I eat. Even if I grew it, I did not create the raw materials from which the food came. I did not design the laws of physics and chemistry that allowed that food to grow, or my house to stand upright, or the heater to stay on in the winter. No one did. I have never had an entirely original idea. Every concept I have every contemplated was either given to me, or was derived by me from pre-existing concepts. I didn't figure out how the earth's placement in space allow life to grow--or at least, not before I had already been enjoying that placement in space. You get the idea. All that to say, I HAVE NO RIGHTS. No one has any rights*. Nothing you or I have ever done can be entirely attributed to our own efforts. Neither the universe nor God owes me anything.
It's terrible that a child in Africa has a worm in their eye. And it could have been me. Considering that I have absolutely no reason to expect that it couldn't have been me, no reason that I am owed the worm-free existence I enjoy, I'm less likely to doubt God's existence because someone has the worm than I am to thank Him that it wasn't me (and then send some money for aid that my worm-free life allowed me to earn).
*"human rights", yes, but not absolute ones. just wanted to be clear.
nah, Antinous, those I might call the god-blowers. True god-eaters absorb all memes in their path and convert them to more god-eaters. They don't need to believe in anything, just eat.
@Tom Hale, #31
I can't help but assume that even without religion, those cultures would have went to war over cultural differences or desire for property. I think religion just provided the easiest scapegoat for those in political power.
In situations like this one (and the comments that have followed), I always think of Screeching Weasel's song "Science of Myth":
Live video.
An excerpt of the lyrics:
"See half the world sees the myth as fact, while it's seen as a lie by the other half and the simple truth is that it's none of that.
And somehow no matter what the world keeps turning, somehow we get by without ever learning.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. In fact for better understanding we take the facts of science and apply them and if both factors keep evolving then we continue getting information but closing off possibilities makes it hard to see the bigger picture."
I've always enjoyed Attenborough's documentaries and pretty much all non-boring science or history documentaries. I've been into science all my life. Evolution and the big bang theory doesn't bother me a bit and I don't see how it conflicts with what I was taught in church. The version of the Bible that I been taught by, The King James version, teaches that God created the heavens and the earth, animals and plants, and then Man. God may very well have used a big bang to create the universe and evolution to make earth's life - Or not - who knows? I suppose either we'll all find out someday and if not, it doesn't really matter does it?
DSAC86 says "I can't help but assume that even without religion, those cultures would have went to war over cultural differences or desire for property. I think religion just provided the easiest scapegoat for those in political power."
Agreed. There are plenty of examples of different religions living together harmoniously throughout human history.
In chimp studies where they've been taught sign language, most of their communication is about territory and food. We fight wars for the same reasons.
These religious concepts/beliefs are implanted in our subconscious before we get a chance to decide for ourselves. We have no memory of our lives before these beliefs were implanted. These beliefs are as much a part of us as our heart and are accepted without question. These beliefs control our every thought and action. This has been happening over hundreds of thousands of years. The capacity for belief either was always there or was bred into our genes.
With this understanding, I have concluded the vast majority of believers will never abandon their belief in the supernatural. So, the best we can hope for is to help them come to believe in a better class of god, a god that makes these thoughts and threats impossible.
The god, in whom the children of the desert believe, is a vindictive god without forgiveness, though it is marketed as the all-loving god of infinite forgiveness. We know this is true, because of their fear. These threats are born in the understanding that their god will condemn transgressors to an eternity of suffering.
We must ask ourselves who or what Attenborough and others threaten. Obviously, their god is not threatened, he created Attenborough to test their faith. So, the adults are not so much afraid for their god or themselves, their faith will pass the test; they fear for their children, whose faith is not yet completely hardened and in turn the priests fear the survival of their religion, their way of life, their jobs.
These religious cults are falling apart. Over time, they suffer entropy, breaking into smaller and smaller sects over disagreements. The disagreements arise due to those who wish to remain static and those who would allow their faith to adapt to a more current understanding of our universe and a broader acceptance of the realities of our lives and cultures.
So, if we are to change our religious friends we must help them come to know god independently of archaic beliefs. The concept of god must be separated from the religious cult. We must help them understand that religion stands between them and god. One of the most damaging and dangerous concepts is the concept of sin. The concept of sin is the foundation of the desert cults, their reason for being. The flock must understand there is no need for a middleman or forgiveness. That god will accept them as they are without begging his or her forgiveness. This then allows for a deeper understanding of our lives and greater acceptance of our diversity, of each other.
In other words, belief in gods is not the problem. The problem is the face these controlling insecure religions place on their gods. The problem is these cults give answers where there are no answers, which then become points of contention. The problem is these priests understand they are not needed and are rightfully fearful their flocks will come to know this as well. The priests have these people feasting and fighting over scraps. Once believers are disabused of the concept of sin, and the clergy and religious cults are seen as superfluous to belief in god, then these threats will cease.
Without religion there is only god and god cannot be threatened by his or her own creation, only cults are threatened by Attenborough. Without cults, Attenborough is no longer a threat and he will not be threatened in return.
Oceanconcepts "A science that seeks to deny the spiritual side of humanity in favor of pure rationalism risks turning away from music, poetry, myth, and much of what makes us human."
Show me an astronomer or a biologist or a physicist who isn't spiritual about his work, and I'll show you someone who isn't very good at his job. Simply wondering how things work bring a wonder all its own. Exploring a sliver of the totality of everything is spiritual.
The methods of scientific investigation may be cold, but scientists aren't.
resista "Your just looking for reasons to think that you are superior to people that don't share your beliefs by using an extreme example of a fool to make your point."
Extreme? What percent of Americans think that the world (if not the universe) is 6-10k years old? It is extreme only in the fact that some Creationists are angry enough about the history of the real world not matching the fantasy that they're willing to threaten reality-based people about it (and the difference between this and dropping Pascal's Wager is shades of grey. "You should burn in Hell", and "If you're wrong you'll burn in Hell" are both threats).
"So much for tolerance and understanding of other cultures."
Tolerating the intolerant can only go so far. You eventually run out of cheeks to turn. Then Creationism/ID/"Teach the Controversy" is suddenly in biology class, and the kids pay the price for your not standing up and saying "No more!"
TroofSeeker "Learned lots from him. However, he skims over the creation of life issue by suggesting [Life On Earth, page 19]that strands of DNA were just laying around the primordial pool. Little programs, carrying detailed information on how to sustain one's life, how to split each of their components and divide into two individuals, each capable of injesting nutrition, growing to adult size, then dividing again."
For abiogenesis, instead of relying on a "big picture" book (If Life on Earth had everything we've discovered, it would be far too large to read whilst on the toilet), you're better off looking at books devoted to the subject (like Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origin, to start). Suffice it to say, Attenborough's account is grossly simplified.
"I find that hard to swallow. Rediculous, in fact. Life is too intelligent, too tenacious to not have intelligence behind it."
You might change your mind once you find out just how "cobbled together" life is. It's not so much "survival of the fittest" as "survival of the fit enough". If anything, the imperfections make it even cooler. And I tell myself that every time I see my reflection, with its reflected crooked nose, in a mirror.
If you read the book of Genesis it's important not to skip over the very first couple of verses. They describe darkness and water even before YHWH says his "Let there be light" speech which gives birth to Creation. So Mr. Attenborough should really have given credit not to God but to the nameless entity that created the darkness/water in the first place.
Recently I read the Old Testament for the first time and it was quite a read, it really confirmed alot of fears I had always felt towards mainstream Christianity.
FoetusNail @40
Thank you very much for that. That was probably the best comment I've read on BoingBoing.
@29 ANTONOUS
Western Europe? And maybe, now that there's a new administration...
Seriously, the facts you cite have a lot more to do with the failings of the US educational system- in particular its failure to teach basic concepts of logic and critical thinking- than they have to do with religion. The same fallacies crop up in the global warming "debate"- as if science were a mere matter of one's opinion. They give these answers because they don't understand evolution- and because they don't understand Christianity, either. Mainstream Christian denominations have no problem with evolution. Most Americans probably don't know that. Unfortunately in the U.S. we have way too many Biblical Literalists and fundamentalist nut-jobs. And they are given way too much credibility and power.
@ 41 MODUSOPERANDI
Exactly my point- could not agree more. Science is on some level a spiritual endeavor. Most scientists, in my experience, have more genuine religious/ spiritual feelings than the creationist/ fundamentalists- scientists are genuinely seeking understanding and are open to new ideas, which creationists are not.
@40, FOETUSNAIL
Unfortunately, for most people, and religious education ends before they reach an age at which they are capable of abstract thought. That leaves behind a lot of muddled supernatural concepts and magical thinking. If you knew how close your observations about sin, for instance, are to much mainstream Christian theology/ philosophy, you would be surprised.
I can believe in God, without being the least bit supernatural about it, and having no conflict with science or logic whatever.
@31, TOM HALE
Religious identity, ethnic identity, tribalism, nationalism, and ideology all have been used by the power hungry to manipulate people over the years, and to justify wars. But it's intellectually sloppy to conclude that wars were fought BECAUSE of religion, ethnicity, etc. Most wars have been fought because someone wanted something and thought they could take it. We can be greedy apes. Don't forget that the worst conflicts and genocides of the last century were perpetrated by resolutely secular forces- Nazi Germany, China, Russia under Stalin- and for largely ideological reasons.
In my opinion, the worst tragedy to befall Christianity was when Constantine made it the state religion of the Roman Empire. A faith based on humility, acceptance of people as they are, ending tribalism, and kindness was turned into an instrument of state control.
So I'm a Christian, but I have a hard time swallowing this whole Intelligent Design/Young Earth Theory thing as real science. I'm no biologist or geologist, but I see a lot of holes in some of the more contrived theories that ID puts forward. And I don't understand at all why anyone would want to threaten Attenborough, even if they disagree strongly with him. Hate mail won't solve anything; it will only demonstrate how small-minded and scared some people are.
In many ways, it seems that ID proponents want to understand everything and put God in their own little box, when it seems to me that He is much too big for any one theory or explanation.
I believe that the Bible should be taken at face value, but in many places the creation story is vague and doesn't give an exact account of what happened. You could say that I believe that God created the universe, and I know some of how He did it from the Bible and from what scientific evidence we have, but I was not there when He "laid the earth's foundations," so I won't make any claim to know exactly how it happened.
When I first put my faith in God, it was because of the person of Jesus, not rock strata or carbon dating. When I read the story of creation, and the whole Bible for that matter, I see them all point towards Jesus. As one example, I would mention the parallels between Psalm 22 and and the New Testament accounts of Jesus' trial and execution. But that's another story.
As an aside, one thing I would caution some people of is historical bias when it comes to spiritual matters. Just because people lived a long time ago, it does not make them any less intelligent than modern people. Spirituality is no more "old-fashioned" than music, philosophy, art, or studying the world around us.
"Life is too intelligent, too tenacious to not have intelligence behind it."
This is just a restatement of "It's turtles all the way down". If life requires intelligence to create, what in turn created that intelligent creator? If the creator emerged somehow from an unliving state, why not have life on earth do so?
@Oceanconcepts...
Thanks for your post @17. I've been all over this science/spiritual issue in my head and struggling with it over the past few years. I really enjoyed your viewpoint. :) I am looking forward to all your replies here. Maybe it'll help me figure it all out one day too.
@ 43, DSAC86
One of the most horrible things about being a Biblical Literalist (who are NOT mainstream, by the way, and really rose up in the 19th century in response to the acceptance of evolution by mainstream churches) is that you have to find a way to "literally believe" the Old Testament- which was written by at least 5 groups who often profoundly disagreed with each other, and which contains a record of ethnic, tribal, violent and xenophobic cultures busily slaughtering each other in God's name. It's not going to make much sense without a lot of background knowledge of the cultures and history.
The mental strain brought on by trying to reconcile a rigid and ill-informed reading of this text with the message of Jesus renders fundamentalists incapable of coherent thought- hence the version of "Christianity" that gets the most airplay in the U.S.- God wants to kill you, because you are bad, but if you believe all this stuff that makes no sense then you will get issued a set of Asbestos Underwear to protect you.
This is NOT Christianity- it's the bending of Christian symbols to politics and power.
I think it was Anne Lamott that said "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
I wish I could ignore the IDers & creationists. Only a week ago has the Texas Board of Education finally dropped the "Strengths and weaknesses" requirement for discussion of evolutionary theory, a Trojan Horse backdoor that shoehorned in (wedged in) giving some sort of scientific credence to cdesign proponentsists.
Despite the Supreme Court decision making it outright illegal to teach Creationism, and the decision in the Kitzmiller v Dover case making it perfectly clear that Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism repackaged, a recent study determined that one in eight US biology teachers still present Creationism as a valid scientific topic - I myself have witnessed within the past decade high school teachers putting forth the KJV Old Testament as absolute historical fact, and when kids get ejected from their extracurricular activities, slandered, and their parents framed and extorted by religious bigots for refusing to be pressured into a religious conversion by school officials, it becomes clear that no-one can afford to ignore the Intelligent Design / Creationists.
They've assaulted everything from the education I had, to the education my kids should have, to the hijacking of public taxpayer funds at every available point, to an egregious abuse of the Socratic method - confusing and confounding the education of every child in America. They're con men, pure and simple.
The last time we ignored the con men, Wall Street collapsed.
Science versus religion shouldn't even be an argument because one is interested in the theoretical understanding and real world applications of physical principals, while one is interested in theoretical understanding and real world applications of metaphysical principals.
We've been fighting forever because our ideas are different but a priest is a scientist of metaphysics just like a scientists is a priest of their particular area of interest - devoted, utterly and with great zeal, towards the understanding of their ideals and finding ways to apply them in the real world.
how do i post images here?
markmarkmark: Yeah, priests are /just like scientists/: Priests cured polio, found treatments for AIDS/HIV, developed vaccines, and markedly increased life expectancy and quality of life through their work.
Oh. Wait.
how do i post images here?
You have to ink to the image.
Lightning strikes the primordial pool. Something is energized- some microscopic glob of just the right chemicals absorbs the energy and sustains it. Let's call him Willie. Willie has one lifetime to figure out how to sustain his life and how to duplicate himself. He better think fast, because he's only got a few minutes. He quickly grasps a convenient double-helix strand of DNA (they're laying around), he downloads a series of programs, then splits in half, with both halves retaining the knowledge of how and what to eat and how to divide, and voila! Here we are!
You have every right to reject God and worship your god, Willie, because it makes sense to you. Maybe you haven't thought it through, but I think you know that something is missing from your theories. There are dimensions that we are blind to.
@51 *cough* Jesuit Bark *cough*
All I'm saying, @51, is that while you followers of Willie The Wonderful taunt and mock various faiths, your beliefs look silly and illogical to some of us.
Priests solved hatred, racism, sexism, slavery.
oh. wait.
anyways look i made a picture.
http://thementat.wikispaces.com/file/view/grandunificationtheory.jpg
@robulus - god may be a metaphor for the living universe, as you put it, but how do you know which religion is true (if you care)? unless your wife mandates it, there is no good reason to choose the catholic god over wotan.
#54 I know, isn't it great how, on the internet, any word bracketed by two "cough"s becomes an argument?
#55, I will ask you to please stop using the words "taunt" and "mock" to describe the unremarkable expectation that the degree of belief should be proportional to the amount of evidence you have.
@#56- Er...are you forgetting the fervor of churches in the abolition movement? Or, of course, the right Reverend MLK and his use of churches to organize?
Yes, nasty old things, churches and religious leaders, never up to any good...
"One of the most damaging and dangerous concepts is the concept of sin. The concept of sin is the foundation of the desert cults, their reason for being."
It is also what keeps civilization intact, though the word "sin" may not be used in all cases. After all, if I decide to kick a beggar to death rather than feed him, why should I think this is a bad thing if not for some concept of sin?
@Pyota
Well I've reached a point where my spiritual beliefs need some formal and ritual expression.
Barring all outside forces, I probably would have chosen Buddhism, but my wife is Catholic and my ancestors were Christian, Christianity is the predominant religion in my community, so I have chosen to follow tradition in the matter. Joining a religion is all about community.
The question you raise is rational, and is exactly the reason its taken me nearly forty years to sign up with anyone.
For me, religion isn't about rationality, it is counter to it. It is an aesthetic choice, like looking at a painting rather than a photo. If I want to positively identify someone, I'll look at the photo, if I want to contemplate beauty, its the painting.
@Cicada
Because it is obviously a bad thing to do. I mean, this is why these discussions boil down to semantics. If you define "sin" as anything bad, then yes the concept of "sin" is central to morality, but trivially so. If you define "sin" as "bad because a deity has said so", then your argument is ridiculous.
If you were a beggar, you wouldn't want someone to kick you to death. You know it is wrong without any divine intervention. Humans are quite capable of working this stuff out for themselves.
@62- Let's assume I wanted the beggar dead because he kept bugging me for change. Assume also that after he was dead, I was happy about it.
Or, put another way, how would you explain to someone who _didn't_ consider kicking the beggar to death to be a bad thing to do that it was in fact a bad thing to do, and he might perhaps feel a bit bad about doing it?
bardfinn "markmarkmark: Yeah, priests are /just like scientists/: Priests cured polio, found treatments for AIDS/HIV, developed vaccines, and markedly increased life expectancy and quality of life through their work."
Actually, lots of sciency stuff was found by people who were trying to figure out how God operated.
TroofSeeker "Lightning strikes the primordial pool. Something is energized- some microscopic glob of just the right chemicals absorbs the energy and sustains it. Let's call him Willie..."
I seriously hope that was a joke. Making abiogenesis a cartoon parody of itself (and doing the same to the theory of evolution) is a Creationist trademark. Stop now, before you start quotemining scientists to "prove" that they didn't believe what they believed.
"You have every right to reject God and worship your god, Willie, because it makes sense to you."
Again, I hope that's a joke. If you're equating science and religion, you do each a disservice. By "each", I mean of course "science".
"Maybe you haven't thought it through, but I think you know that something is missing from your theories."
Something's always missing from the theories. That just means that we don't have it figured all out.
"There are dimensions that we are blind to."
So how do you know they're there?
Cicada "@#56- Er...are you forgetting the fervor of churches in the abolition movement? Or, of course, the right Reverend MLK and his use of churches to organize?"
Are you forgetting all the people that used the exact same book to come to the polar opposite conclusion? Are you forgetting that the Southern Baptist biblical case for slavery was far stronger than the abolitionist's biblical case against it?
God's opinion didn't change. Peoples' did...and they eventually dragged Him kicking and screaming over to their side.
"Yes, nasty old things, churches and religious leaders, never up to any good..."
They are up to good. Except when they're not. Like all people, except these have God on their side. And when they change, He's still on their side. God seems to be nothing but supportive about virtually every position. Silence can always be taken as assent.
"After all, if I decide to kick a beggar to death rather than feed him, why should I think this is a bad thing if not for some concept of sin?"
If you need the concept of sin (rather than the combination of millions of years of the evolution of a fairly social group of omnivores that lacked tooth and claw and had to spend considerable time protecting their young, dude to their defenseless state for several years after birth, plus some 10,000 years of history, with multiple cultures building up do/don't do charts based on what worked and what didn't) to give a man a sandwich rather than murder him, then by all means, keep the Fall.
We're good, not because of some ingrained holy spirirt, and bad, not because of the disobedience of Adam, but because we're people. The conflict between I and We has, does, and will continue to conflict within each of us. We're still figuring how best to live with each other and, God willing, we'll keep on learning.
Cicada "@62- Let's assume I wanted the beggar dead because he kept bugging me for change. Assume also that after he was dead, I was happy about it."
Then you're mentally ill, and religion is as likely to hurt as it is to help. A psychotic's God is a malevolent one.
god
Just skip down to the block quotes.
Sin is not about right and wrong, the judeo-christian concept of sin is about controlling your life with threats of an after-life of torture. Our lives pass by in a blink, but our sins are remembered for an eternity.
This is why this god is not the god of forgiveness.
Eve makes one mistake and their god condemns all of us forever. Why was she not forgiven her transgression? Why was everyone after this single act, born in sin? Again this is not about right or wrong, it is about control.
Origianl sin is a lie, a destructive, dehumanizing lie, which creates dependence on the priest and their relationship with the supernatural. They don't care about right or wrong. They've murdered millions.
This ain't an argument about faith, gods, or sins, it is about religious cults attempting to control a world. This is about people dying because religious zealots oppose sex education and passing out condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. This is about a president, that when discussing his opposition to stem cell research says, the ends don't justify the means, but supports the death penalty and starts a war. This is about teaching Creationist myth as though it were science instead of theology. This is about turning children into Zombies for Jesus, Yahweh, or Mohammad. The religious mind is hacked, mommy and daddy did it, and most will never believe it or understand what it means. The faithful have been thrown the bone for so long they don't know a roast has meat.
The contradiction in this statement proves my point:
Belief in gods is a belief in the supernatural.I don't think anyone in Germanic Europe (with the exception of the British Islands and Ireland) or France would confuse intelligent design with evolution, not those who believe in creationism, not those who believe in evolution and, most importantly, not the majority who don't give a shit. In southern Europe, with a strong Catholic or Orthodox tradition, it might be different.
I live in Sweden and I would say that this "modern society" exist in Scandinavia and most of northern Europe. Of course we have a few religious crackpots, but they are a minority and mostly keeps to themselves. There is some rather large groups within the mystic traditon, but they are very open minded and don't preach or mission, they are organised but they mostly believe that people that need them will find them. But most people that live here is Christians by tradition, not by faith. That is, they follow Christian traditions, in a very relaxed fashion, just because they think it is nice, or expected, and not because they actually believe in anything. There are a lot of rather aggressive foreign, or foreign funded, missionaries in Scandinavia, Christian missionary being funded from USA and Islamic missionary being funded from Islamic countries. That kind of aggressiveness is not part of the Scandinavian tradition and although I think that they make a lot of people start thinking about religion, I think that many start to favor atheism because of them.
"We're good, not because of some ingrained holy spirirt, and bad, not because of the disobedience of Adam, but because we're people."
While I'd agree, I think you're missing the point here-- how would you explain to someone else who didn't think a given act bad (and no, it doesn't have to be as extreme as kicking someone to death) that you considered it bad? You seem to be saying that you consider some things good and others bad and you're stuck with that given palate of morals unless you happen to change your mind. Where does moral suasion fit here?
@67- That statement might actually be possible. Of course, in that case you'd need a God who never influenced, in the slightest, anything which had to do with science or logic...i.e, probably nothing to do with the universe at all. Which would have the funny conclusion that you'd have to have randomly guessed, with no support whatsoever, the existance of such a being...
@64- Not forgetting it at all, but since religious reasoning was used on both sides of the argument, it suggests that the sole determinant of one social policy over the other wasn't religion. I.e, fervent adherence to religion doesn't automatically turn one into a raving enslaving murdering monster.
@54: Theft from indigenous peoples does not count as one's own work; Plagiarism isn't creditable; Equity serves those with clean hands. The Catholic priests tried to suppress Quinine as black magic.
Troofseeker:
Scusi, who is this "Willie the Wonderful" and exactly how did you come to the (false) conclusion that I "follow" someone? I lack beliefs. I have sure and certain knowledge. No-one gave my views to me, and whichever of my views you think are "silly or illogical" - you had better be ready to back up that claim with evidence.
Markmarkmark: Creating your own special (overly simple and north-american-protestant-politically-biased) ontology does not constitute a substantial argument. It /does/ constitute appeal to authority and special pleading. No matter how much you illustrate it, it's still oversimplifying the subject matter for your own viewpoint's gain.
... and I had seriously thought Attenborough to be supercool alluding to God as the worm ... It occurs in one's eye and changes her/his perception.
I like David Attenborough AND Jesus! Does that make me a freak?
@#44 Oceanconcepts
"Religious identity, ethnic identity, tribalism, nationalism, and ideology all have been used by the power hungry to manipulate people over the years, and to justify wars. But it's intellectually sloppy to conclude that wars were fought BECAUSE of religion, ethnicity, etc. Most wars have been fought because someone wanted something and thought they could take it. We can be greedy apes. Don't forget that the worst conflicts and genocides of the last century were perpetrated by resolutely secular forces- Nazi Germany, China, Russia under Stalin- and for largely ideological reasons."
You seem to be making two claims here:
(1) Even when the combatants in a conflict themselves declare that they are fighting for religious reasons it is "intellectually sloppy" to accept those claims because someone might be manipulating them in the pursuit of nonreligious goals.
(2) The actions of Nazi Germany, China and Russia under Stalin were perpetrated in pursuit of this sort of nonreligious goal.
Your first claim raises an interesting thought, in a way, but is the burden really on us to imagine how, say, the Crusades weren't really a religious activity? Even if we give credence to this idea, are we really supposed to accept that all religious conflict was just a fraud of some sort? Even if there is traction to this idea, it seems unlikely that our understanding of history is going to change very much by examining it through this lens.
In your second claim you seem to be insinuating that Nazi Germany, China and Russia under Stalin pursued their programs of ethic cleansing as a tenant of their atheism. The ethnic identity of these groups, however, was not derived solely from their atheism. Atheism seems to have been a direct motivation for religious persecution in Russia. In China, the state's atheism seems to have resulted in religions being outlawed for a time. Religion was quite definitely a part of the Nazi's ethnic identity, on the other hand.
The persecution of religions in Russia appears to be the strongest element in your insinuation. Even here, though, there are more motivations at play. Given the state's approach to issues other than religion, we can assume that atheism was not the sole source of its willingness to persecute its population.
Finally, it seems generally apparent that even if the religion is a tool that the "power hungry" can use to agitate populations, isn't that enough of an indictment in and of itself? Without the moral authority of the church backing their actions, is there any other mechanism that could have given rise to events like the Crusades of the Inquisition(s)? Perhaps in modern history their are other powerful mechanisms, but most of the conflict in recorded history seems to have involved religion in one way or another, to the chagrin of the faithful or not.
@Stickarm
So you reckon if we abolished religion just like Dawkins wants us too, the powers that be would have no leverage to sway the masses and hostilities would cease?
Don't you watch Southpark?
DSAC86, thanks!
Dorkomatic, no you're not a freak. A person can use science and faith to make their life richer. Jesus never said to turn your back on reason. Besides, making room for God in one's heart and mind allows one to experience reality in a way that can be vastly better than it otherwise might be.
Attenborough's argument assumes that a god would confer benevolence upon only one group of his creation and completely discount the worm. Is benevolence not shown to the worm in having food and a place to live?
And Nazi Germany's atrocities were not "secular" - the massive anti-Semitism of post-Weimar Germany was religiously based and religiously spread through Catholicism and Lutheranism and based on the Russian Protocols of the Elders of Zion - written for and massively popular in Russian Christendom - wherein Jews were blamed for a whole host of social ills (scapegoating) as well as being blamed for "murdering the Messiah". Hitler and Goebbels picked a handy, religiously-created scapegoat among many scapegoats as the enemy in their midst.
Can we all try and be a bit more open-minded here? A lot of the comments on here seem to boil down to a hatred and lack of understanding of 'the other'.
"Which would have the funny conclusion that you'd have to have randomly guessed, with no support whatsoever, the existance of such a being..."
Or, you know.. made him up.
Brookie3000 @ 77
While I tentatively agree, the worm is in need of food and shelter also.. that particular god, is said to have made man in his image and granted the lands and oceans and animals and fish to man.
So really, you would expect man to win out over the worm in a 'benevolent' Christian god kind-of-way.
I don't know if anyone is putting forth any gods who aren't similarly qualified..
Couldn't some of you find a way to discuss religion without insulting religious people? I'm one of the least religious, religious people I know, but the way some of you make light of or poke fun at my beliefs is very insulting. And you're doing it on purpose! What's the deal? Make fun of the morons that wrote the hate mail, not every single person on earth that is religious.
-thx
Some of us can, and some of us can't. It depends on how much grief we've taken from religious people in the past. Besides which, religions are entirely dependent on the people who practise them.
dear Nail, find my footprints. They are usually lined by true believers struck dumb by not just apostasy,but apostasy successful and un-divinely-punished. I just sanguinely tread along, devouring all they have to offer, tasting, categorizing and tossing into the multi-pocketed bag over my shoulder. Nom Nom Nom is my Omni padne hum. Truly there is nothing new under the sun. Most meme-holder clans (not all) gladly accept you if daub the right mud on our forehead and yodel the right hymn. A little hugging and glad-handing, a penny in the plate and you gain access to all their mysteries- such as they are. Grist for the mill,into to the bag,nom nom nom. Your passing does generate a bit of a bow wave and sucking turbulence so a few true believer always tend to bob in your wake, but that's all part if it too. We are the gods-Eaters, we were there when the first fire was lit to cast the gods-shadows and we remain today, cruising among you, taking, sampling,collecting, rejecting and above all riding the crest of the wave far over your heads, conscious of the ocean you are mere fish in.
NOM NOM NOM
@ 82
I agree. I'm not even religious and I find it insulting. Have intelligent discourse.
For everyone - Don't just hate other people for not abiding by your views.
Endure what I did through 13 years of catholic school and then see if you don't feel a little resentment when you wake up one day and realize it was all a fairy tale. Or better yet, keep believing it because of your fear of death even thought you know in your deepest feelings that it's totally fantastic.
The African-Americans, the Suffragettes, hell, the founding fathers of the US, all rose up against oppression and finally won. It's time for us atheists to claim our right to be respected.
Rise up!
Tom and Akezys,
Fun is not Hate.
They can mingle, but be careful not to confuse the two.
nom nom nom!
Religion is not about community. The most extreme "loners" are often religious. It's about what you believe. I've never understood the concept of "choosing" what you believe. You either believe it or you don't. Everything else is just self-deceiving and denial.
@86 - In fact, I did in fact attend a publicly funded (Ontario) Catholic school for all of my elementary and high school education.
@87 - I think referring to all Catholics as 'God Eaters'/blowers and presenting religion as only a tool to further oppression is inaccurate and crosses a line.
Takuan, without wanting to rile Tom here.. (sorry Tom, and not in a snarky way)
I really like some of the lines in your enchiridion to the God Eaters @ 84.
Some great images and double-entendre to the prose..
"find my footprints. They are usually lined by true believers.."
"Nom Nom Nom is my Omni padne hum."
Nice. I expect an invitation to the next smorgasboard, I'll bring recipes.
@87 ARKIZZLE, Fun when intended to make someone angry is wrong - is it not? You can say all day long, "we're just having a little fun," but you know good and well making fun of someone's religion s going to make them angry.
Again, Tom.
"Fun when intended to make someone angry is wrong."
"..making fun of someone's religion s going to make them angry."
You are presuming intent.
And lots of religious people have fun with religion. They're not all uptight about others' fun or beliefs.
What about what I believe?
There were a lot of people who got "angry" when slavery was abolished. Those angry people were undoubtedly religious. I couldn't possibly care any less that Christians get angry when people speak the truth.
Meursault killed a person on the beach.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=NK3L6ccMQ4U&feature=related
Akezys @ 90
Takuan posted GodEaters without any connection to a Christian god. Antinous saw the connection between the phrase and transubstantiation, and pointed it out humourously.
Catholics who believe in transsubstantiation actually believe they are eating the body of Christ. Is it that far a stretch to connect the two unrelated ideas?
As to the idea of religion being used or invented as a tool for oppression, like it or not, that is a sociological / theological opinion.
Argue it, but don't dare tell people they can't think it or discuss it. You don't own religion.
Arkizzle,
The game you're playing, pretending what you're doing is without malice, may be a way around directly breaking rules defined in BB's moderation policy, but we all know what Takuan and you are doing. I think you're doing it lightheartedly and I'm not bothered by it, but Takuan is definitely doing it to poke fun at religion in general. Doing so with the knowledge that religious people will read it and be made angry by it is wrong.
Also, to be completely fair:
Any problems you have with comments or inflammatory posts, can be flagged for the Mods to take a look at.
That is what the "look at this" eyeball at the top of each post is for. You are encouraged to use it for these purposes.
(spam also, if you are interested)
I couldn't possibly care any less that Christians get angry when people speak the truth.
ELSMILEY, I agree with you 100% and I haven't said anything about the truth making people angry. If the truth makes someone angry, that's their problem. Honestly, I haven't been made angry by anything posted here, I just think that many of the off-topic comments made here were made specifically to anger people. I think people can talk about religion honestly without trying to piss each other off.
you presume much Tom, rest assured, your faith will be chewed and savoured, the bones discarded and any essence extracted just as all others are so processed. No fear or favour, just me. Munch, munch, munch. The petty emotions of adherents don't even add spice, it's the tenets and dogma I digest. Besides, I know for an absolute fact that there are "religious people" who enjoy the process.
#98 Arkizzle, I don't want to flag a comment. I'd like to think inflammatory comments posted in a religious thread would be caught just as in any thread.
And by the way, no hard feelings :) Honestly, nothing here has bothered me - but I can see how a lot of it would bother most religious people.
Tom, I hope I am coming to a place in my understanding of beliefs and religions that is more engaging and less offensive. I don't attach that baggage to the word supernatural and apologize for a lack of vocabulary; to me the word metaphysical brings up images of crystal rubbers surrounded by fairies. For my money, supernatural is just everything that requires belief without evidence. And no, I don't accept our existence as evidence of the supernatural.
The first question, is did a god or a universe spontaneously self create. Since there is no answer to this question, I prefer to keep things simple and do not believe in gods, in the supernatural.
The next question is would we believe in the supernatural if our parents, along with a reinforcing society, had not implanted these beliefs in our minds before we were able to decide for ourselves. This question includes another question, how much of our capacity for belief is the result of evolution. For tens of thousands of years we have systematically removed from society those who refuse to conform to religious belief. Fortunately, many of us have successfully hidden our disbelief, so that today there is still a relatively large group of people immune to these unfounded beliefs.
At any rate, I see the problem not as what we believe, but the exploitation of our capacity for belief. The details of what you or anyone else believes are unimportant; the problem is the false assumption that these beliefs are The Answer. There is no answer to the question our existence presents. Our existence is a mystery. Gaia is not the Earth, but the Universe.
These questions are "Curiosity's Burden".
My hope is we recognize this dilemma and accept the fact that contrary to thousands of years of religious doctrine and scientific discovery, we still don't know a damn thing and that to continue arguing over our religious differences is foolish. Religion is divisive; hence, the large number of competing sects in every major religion. We should consign religion to the dustbin of history. Religions rob us of our achievements. Religion assigns to god all that is good and to man all the is evil. This is the essence of original sin.
I have finally recognized people will not relinquish their belief in gods. Therefore, my goal is to remove religions from our lives, to separate religious beliefs and the belief in god, to separate religion and spirituality; to dispel the false idea that religion is the arbiter of right and wrong, but is instead dangerous and divisive.
In other words, I propose removing the middleman. My hope is that my ideas are seen as liberating people from dogma and giving them a direct relationship with their belief in gods, independent of religious leadership. If indeed these things are true, that gods exist, why then do we need a religion to act as liaison? Religion should be recognized as superfluous to belief in god and spirituality. Religions should finally be recognized for what they are dangerous and divisive. Fellowship is what we need, religion is what we got.
Religions have killed more people than they have saved, because religions have never saved anyone, we save ourselves. We must believe in ourselves. We must understand we alone are responsible for our own salvation, our own enlightenment. This is what they don't want us to understand. This is what they don't want us to believe. Having faith in our own ability is blasphemy. When we no longer depend on religions, they are out of a job.
By removing religions from our lives, we will finally be reunited. Only then will we remember we are all the same, we are all asking the same questions, we are all seeking the same understanding, whether we believe in gods or not.
Cicada @ #60:
[BLOCKQUOTE]After all, if I decide to kick a beggar to death rather than feed him, why should I think this is a bad thing if not for some concept of sin?[/BLOCKQUOTE]
I have never in my life had a concept of sin, yet I know that violence is wrong. Is the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell really the only thing that keeps you from committing violence against your fellow man?
The sad truth, my handsome friends, is that we're all wrong on some points, because none of us really knows what happened or what is happening. We're all guessing, being blind to what lies beyond this prison of Time that we are locked inside of. The countless occurances of ESP, of ghost sightings and inexplicable events proves that. we all have the right to be wrong. Wisdom begins when one realizes how little he really knows.
"Takuan is definitely doing it to poke fun at religion in general."
Poking fun at religion-in-general is entirely OK. Not a problem at all. It is a concept, belonging to all of us as human beings.
It's the same as making fun of sports-in-general or war-in-general. People may be heavily invested in any of them, but nobody owns them, or should feel the right to jealously guard them as taboo. I understand people can be offended about things like this, but they are choices, like anything else.
I am not playing a game. You think I'm not 'getting' (or outright evading) the notion you are spelling out. I am getting it, but I am asserting my right to engage in the culture of which I am a part, without the fear of someone taking undue offense.
As to Takuan's intent, I couldn't possibly comprehend the workings of that curse'd affliction's neurons.
Tom @ 101
This isn't a 'religious' thread. Its a thread about hatemail, the man who received it and the people who sent it. Anything else is gravy.
Also, Tom:
No hard feelings too :)
Tom Hale: I think what you said about peoples' blanket comments is true. But still, allowing ourselves to become too emotionally upset by what other people say, especially about religion or politics, is a weakness that we need to overcome (I try).
nom nom nom
Thanks Takuan - I was forced to finally look up nom nom nom. I learned a new word today! Something good did come from this discussion, other than giving you something to do. Thank goodness you've learned to harness those skills and use them in a positive and creative manner.
Hah! :)
Man created the idea of "positive" just as he created the idea of good and evil. People can create their own morals. Very few people have died because of Existentialism or Buddhism. How many entire races have been obliterated because of the christian concept that they are "right"?
Takuan: have you considered abandoning your silly little faith and worshiping the Golden Monkey? The Golden Monkey has the dual advantages of being both Golden and Monkey. You can't beat a deal like that!
"Very few people have died because of Existentialism or Buddhism."
I fear the future hordes of secular humanists at the gates. Think of the possible horrors...
FoetusNail 67: Belief in gods is a belief in the supernatural.
Depends on your definition of 'believe in', 'gods', and 'supernatural'. For example, if I "believe in" gods in the way that I believe in fondant funnels (that is, that fondant funnels are useful things that I wouldn't care to do without), and my definition of 'gods' is "personifications of aspects of the barely-understood universe, often with traditional names, used as metaphorical constructs in a particular non-ordinary mental state of limited duration," and my definition of 'supernatural' is "operating outside, or in direct contradiction to, known physical and logical laws," then my "belief in" "gods" isn't at all a "belief in the supernatural," now is it?
I'm not just playing word games here. The above is pretty much my position. And lest you think I'm picking on you, I'm mostly in agreement with what you say; this particular statement bugged me because it assumes a lot of definitions that are not shared by the participants in this conversation; certainly I don't share ones that would make it a true statement.
General question for everyone: What on Earth do you mean by "believe in," anyway? Some people mean "trust," as in "A lot of people believed in Bernie Madoff, and he betrayed them," others mean "accept on faith the existence of," others mean "choose to behave as if [the thing believed in] is real." Other definitions are in use as well, but just using the verb without defining it leads to talking at cross-purposes, which is the typical (and ultimately useless) outcome of these kinds of conversations.
How is God Eating different from
tactical divinicide by Christian missionaries?
love them liddle jesuits
jesuits is wot I eet
gnaw theys liddle heds off
chew on they tiny feet
What about the Happy Golden Monkey? Superior to your false idol in every way.
Happy + Golden + Monkey
Touché, I think (until you add a word, or stop finding this funny).
Turns out religious one-up-man-ship can be fun!
Buddy66: True! They will harbor no guilt or fear of divine retribution!
oh wait, wrong meme
Up in the air, Junior Bird Man!
Up in the air, Bird Man true!
Up in the air, Junior Bird Man!
Keep your eyes up in the blue! (Up in the blue!)
And when you hear that grand announcement,
Then we will all have wings of tin.
And you can bet your Junior Bird Men
Will send their boxtops in!
It takes just 4 boxtops, 6 bottle bottoms,
3 wrappers, 2 coupons,
And one thin dime!
Theophagia is common to Christianity and Wicca, just for two data points. Some Christians believe the bread and wine turn into the body and blood of Christ, and others that the Holy Spirit is present in the host/bread/rice cracker/whatever; either way, it's theophagia. Wiccans believe the God (please note the article there) is physically manifest in grain and grape, so no transubstantiation is needed; we eat the God whenever we eat.
Not Hinduism though. I did a major ooops once when I suggested making a chocolate Ganesh-ji filled with (sorry) Ganesh ganache. "He's a god! You don't eat him!" exclaimed the very nice Hindu woman I was talking to. When you assume...
I don't know much about other religions vis-a-vis god-eating, but I suspect it's rather common.
Xopher so doesn't want to give up his BELIEF that he breaks out his thesaurus. How quaint. Sorry to tell you, but you're going to die anyway---AND THERE'S NOTHING AFTER! Wait. I want to rephrase that. Let me get my dictionary...
How ridiculous and sophomoric. Of course a belief in god is a belief in the supernatural. It's the very epitome of it.
TroofSeeker "The countless occurances of ESP,"
That nonetheless, fail to be repeatable in any meaningful sense, and generally work best when no one is looking too closely. And by that I mean that I can totally bend spoons with my mind.
"...of ghost sightings..."
Ever seen something (that your mind identified as one thing) then looked closer (and have it turn out to be another)? The mind is good at filling in gaps, but it's hardly infallible.
Ever had a hypnopompic hallucination? I have. They're awesome. Then you blink and it's over. Weird things happen during the dreamstate to wakefullness transition (and its opposite).
"...and inexplicable events proves that."
Everything used to be inexplicable. Being ignorant (not in the pejorative sense) of how something works does not mean that it's supernatural. It also does not mean that it's not supernatural. All it really proves is that you don't know.
alas, the Golden Monkey has already enjoyed a Lecterian feast with me. His expressions were most amusing as I worked thorough the layers. The gods-Eaters are ever hungry though and thank you for your offering. A crust can be gleaned from most every faith - well save the already-used food like $cientology; feh! Some think a wrapper covers EVERYTHING! Plus you have to pick out the parasites.
arkizzle "What about the Happy Golden Monkey? Superior to your false idol in every way. Happy + Golden + Monkey"
Ah, but you've made a simple, elementary mistake. The Golden Monkey, by definition, is happy.
Monkey + Golden = Happy
See? It mathematelogical!
ElSmiley, did you actually read what I wrote? Try again, because nothing I wrote implies that I believe there's anything after death (other than the memories of people my life has touched, and cremation), and in fact I do not. Sometimes I try to, but mostly I fail.
And did you miss the bit about metaphors? When I say "praise be to Aesculapios!" I mean something much closer to "I'm sure glad there are EMTs and doctors" than "hooray for this mysterious force that healed you while a bunch of EMTs and doctors happened to be present."
Takuan "alas, the Golden Monkey has already enjoyed a Lecterian feast with me."
Bastard! We were this close to getting tax-exempt status!
Dear, Dear Xopher(bless your sharp, extra-terrestrial digging spurs and venom-throwing chelae!), the gods-Eaters uniformly pulverize and dissolve every aspect of every god consumed down to component quanta. Gross structures like thought- systems do not survive the process. That is how we continue to exist, to progress, to consume and to ultimately conquer all gods; we just eat 'em! I suppose some like to hang around back and try to make sense of the poop, but it takes all kinds....
I might add, ElSmiley, that you have a narrow definition of 'religion'. Not every religion is a system of beliefs where you "either believe or don't." Sometimes the practices are more important than the beliefs, as in Buddhism and some forms of Judaism; sometimes the religion has no qualifying beliefs (i.e. beliefs without which you can't call yourself that religion) at all, as in Wicca.
Clearly this whole evolution/Creation conflict was just made up to distract us while our real enemies have their way with us. Life on Earth is simply a giant sweatshop, built by the slavemasters, Big Mitochondria and Big Chlorophyll.
re. 57 POSTED BY PYOTA
The same way you "know" which music moves you- if it does, in some sense it's "true" for you. The legalistic concept of "proof" is as irrelevant in this context as it would be in trying to prove which music is best. Each religion can be a particular insight, without being exclusive. If you are compelled to foist your beliefs onto to others (as opposed to sharing them); if you insist you have the only true path, you are being tribal, not religious.
67, FOETUSNAIL
Mine isn't-
If God is the concept- a model, in scientific terms- you use to discuss the entirety of being, the matrix in which the universe exists, then it is no more "supernatural" than a symphony or a painting. And there can be no conflict with science or logic. It's another way of seeing the world symbolically. And our brains can only think in symbols.
Down to the linguistic level, we pair phonemes to create contrasting sounds, and learn to distinguish the ones that are used in the language we learn as a child. Other distinctions we stop hearing- it doesn't mean they are not there. We get great power from this focus, just as we get great power and insight from science. Religion, liturgy, music, poetry, painting, are all means to symbolically reconnect with the whole of being, to re-integrate the whole of experience.
This of course does not mean following some sky-figure who manipulates us and will punish us if we don't follow the rules- I believe we're on our own, except that there is value to our seeing ourselves as part of a larger whole.
re. 62, ROBULUS, 63, CICADA
Humans evolved and succeeded in large part because they learned to cooperate socially. Our "tribe" has been getting larger over millennia. It's pretty easy to make an evolutionary argument that explains the benefits of ethical treatment of others.
But that's not what "sin" means in Christian theology. Sin is not about violating the rules- however much the fundamentalists try to make it so. Sin is about tearing the fabric of community. This concept was laid out clearly in the Parable of the Good Samaritan- when Jesus was asked "who is my neighbor?" A man was robbed, near death, stripped (so his ethnicity or tribe could not be identified). A passing priest would not help him, for fear of becoming "unclean" (violating religious rules). Ditto the Levite, for similar reasons. The passing Samaritan helps him without asking questions- and if this were told today, the Samaritan would be someone conventionally religious people would have nothing to do with- a drag queen, or a criminal. The point being, your "neighbor" your community, is everybody. And the rule keepers "sinned" by keeping the rules.
It's worth notion that the word in the New Testament that gets translated as "salvation" has the connotation of healthfulness, or well-being, NOT rescue- and that it is always used in the continuative tense, i.e. an ongoing process.
mmm if "theophagy" is a legitimate term of scholarship,so then must be "theofellatio" hein?
Brother Modus!!
Rejoice the day! For are not our gods, one in the same? A bountiful day is upon us, for now we number two strong!
A doubling of our ranks, a call to fraternity! We...
Oh.
l just noticed that Takuan ate him, again. Psheeew..
MODUS OPEERENDI- as long as I've got you up in my grille, yeah, I've seen lots of weird stuff. Even astral projection, out-of-body and such. I quite agree: most of it is mind tricks and illusions. Most people see ghosts because they're expecting to.
When I was a kid a friend and I walked into his room, each carrying a plate bearing cake and a fork. My fork fell off the plate and froze, mid-air, for a second, then fell to the floor. "Did you see that?!" I asked. "Your fork stopped in the air!" Cliff replied. My theory: a ripple in time. What I know for sure is that I don't know for sure. These people, religious or anti, are locking out the truth when they insist that they know it.
So
nom nom nom
is the new word for disenchantment/reenchantment
nom
nom nom
nom nom
nom nom
nom nom
nom nom
nom nom
nom
@People in general who get offended when people make fun of their religions:
People who brag about their religious beliefs and how they make them happy and good people, honestly should get a fine. Keep your irrational and personal beliefs to yourselves please!
Yes you are free to think and believe whatever you want. But religion should stay as private as sexuality is.
So when people make fun about your religion, or even attack it, it's because it didn't stay a private belief in the first place.
And on top of it, it's a totally legitimate thing to make fun of institutions who praise the existence of supernatural beings(lol). It's even nice to make fun of them compared to what they deserve, when you think about all the atrocities they caused and still cause.
re. 73, STICKARM
There are reasons, and there are rationalizations. It's my belief- and I think there is a lot of evidence for this, going back to animal studies- that wars are mostly economic- power, territory, and money. Most "religious" wars would have been fought absent religion, that just formed the most expedient motivator. The argument that religion causes wars is an example of a complex cause fallacy. Not at all- I don't think the Nazis were atheistic, just secular and ideological, and they certainly persecuted on the basis of religion as well as ethnicity and ideology- I'm only claiming that these examples did not have an explicit religious rationalization at their core. I don't think there is any reason to believe that secular nations are any worse that explicitly religious ones, and lots of evidence that they are better. I'm a huge believer in the separation of church and state. As I've said, the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity was it's being made the state religion of Rome.ALL powerful human symbols- religious, ethnic, tribal, and nationalistic- are very dangerous when they get confused with power.
Xopher: That's why anyone who knows anything about Buddhism does not consider it a religion. It's just a way of life. The Noble Eight-fold Path is simply a prescription for reducing the suffering in you life. What I meant was, for example, that I cannot simply "choose" to believe that some guy rose from the dead a couple thousand years ago and that this book that they "believe" in was the creation of some guy from the fourth dimension.
Wicca believes in supernatural crap. Existentialism and Buddhism do not.
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." The Dalai Lama said that. I'd like to see a christian or a muslim say the same.
All I know is over the years I have learned to not admit I'm an atheist at work or in front of people I don't know well. People WILL judge you, whether they say it to your face or not. It's just one more form of bigotry, so don't give me that "let's all get along" bullshit. Religious people wiped out my heritage (Native American) and they still persecute me for my beliefs.
Go hide your head in the sand and believe that christians and aetheists can be friends. They effed that up a long time ago.
when asked your religion, just smile and go: nom nom nom.
Just happens to be the quote on Quotes of the Day, on my iGoogle:
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg
I reject the idea that religion is ever a force for good, even when it's practiced with so-called "tolerance" or "moderation". Moderate religion is the fertile soil that allows extremism and fundamentalism to grow.
Once one has conditioned their mind to accept beliefs without any empirical support, it leaves them susceptible to all manner of destructive ideologies. These beliefs are then bolstered by the universal human longing for one's consciousness to survive beyond the death of the body. This of course is wishful thinking at it's worst.
The vitriol lobbed at Attenborough (and all atheists to one degree or another) springs directly from the nagging doubt in the back of many believers minds and reminds them that their vaunted beliefs are in fact baseless, which in turn makes them very uncomfortable.
re. 140 ELSMILEY
OK- I'm a Christian, and I believe that as science has proven beliefs held by Christians wrong, Christianity has changed.
Greed and racism wiped out your heritage. Religion was a kind of sick rationalization used to justify evil. You can't get from the Sermon on the Mount to ethnic cleansing.Not enough, and there are still a lot of holdouts (the letter writers being prime examples), but it's possible to find much of value in Christian teaching that in no way contradicts science. I don't believe in any "supernatural crap". It's symbolic, poetic language, not meant to be taken literaly. If you strip away all the power related BS that has been tacked on over the years, and all the fear mongering put in to control people, Christianity and Buddhism are very near to each other. Not, I admit, as practiced and understood by the bulk of people today. But it's not fair to use the figures like the Dali Lama as a source for Buddhist teaching, and fundamentalist political hacks like Pat Robertson et. al. as your source for Christianity. Note that thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin have nearly always been ostracized by the (institutional) church. Katharine Jefferts Schori, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is an Oceanographer.
Just as Jesus hung out with the social outcasts and got into trouble with the religious authorities, I find I have more in common with thoughtful atheists than with the typical self-identified Christian. I don't enjoy closed minded people, whatever the label they give themselves.
For good people to do evil things only takes politics. It only requires a different mindset. If it only required religion we would have had a good reason to give it up a long long time ago. And in a galaxy far far away.
Credit where credit is due.
jesus? I remember him. Sweet, but needed salt.
there are many things i do not understand about the world and my faith, but this is what i do understand:
Jesus loves me this i know for the bible tells me so, little ones to him belong they are weak as he is strong.
yes, Jesus loves me.
YES! Jesus loves ME!
YES, JESUS LOVES ME!
the bible tells me so.
A) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujUQn0HhGEk
B) The idea that science is incapable of understanding, or denies love, music, ect., is depressingly narrow minded and a sign of nothing more than the limits of your own imagination.
C) "Honestly, nothing here has bothered me - but I can see how a lot of it would bother most religious people." Your mild concern trolling is noted and obnoxious.
D) Defining 'god' as something so meaningless as 'everything' is pointless and gets in the way of meaningful discussion. On a more social level, it gives shelter to the most despicable kinds. Please stop diluting the meaning of any controversial word in an attempt to appear magnanimous.
E) NOM NOM NOM
OceanConcepts
"You can't get from the Sermon on the Mount to ethnic cleansing."
But you can get from the Old Testament to ethnic cleansing. In about one step.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/massacre_of_jericho/jos06_01.html
To some of those arguing that being religious/being non-religious makes you a nicer person -- you must have had a big stack of failcakes for breakfast. Exemplifying your own beliefs is the first line of philosophical defense.
Regarding kicking the beggar: Evolutionists could argue that it's evolutionarily advantageous to neutralize the weakest members of the pack before they consume any more resources; Calvinists would say that the beggar is dying in the gutter because it's predestined by God and abusing him is aligning with God's will. In practice, they'd both just be excuses for acting like a dick. How can you determine if religion or non-religion are bad if you base your argument on examples of them being used as alibis for other motives?
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=CYzRL9YIswQ
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=c0RZSoUj9wc
@Elsmiley
So what about reincarnation?
@Oceanconcepts:
I don't believe in any "supernatural crap". It's symbolic, poetic language, not meant to be taken literaly.
That pretty much makes you a non-believer... so you're not really a follower of a religious doctrine, but more somebody who appreciates some of the values transmitted by the bible. But they are universal values that many other religions try to transmit too. So there's no real reason for you to call yourself a Christian, only a cultural reason I guess.
My question is, why do you call yourself a Christian?
(In my above post #138 I meant preach instead of praise of course, sry)
How can you determine if religion or non-religion are bad if you base your argument on examples of them being used as alibis for other motives?
...as alibis OR as inspirations.
Either way it's just trying to explain yourself to yourself* without holding yourself directly responsible. Any story will do if you want to be fooled. Faeries, resurrection, enlightenment... it's all the same.
*(or to others, whom you might convince to varying degrees to listen to you, or maybe follow you, tithe to you, even fight in your name)
Failix, the phrase you are looking for is: Secular Christian
As coined (for me, anyway) by Buddy66 in this thread.
@Elsmiley
Jeez dude. More like "Elfrowny" (see what I did there?
You say: "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change." The Dalai Lama said that. I'd like to see a christian or a muslim say the same.
You mean the 14th reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. Science hasn't yet disproved that rather beautiful construct.
Catholic schools, like many other Christian schools teach evolution and a standard science curriculum, with additional religious studies neatly separate, at least in my part of the world. The Church openly ackowledges that genesis and much of the bible is figurative.
It was Georges Lemaître, a catholic priest, who argued against Einstien, (another "sophomore" as you say) that the universe was expanding.
And so on.
@ #51 (bardfinn)
"markmarkmark: Yeah, priests are /just like scientists/: Priests cured polio, found treatments for AIDS/HIV, developed vaccines, and markedly increased life expectancy and quality of life through their work.
Oh. Wait."
Gregor Mendel was a Catholic monk (father of genetics). Georges Lemaître, (Big Bang theory) was a Catholic priest. Might also want to read about this guy.
Just sayin'.
@#139 Oceanconcepts
The idea that religious wars were fundamentally about power, territory and money doesn't change the fact that they were religious wars. The Crusades were, ostensibly, about territory, but the value of the territory in question arose from religious beliefs. The Crusades would not have been the same absent this "expedient motivator" and trying to examine an alternate reality in which religion never existed doesn't seem fruitful.
You're correct that the argument "Religion Causes Wars" is a least difficult and probably impossible (much as arguing that all religious wars were frauds, actually). That isn't the argument here, though. What we're saying is a much weaker claim -- wars have been fought on the basis of religious differences.
That's it. Lots and lots of wars have been fought over differences in religious beliefs. Many of those wars probably had other factors involved and in modern history we have clearer examples of wars fought over completely different issues. The fact remains, though, that religion has been a major element of the wars fought over the course of human history.
So let's disarm that element of the conflicts. Let's make religion a subject that people can discuss as easily as they would other personal choices, like their choice of political party or their favorite sports team. Let's open religion up for criticism! Let's allow for the discussion to offend, specifically in an effort to get beyond this sticking point of human interaction. We'd all like to do the same with the factors that give rise to horrors like ethnic cleansing, right? So let's all stop being so sensitive. Let's all make fun of these things! Take them down! Tear them down!
Om nom nom nom, indeed!
go jeebus!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Mi9hP0F1HUc&feature=related
just a shot away
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=LJMnES7WoT4
ElSmiley 140: Xopher: That's why anyone who knows anything about Buddhism does not consider it a religion.
Oh, I see: you're just a narrowminded bigot. Only YOUR definition of religion counts as a "real" religion, no matter what the people who actually practice it may say.
Wicca believes in supernatural crap.
A narrowminded bigot who is now going to tell me what my religion believes, despite the fact that I told you above what I believe, and that there's nothing supernatural about it, and that I'm Wiccan. And despite the fact that, since Wicca has no qualifying beliefs, you could start being Wiccan tomorrow (if any coven would have you, which would surprise me greatly—actually you could be a solitary even without anyone wanting to be in the same room with you) without changing your beliefs (about the world and its nature) one whit.
It's just one more form of bigotry, so don't give me that "let's all get along" bullshit.
And you're practicing yet another. And if you think I've been saying "let's all get along" your reading comprehension needs work.
Religious people wiped out my heritage (Native American) and they still persecute me for my beliefs.
They were also mostly white people. Do you hate white people for that reason? If a redheaded kid stole your bike when you were 4, would you hate all redheads now? And please explain to me what role Wiccans or Buddhists or Baha'is or Hindus or Moslems played in the process of wiping out Native Americans, or any justification (other than the bigotry you're so amply demonstrating here) for lumping them in with the "good Christians" who actually did so.
CobraTronik 143: I reject the idea that religion is ever a force for good...Once one has conditioned their mind to accept beliefs without any empirical support...
I tell you, it's to cry. There are religions that involve no such conditioning. Yet you assume all do, because that's all you've experienced. Your narrowness of experience, contra Hegel, does not constrain the world. In other words, "there are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: saying "religion" when you really mean "Christianity, Judaism, and Islam" is like saying "restaurants" when you really mean "McDonalds, Burger King, and Wendy's."
nom nom nom...a-nom
http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/385px-Pac_Man.svg.png
#118 Takuan: Kliban called. He wants his poem back.
busted! mousies was the original. I plead banjo defense.
forgive mighty Kliban! I abase myself!
http://www.cdaccess.com/jpg/shared/front/large/eatcatmp.jpg
My question is, why do you call yourself a Christian?
Calling myself a Christian is as much about how Christ suggested YOU live as how he suggested I live. Don't like that I call myself Christian? Confess it to someone else who claims you have the exclusive right to use the word. Anyway, why does it matter what I call myself? You afraid I'm gonna try to steal some of that glory? Sneak into heaven with your passport?
Better question. Why do some Christians call other Christians "Christians"? (with emphasis on the disparaging quote marks). Not that anyone here did so, but it's a fair question. Why are Mormons (or Catholics for that matter, say ~40 years ago) less Christian than other branches of the faithful? Why are Unitarians such pariah's within a nation they largely founded?
I call myself a Christian because Jesus was way cool and set a pretty good example. Certainly a better example then most of the people who call other people out in his name.
Kliban appears from the mists, towering over the pathetic tentacled blob that is Takuan, who cowers and weeps and begs for forgiveness. Kliban, implacable and pitiless, scoops him up and swallows him whole.
KLIBAN: MMM. Takosushi, nom nom nom.
eeeep!
Gee. I'd've let you off with three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys.
Takuan "mmm if "theophagy" is a legitimate term of scholarship,so then must be "theofellatio" hein?"
Or TheoHuxtable.
"http://www.thebricktestament.com/joshua/massacre_of_jericho/jos06_01.html"
Breaking News: Joshua leads Israelite Defense Force to victory
arkizzle"l just noticed that Takuan ate him, again. Psheeew.."
It was full of chocolate, apparently. Well, not full. It turned out to be one of those shitty hollow chocolate idols.
TroofSeeker "What I know for sure is that I don't know for sure."
And that is the ideal scientific reply. Curious and reasonably certain, but with room for doubt and openness - even if it's with reluctance - to change.
Xopher "And despite the fact that, since Wicca has no qualifying beliefs, you could start being Wiccan tomorrow"
Do I get magic panties? I only join groups that get magic underwear.
What I mean by believe in gods, is holding a belief in an extra-celestial, supernatural sentient being responsible for the creation of this universe from whom all blessings flow, before whom believers prostrate themselves in fear and devotion, and to whom believers pray for good fortune and beg forgiveness. The god who created all suffering and to whom we promise our love to be given the strength to endure this suffering.
We miss paganism. Life was a lot easier to explain when we could blame it on a malevolent god when things went bad, and in good times we could praise a benevolent god for making them good. If our god turned out to be more crap than candy, we could trade him in for another one.
For instance, when the Hebrews kept getting their asses whipped they dumped their crap god and started singing the praises of YHWH, a young Midianite storm god playing with his thunderbolts on the flanks of Mt. Horeb. Things went better, for the most part, until they pissed him off and then they got locusts and droughts and unsightly boils and stuff. They came close to dumping him a couple of times, but they toughed it out.
It was a good thing too.
Because YHWH was a jealous god. He got so pissed off at his former patrons because they held other gods before him, shuffling gods like a deck of cards, that he led the Jews into battle against Midian and laid waste to the land and its people. He genocided them, if I can be excused a grammatical neologism; rubbed them out completely.
We took a wrong turn when we got on the monotheism highway. We could no longer appeal to one god to right the wrongs of another, or put him (or her) out with the trash and get a newer, better one. We were stuck with one, only one, for good or ill, for good...or evil. And therein is found the problem.
Our god had to be both good AND evil, if we are to account for both the hummingbird that delights the child, and the devouring worm in the child's eye. And how are we, poor sad mortal things, expected to worship a raving fucking lunatic?
I miss the gods. Although I am a secular Christian, I am no monotheist. I am a compassionate pagan.
"I only join groups that get magic underwear."
> List -group all -class 'magic_panties';
> ..
magic panties? I could get behind magic panties. What exactly are you offering?
Arkizzle: Sikhism (I quit after the iron bracelet gave me a rash), Mormonism (I quit after visiting the Salt Lake temple and discovering, much to my chagrin, that it didn't have an open bar).
A question for anyone who identifies as Christian.
Is there a cultural difference (or divide, maybe) between those Christians who actively believe in the devil, and those who don't?
That may sound like a strange question, but I know lots of people who believe in god, and are from a Christian-normative society, but who don't for a second believe in a devil. And of course there are Christians who do believe in one, so i wonder on what kind of lines the different views divide themselves.
Hmm.. we may need to incorporate your findings. Show me your head.
*rummage*
I prayed to Google and got:
http://images.google.com/images?q=magic%20panties&sourceid=navclient-ff&rls=GGGL,GGGL:2006-32,GGGL:en&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
Google is a better, more responsive god
I'm not sure what I believe, it varies with my mood - I believe there's some sort of life after death. I don't think god would be mean enough to make someone stay in an everlasting hell.
The idea of angels and devils sounds cool. Kind of like the ones in the movie Constantine. That would be awesome.
Google does provide answers. Many, many answers, that you have to sift through to find your own truth.. but answers none-the-less. Wow, that's uncanny.
Hmm.
Our Google, who art in Mountain View,
Hallowed be thy rankings.
Thy network come.
Thy searches be done,
On dial-up, as they are on broadband.
Give us this result, our daily searches.
And forgive us our typos,
as we forgive those who spam unto us.
And lead us not into malware,
and Don't Be Evil.
Pagerank.
Buddy66 - And how are we, poor sad mortal things, expected to worship a raving fucking lunatic?
You mean after we step away from the mirror?
Did someone mention magic panties?
To Xopher at 164:
Please allow me to clarify. While it's true that my comments were directed primarily toward the "big 3" monotheistic religions, I still stand behind my point that religion is not a force for good.
I suppose it would be fair to say that some of the other major world religions are at best harmless, although I question the value of indulging in mystical or pseudo-scientific beliefs when science has provided a much better (and far more accurate) means of understanding the universe.
Buddy, I generally enjoy the hell out of your posts, and this last one is stellar!
FYI, some Wiccans practice "skyclad", as in the nude.
@Arkizzle
Well I'm not pretending to be representative of Christianity in any conventional form (although judging by this thread, maybe I am?), but I would say there are vast yawning chasms of difference between how different groups of Christians use the concept of the Devil.
Certainly at my Church there is absolutely zero reference to the Devil, and if his name started popping up the parishioners would run a mile. Its sort of Catholicism lite, Vatican 2.5, if you like.
The use of terms like "evil", invoking the Christian concept of the Devil, for political expediency, such as used by former President Bush, is particularly abhorent to me, as are the groups of assholes who stand around picketing with "F*gs burn in hell" signs.
Jesus would hate that shit, so would Mohammad, Buddha, and all the great prophets worth listening to.
I guess the concept has some power as a Jungian archetype, but abuse of the idea has diminished its usefulness a great deal. Darth Vader works better now.
And Arkizzle, yours is inspired by the invisible spider-bot from whom all knowledge flows.
Thanks Robulus.
You seem to be describing the sort of Christians I tend to meet over here, too. I suppose they are mostly Anglican, Church of England..
Rational about most of the same stuff I am, not particularly loopy :)
I was brought up Methodist and Baptist and am now a member of Church of Christ, which is probably one of the most old fashioned and strict churches around. I blend in pretty well while I'm there.
It's funny, I know so little about the differences in the various Churches of Christianity.. beyond Catholic and Protestant, (and Mormons and Evangelicals, now that I think of them).
Foet'
The Benevolent spider-bot, I hope. And not the SADwyw spider.
Anybody remember that shit?
Tom, if you don't mind my asking, is there much Devil-reference in your Church?
Nail, remember this?
If God is God
He is not good.
If God is good
he is not God.
It hit me hard when I was fourteen or so. Our village atheist was quite fond of it.
Oh yeah - its as written in the Bible. If you don't follow every detail on the instruction sheet - you win eternal damnation and get to spend eternity swimming in a lake of fire! (said in a game show announcer's voice)
LOL verse, Arky!
Mountain View. How apt.
Wow, and is that a part of your own beliefs?
My last was @ Tom.
Buddy, recite it when you feel lost in this world of infinite information. When the questions seem more plentiful than answers. And when you need the reassurance of just a single definitive answer, GoogleWhack.
Also pertinently, with Maps and Earth, Google is gaining Omniscience.
@Arkizzle
Cheers! When I grew up my only experience of Christianity was Robert Schuller's Hour of Power and people who bugged me in the street trying to witness.
Like you, I was very shocked to meet Christians who were apparently normal and capable of critical thought!
Arkizzle,
About the Devil: My wife will type the rest of this post(and trust me, she knows).
The so-called devil was once a high-ranking angel in Heaven. His name is Lucifer. He started a rebellion against God and God threw him out of Heaven into a place that was originally called a pit but came to be called Hell. Lucifer's anger and spite toward God built up until he finally became actually what we call evil. Lucifer's transition to evil can somewhat (actually, very loosely) be compared to a person who blows up a small slight in their mind into a much larger "mountain out of a molehill" type of thing to the point that they become a serial killer because they didn't get the batman figure they wanted on their 5th birthday. There is a lot more to be said on the subject, but I'm not sure whether I've already given you "too much info" already.
Note: My wife is very religious, but doesn't shove it in anyone's face. She's never read Boing Boing and has never posted in a forum. She isn't interested in getting into a theological argument, but will happily answer any direct questions.
#198 Arkizzle- No -that's what I was taught. Like I said above, I don't think god would be mean enough to make someone stay in an everlasting hell.
tom, have you ever read the babylonian texts? written 3-5k yrs before the heberew bible, it is pretty much, with a few exceptions, the old testament. one of those exeptions being the fact that they had godesses as well as a small panoply of gods. the first known attempt at a one-god religion was the 'forgotton pharoe' amenhotep with the sun god ra as the only god. he is thought to have been the one to introduce the concept to the heberu, who worshipped multiple gods and goddesses at the time. they replaced ra with yhvh, the chief among their pantheon, and discarded all others as 'demons'. about 3 thousand years later, after breaking up into several smaller sects( hahaha, i said 'sects!), the 'jews' as they were now popularily known, were a conquered people under the thumb of rome. one of those splinter groups was a 'messianic' sect, with the one we call 'john the baptist' at their forefront. and, while 'yeshua ben yusef'( jesus) is the one who gets all the glory today, there is NO historic proof of his ever existing, although there is much archeological and historical evidence for the existence of the baptist. the jews needed a messiah. constantine needed something to unify his kingdom. a bright shiny paradise after the hardscrabble shit life these folk led sounded pretty g.d. good. soon, the priests were the only ones with the 'special knowledge' who told their flock what they thought they needed to hear in order to instill the 'fear of god' into them thereby gaining the tithe $$$. rome never really died. they just had to retool after the barbarian invasion. soon the church had 'more money than god'. this inflamed the passions of ol' martin luther ( who was also against the whole 'celebacy' thing) who began the 'protestant' movement. blah, blah. and on, and on. i just find no relevence in my life for a middle eastern tri-god, who is a man, who is a god, who is a man-god-dove, etc... the universe is so much bigger and more diverse than ever dreamed of in that mythology! but i gotta tell ya, christianity, in and of itself, i got no problem with. it's the mthrfckng followers! they have not-a-clue as to where their religion came from, hell, they don't even know their god's real name! and some of the shit those fundie preachers espouse? what horseshit! after the last few elections, i would take away their tax-exempt status! and there u have my 2.5 cents on the xtian religion. please make all donations payable to : the Rt. Rev. Min T. Phresh, c.o. the church of the Clear Light of Infinite Truth. thank u and may you recieve all the good things that you could possibly stand.
And this is one of the problems I have with the Abrahamic god.
He creates Lucifer, who rebels against him, is cast down and spends pretty much all that time since being the ultimate author of every catastrophe, misery and atrocity visited upon the human race. He inspires the evil in the human soul. He nurtures every vicious and vile impulse we possess.
So, knowing all this, at the end of the day we're left with one of two conclusions. Either the Abrahamic god made a mistake in creating Lucifer (supposedly not possible due to the all-knowing, all-powerful thing), or he did it to us on purpose. He created this being in the full knowledge of what would transpire, that this being would actively work to ruin and despoil the creation he supposedly loved. He knew that this being would trick, coerce and bribe people off the right path, condemning them to an eternity of pain and separation.
This isn't a deity worthy of veneration. At best it's merely a human being writ large, combining our worst failings with unlimited ability to act them out. At worst it's a malignant psychopath against whom the only defense is complete grovelling abasement and even that is no guarantee.
minT, I've never read the babylonian texts. I'll wikipedia them or find them somewhere that uses paragraphs. lol paragraphs are our friend.
I think I've made it clear how I feel about religion. I'm not very religious, but was brought up in a very religious family and have gone to church all my life. I just try to be nice and treat people how I'd like to be treated. And, as long as your religion's followers stay outta my face and don't try to convince folks that people like myself need to be eradicated, its fine in my book. Do you accept PayPal?
Tom,
What I don't get is where she gets her info. Doesn't sound like biblical text to me. Or is John Milton now considered one of the gospels?
Although it's okay by me to cite Batman as a possible inspiration for Evil — I'm more of a Superman guy myself.
But I wonder how many Christian sects would remain standing if their beliefs were limited to what Jesus reportedly said?
la la la, skipping along, who cares about old hates, flowers bloom today! "god" who?
@207 Buddy - I'll ask her what parts of the bible that info came from - I'll get back to you on this.
when riding a horse, thusly fleet/two parts of the god i do eat/ that's the body and head/twixt two slices of bread/there's no meat on the tail or the feet
Modus 173: Do I get magic panties? I only join groups that get magic underwear.
If they're magic to you, they're magic.
FoetusNail 174: You do realize that that means your statement at 67 now boils down to "Belief in beings who are, among other things, supernatural, is a belief in the supernatural."
Well, I can't disagree.
Takosushi 177: magic panties? I could get behind magic panties.
I can too, but then I'd pull them down.
Cobra 186: I suppose it would be fair to say that some of the other major world religions are at best harmless, although I question the value of indulging in mystical or pseudo-scientific beliefs when science has provided a much better (and far more accurate) means of understanding the universe.
See, there's a key point. Understanding the universe isn't the only thing going. Religion can provide some experiences that science cannot. For example, I know the scientific explanation for Drawing Down the Moon (a practice I've participated in), but the experience itself is mystical, and trying to keep a scientific mental state during it would block it. The traditional structures around it enable the brain to behave in ways it couldn't in a lab (well, unless it was a very unusual lab).
But then, dancing also provides experiences science cannot. You may not need religion; you may not need to dance. But why belittle people who do?
Tom's Wife 202: The so-called devil was once a high-ranking angel in Heaven. His name is Lucifer. He started a rebellion against God and God threw him out of Heaven into a place that was originally called a pit but came to be called Hell.
Direct question: You do realize that the story you tell here was written by Milton, right? It's not in the Bible. Moreover the only mention of Lucifer in the Bible is a metaphor for a fall from greatness; the literal part is Lucifer-the-light-bringer, so called because it rises just before the Sun some times of the year, i.e. the planet Venus.
Tom 203: I don't think god would be mean enough to make someone stay in an everlasting hell.
Now see? We DO have things in common! That's the key point that turned me off Christianity back in highschool. I didn't know back then that you could be a Christian without believing in eternal torment, and the Missouri Synod Lutherans I encountered back then didn't think so either.
tom, cash is king! remember, you can't take it with you... but with the church of the Clear Light of Infinite Truth (patent pending) YOU CAN SEND IT ON AHEAD!
Tom HaleM "I...am now a member of Church of Christ"
He's got His own church now? Why wasn't I told of this?!
buddy66 "What I don't get is where she gets her info. Doesn't sound like biblical text to me."
Most of the Satan/Hell backstory is extrabiblical. By "extrabiblical", I mean "varies from inspired by a true [Holy] story! to inspired by a dream that a nun with a fever in the 1500s had".
"Or is John Milton now considered one of the gospels?"
Duh. The Gospel of John, no less than three epistles of John & Revelation of Christ to John (with introduction by Bill Cosby). That's four by him and one to him.
"But I wonder how many Christian sects would remain standing if their beliefs were limited to what Jesus reportedly said?"
Even just trying to take the book as a whole (good luck) instead of focussing on the passage or two that lead from conflict to schism to new denomination in the first place.
Xopher "If they're magic to you, they're magic."
That sounds like magic pantyism relatavism to me. Either the panties are magic, or they are not magic.
"For example, I know the scientific explanation for Drawing Down the Moon (a practice I've participated in)"
Have you considered doing that and providing on-screen captioning for the Pentacostals?
"You may not need religion; you may not need to dance. But why belittle people who do?"
Because the "dancers" (not all, but enough), are telling others how they should dance, using goverment to legislate their inerrant and literal view of their dancers book and boards of education to use my tax dollars to push dancing in science class, and abstinence-until waltz only dance-ed class. Also, 40,000,000 other dancers go apeshit when a Danish newspaper publishes cartoons on dancing (and 14,000,000 do the same when, um, Santa names a reindeer Dancer). Beliefs that lead to those actions need to be pointed out, actions that come from those beliefs need to be opposed.
I can't speak for others, but I try to be polite about it. I don't try very hard, but the attempt is there.
Of course, what you or anyone believes in the privacy of their own head, I don't care about. It's none of my business.
MO 213: That sounds like magic pantyism relatavism to me. Either the panties are magic, or they are not magic.
So if you had a wife, she'd be wife to everyone?
Buddy and Xopher re: What my wife said about Satan. She said, read what's on the following link.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/lucifer.html
Note: She doesn't think anything on this link will change anyone's mind about religion and thinks both of you simply want to argue about the subject.
Disclaimer - I don't know if the info on the link is really what the Bible says - But my wife assured me that it is, so -um -there ya go. Take that however you want.
#204 Min T,
Very funny thumbnail summary, Rev.
#210,
Wha's that? Who? Strange scansion. A limerick on the rocks.
xoph, are the magical panties...edible?
@ModusOperandi
I think the ID movement and the push for it to be taught in science classes in the US is a disgrace, and I fully support your argument against ID, against the cynical people driving it and the uninformed people who are going along with them. It's the good fight, and I'm right there with you.
But it doesn't actually follow that you've got open season on every single last Christian. As I've said my Church accepts genesis as figurative, and teaches standard science curriculae in its private schools.
hey buddy. #210 was a lil poem i wrote for takuan's new god-eating cult. it's based on the ratcatcher's mantra: i'm the rat catcher emrys fleet/ two parts of the rat i doth eat/etc... glad you enjoyed "christianity in a nut-shell" soon to be appearing on the history channel!
Tom, note that those Biblical quotes don't name Lucifer at any point. The idea that Lucifer == Satan is entirely Milton's invention.
I don't have time right now to review those passages in context and see if they're really talking about a war in Heaven (which I think is Milton's story too, but I'm less sure of that part). As you know, quoting the Bible out of context is a way to "prove" anything.
'Lucifer' is Latin for light-bearer and refers to the planet Venus. Lucifer is about as biblical as Earendil.
156 FALIX
I'm a believer. I don't take the bible literally, the way fundamentalists do (how can you? it's full of contradictions) but I think symbols are important and meaningful. They are part of how we experience the world- we are not purely rational beings. I know a lot of scientists, and I have never known a single one who was purely and coldly rational- quite the reverse, as most come to science because of a deep curiosity about the world. They love music, poetry, myth, stories, liturgy, and religion as much or more than anyone else.
I think these are universal human values that are common to many religions but each has a different flavor. I'm a believer because I think these symbols are important and valuable to me- they have value for me- YMMV. I'm Christian because I feel connected with Christianity in a way that I don't with other faiths- just as I respond more to Mozart than to Chinese Opera. It's temperament, background, taste or chance. I like the music. It's my cultural tradition. And as a wise man once said, if you want to find water it's better to dig a single deep well than a dozen shallow ones.
My church practices a ritual every Easter (the Paschal Vigil, actually the night before) when new fire is kindled outside and brought into the pitch dark sanctuary. This directly mimics the Roman tradition of extinguishing the hearth fires when mourning a death, then rekindling them after the period of mourning had past. But I'm sure it goes back to the Paleolithic and beyond, it's primal and human and in some way that is deeply moving to me I feel connected to those thousands of years of ancestors. Rational? No more than a symphony. But something happens in that space that I find nowhere else.
161 STICKARM
Well, I think access to trade routes, desire for goods from the East, Pope's lust for power, and a few other issues entered in. Nothing in Christianity demands possession of any land- to the contrary, if they had paid the least attention to Jesus' message the Crusades would never have happened.
I admit I'm cutting this fine- lots of stuff that passes as religion is actively destructive. I'll be first in line to condemn them. I'm arguing that these are not genuinely spiritual, but tribal, ethnic, political or other issues wrapped up in religious symbols. That is kind of definitional on my part, but I'm trying to say not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Sounds great, but how about as easily as music preferences instead. People get pretty violent about politics and sports teams. ;-)
Xopher, I'm not trying to prove anything - I made the mistake of bringing my wife into this. She was really, really willing to help when I asked her for info about Satan. Once I asked, I was pretty much stuck with her input. I don't know if you're married - if you are, you may get where I'm coming from. I did manage to stop her from posting a Lot of bible stuff here - thank God. I told her I would review your response to what she said so far and let her know. I'm going to tell her you're going to talk to a church minister about the subject. You'll never be heard from again - sorry.
OK, can I have another shot at this?
From Princeton's wordnetweb:
From Bartleby.com:
And of course there is always Wikipedia.
Bottom line is most people believe in many things that are not of the natural world. They believe these things are real, but cannot provide any physical proof. Rewards have been offered to anyone who can prove any supernatural or paranormal claim. Those rewards have never been collected. Our natural proclivity for superstitious beliefs, our ability to believe without evidence in things outside of our physical universe is exploited by hustlers and cons who are more commonly known as the clergy. In an effort to protect their jobs they have convinced millions they have some secret knowledge and connection to the supernatural and without their help all will be lost. They keep these people in constant fear. This fear controls their every action at a subconscious level.
At any rate, I have accepted that these people not only will not, but cannot give up their belief in the supernatural. However, my hope is that over time we may eventually discard the archaic religions that divide us. And recognize our shared need for understanding and fellowship.
Tom 223: You'll never be heard from again - sorry.
You wish!
Oh wait—you just mean you won't tell your WIFE anything about me. THAT I believe.
I think I'll just quote Wilde here. Lady Bracknell, speaking of her husband, who believes something harmless but untrue:
If you have to lie to your wife to have peace in your marriage, that's your choice and judgement, and I have no intention of second-guessing you.Xopher "So if you had a wife, she'd be wife to everyone?"
Let's not quibble over semantics.
robulus "But it doesn't actually follow that you've got open season on every single last Christian."
You're right. It does not follow. That's why I'm not doing it. That's why I specifically specified those with whom I have a beef (there are more, but those were just off the top of my head. That's where I keep stuff. That's also why I'm always dropping stuff. I had to give up bowling because of it).
Magic is personal. That was my point.
Oceanconcepts "I'm a believer because I think these symbols are important and valuable to me- they have value for me- YMMV"
I googled "YMMV", and it came up with a totally different answer, but mine made me giggle, so I'm sticking with it.
Xopher "Magic is personal. That was my point."
So are hallucinations. Try hallucinating magic panties on the beach and see how quickly you end up before the judge.
If you have to lie to your wife to have peace in your marriage, that's your choice and judgement, and I have no intention of second-guessing you.
Hey, religion is very important to some people - like my wife. In 1988, when we were engaged to be married we were having a conversation about religion. She told me what she believed, I told her what I believed. She, pissed off, said this is a problem. I said, no, its not a problem. That's the last disagreement we've had about religion.
To me, as long as my kids are taught to treat other humans the way they'd like to be treated, I have no problem with what they're taught in church. I was brought up in a very religious environment and managed to have a pretty good outlook on life, the universe and everything - my kids are smart, they'll find out how things work.
@ModusOperandi
Oh OK, that wasn't clear to me. All good then.
Semantics is all you can quibble over and Tom's wife was responding to the question does your religion believe in the devil not is the devil in the bible.
@230 Tom Hale - that is beautiful. I think your children will also have an understanding of a faith from the inside whether they ultimately choose to follow that faith or not and that is valuable.
Having first hand knowledge of children of the Church of Christ, most of those children, if they ever develop any curiosity outside of their church doctrine, will probably grow up as existentially confused, ignorant, and close minded as their elders. Though I doubt they will ever harbor any curiosity or doubt, the church has all the answers. Those churches are homophobic, anti-science, bible as literal history churches.
alwasy with the Jesus, I'm getting peckish, hasn't anyone any new gods? Even an old,overlooked one?
oh alright - does Chomsky count? he certainly has a lot of disciples. But no snacking between meals
well read scholars who think? independently? phah! there's no nourishment there for a gods-Eater, just weedy strands of barbed truth. No thank you, I've quite enough reality already. It itches.
"I don't know if you're married - if you are, you may get where I'm coming from."
Tom, don't ever leave BB. You're a constant source of inspiration, as well as a reminder of who and what we really are. :0)
well you don't get nice things between meals - so you want real gods then not just ones that think they are - ok I'll see what I have in my handbag
Takuan, I recommend the lesser Roman god Jeff — the god of cookies. There should be sufficient nom nom there.
you should already be full there were quite a few to get through in #203 or had you feasted on them prior
yeech! those desert gods! They keep coming up on you. Nothing fouler than a resurrection in mid gullet.
Jeff you say? Must look into that one.
rdng ths psts s hlrs nd mbrrssng - knw tht bngbng dsn't ttrct lt f rlgs rdrs bt cn't blv tht s mny ppl hv sch n ttr lck f knwldg bt th bk tht hs prtty mch cntrlld hstry snc t ws wrttn.
vryn sht p, rd th bbl, nd thn y r llwd t pst bt t.
sniff? no, nothing there, not even a whiff of Aramaic or even Hebrew. Thin stuff. Must be Floridan.
The god of cookies? I AM THE GOD OF PIE: 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971 6939937510582097494459230781640628620899 86280348253421170679 ....But cookies are good too.
Tom,
First a huge thank you to Mrs Hale (I'm sure she has a name of her own). Please by kind enough to pass that on, some of us heathens also have manners.
Second: Sorry I wasn't here last evening to respond properly, I'm on GMT and hung on as long as I could. I will probably think of more questions, but for now thanks again for trying to answer.
Xopher @ 220
I was actually surprised at how substantive the Lucifer / Anointed-Cherub descriptions are. Of course Milton made up the script and characterizations, but the setup.. (in two parts)
Isiah
14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!
how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
14:13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the
mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
14:15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
Ezekiel
28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee
so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and
down in the midst of the stones of fire.
28:15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast
created, till iniquity was found in thee.
28:16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst
of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast
thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O
covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
28:17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast
corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to
the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
28:18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine
iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring
forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will
bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that
behold thee.
28:19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at
thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.
So, I know they are not explicitly connected, but there is the groundwork for the story.. Great stuff! :)
We should call on Teresa's encyclopedic knowledge of the Book, and see if she knows any better.
@Oceanconcepts:
we are not purely rational beings.
What is irrational about us? Irrational is only what doesn't fit the logic of a given observable environment.
I know a lot of scientists, and I have never known a single one who was purely and coldly rational- quite the reverse, as most come to science because of a deep curiosity about the world. They love music, poetry, myth, stories, liturgy, and religion as much or more than anyone else.
I know many scientists too, and a lot of them love arts and philosophy, why not? They are human beings after all (lol). But why equate rationality to something negative when we are talking about science, and even arts! You're talking about arts as if they weren't rational, or something opposed to science. The feelings you experience while listening to Mozart are very explainable thanks to science.
From what I understand, you seek in religion what you could find in arts and history without having to believe in irrational things (like a supreme being). That's sad...
MarkMarkMark
"everyone shut up, read the bible, and then you are allowed to post about it."
I'd say a lot of the people on BB (and in this thread) have read as much or more of the Bible as your average Christian (if they aren't one and the same person).
Personally, I'm asking questions, posting what I know, finding out more. I'm also making flippant jokes and enjoying the fact that we can, and that we can all have a big (sometimes heated) chat about something NOBODY knows everything about - it's almost entirely interpretive.
YAY!
Xopher, also this verse in Revelation:
12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Modus 229: So are hallucinations. Try hallucinating magic panties on the beach and see how quickly you end up before the judge.
Sigh. Brief lesson in magic: Magic is the art of changing consciousness at will. I have a mask at home that changes aspects of my personality when I put it on. How does that work? Ever since I bought it I've only worn it when I want to bring out those aspects of my personality, and the association is strong enough now that the change happens if I LET it happen, instead of needing to work at it. This is all explicable by Behaviorist psychology, to be perfectly frank. But people who habitually employ these techniques for desired changes call them "magic," and certainly while I'm using the mask it helps to think of it as a special thing, containing energy that will alter me when I put it on.
If you put it on, unless the look of it or sensation of wearing it was evocative of something from your own experience, it would probably have no effect at all, because you haven't done the magical work of conditioning yourself to respond to it in that way.
Here's a heresy for both believers and non-believers: You don't have to believe the same things all the time. Keep your actions ethical and speak the truth, and let your beliefs be appropriate to those goals moment to moment. That's really how I live. Honest.
Tom 230: Did I not make it clear that I was not second-guessing you? If you have to lie to her to keep your marriage working, I personally would find that unfortunate, but it is your marriage, not mine, and obviously works for you in ways that are more important that speaking the truth.
Btw, I'm not talking about the "truth" or lack of same of the Bible. It just occurred to me that from your response that's what you probably think. I meant this:
Since you actually have no intention of letting her know my response, and are planning to falsify one, you're lying to her about our conversation.Not a particularly egregious lie, to be sure. One I wouldn't tell, but then I'm not in a relationship, much less a marriage, and that may be part of why! So I'm really, really NOT going to second-guess your success.
MarkMarkMark 244: everyone shut up, read the bible, and then you are allowed to post about it.
I've read a lot of it, but all the genocide and human sacrifice (by the supposed "good guys") turned my stomach, so I stopped. And btw, "everyone shut up" is a fairly obnoxious thing to say.
Arkizzle, that passage from Isaiah is addressing an Earthly king, not apostrophizing Satan. He's comparing the king to the morning star, and saying his fall will be as great as if the morning star fell from the sky.
And as for the Revelation of St. John...I've always thought that it's a book of hallucinatory ravings whose inclusion in the Bible was a huge mistake on the part of the men who assembled that document.
It's a rationalization to say that the bible is metaphorical. It was written to be taken as truth. The fact so many people still accept it as such (even if you do not) belies its intent.
Markmarkmark -
The surest way to get everyone to shut up is to turn off the computer and go outside.
Xoph'
Interesting, I had tried tracing it back, through the passage (Oh, matron!) to find out the subject of the Isiah rant.. and got lost halfway up.
And yeah, Revelation is a mad ol' romp. Still, it contains some clear proto Paradise Lost stuff.
Similarly, Ezekiel has clear proto Milton bits, but without naming the "appointed cherub". Does it matter what his name is? (Hah! try saying that to a theologian).
It's funny, Iron Maiden got me into reading the bible when I was 14 or 15.
Number of the Beast and all that.. :)
imagine that
http://community.allhiphop.com/go/thread/view/12501/13056658/The_truth_about_Unicorns
I was clearly incorrect when I stated that Milton made up the War in Heaven (I can't find where I said that, but I certainly believed it, so no matter). It's actually the name of Lucifer that I'm most interested in.
Do you know how to say "Christ-bearer" in Greek? Christopher.
Do you know what the person who carries the cross in a church procession is called? A crucifer.
Do you know what the person who carries the incense (when there is any) is called? A thurifer.
Do you know what one of the people who carries the candles is called? A "torch-bearer." They OUGHT to be called lucifers, of course, but thanks to that flaming jerk Milton they can't be.
"He said to them, 'But now if you have a purse, take it and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'" (Luke 22:36)
"Do not suppose that I [Jesus] have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."(Matthew 10:34)
Why don't you worship someone who actually wanted to bring peace or reduce suffering (there are plenty, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug), rthr thn smn wh lst hs mnd nd clmd h ws th sn f sm gd (r thr)? Bcs yr mmmy tld y s. Jss Chrst Sprstr. Cn't wt t hr th rtnlztn fr ths.
Robulus@155: Reincarnation has not been scientifically disproved. It has to do with the infinity of time and the recombination of matter. Every combination will eventually recur. Eternal recurrance. Too complex to describe here.
Wow :)
I was gonna argue when the commenter said "Think of the dodo bird. It does not exist today, but we do not doubt that it existed in the past."
But really, if there are no fossils of them (entirely a possibility) how would we ever know. Would our accounts of them be enough for millenial-future people?
It's an interesting read nonetheless. It probably deserves less thought than I'm giving it, but it'd be great if true, no?
Besides the "To think of the biblical unicorn as a fantasy animal is to demean God's Word, which is true in every detail" bit.
Elsmiley, the "rationalization" is that some of us take the best, and leave the rest. That's all.
El, you're making checkably untrue statements. The Bible (the early bits) was an oral history for a long time before it was written down by people who were several millennia down from the people who originally told the stories, so their intention is at best murky. In addition, I've been told by people who've read all the texts in their original (written) languages (yes, someone who reads Hebrew, Greek, AND Aramaic) that parts of it are a "royal narrative," which is a kind of story we don't have in our culture.
History (that is, the idea of just writing down things that happened) is a more recent invention than these texts. The idea that they were intended to be taken literally as history is a bizarre and foolish one.
And if you could find me a place in the Bible where Jesus claims he's the Son of God, I'd be very interested, because as far as I know it's something other people said about him (including a Voice From The Clouds at one point), but he always calls himself "the Son of Man," which doesn't strike me as particularly delusional.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=jkje4FiH9Qc
But why take "the best" of a vastly corrupted document when there are so many others that are far more righteous? None of "the best" said in that book, or the christian dogma in general, has not been said elswhere with far more elequance, intelligence, and profundity--and without the heritage of blood, torture, and atrocities that your book has wrought.
The slept on dirt floors and washed their hair with animal dung. But they were, of course, sophisticated enought to write metaphorical literature. Right.
Xoph'
One of those rare moments in the hidden beauty of etymology: In dutch, the word for match (the firey kind) is 'lucifer'.
Try in on a translator. I used to crack up every time I had to ask for them.
"Een doos van lucifers, alstublieft."
RE:
#234 POSTED BY FOETUSNAIL
Having first hand knowledge of children of the Church of Christ, most of those children, if they ever develop any curiosity outside of their church doctrine, will probably grow up as existentially confused, ignorant, and close minded as their elders. Though I doubt they will ever harbor any curiosity or doubt, the church has all the answers. Those churches are homophobic, anti-science, bible as literal history churches.
This is Kenneth. Toms 19 year old son. My dad read this to me. I couldn't help but laugh. Take a look at my Myspace profile, and see if you can with good conscience assume all Christians close minded. Kenneths Profile
ElSmiley, I'll do you a favour and let you know that not all the people who you are currently talking with (some of whom are defending against ignorance, rather than Christianity or the Bible itself) follow when you say "your book".
It would be foolish to think you are battling any great defenders of the faith, so you'd probably do youself a good turn if you did it with less vigour.
About my last post, I started to write a reply to FoetusNail's comment, but I thought it would be better to let my son reply.
Well, Kenneth, I'm at work and MySpace is blocked here, but I'll certainly look at it when I get home. And please don't think everyone here shares FoetusNail's impression.
One thing, though: FN didn't say "all Christians." He said "children of the Church of Christ." I don't think you meant to imply that members of the Church of Christ are the only REAL Christians, since that would belie your thesis, so I assume you missed that.
Arkizzle: I'm vigorous by nature. The chicks dig it. And those who I battle against know who they are. I'm perfectly aware of the readership profile of BB.
Xopher "Sigh. Brief lesson in magic: Magic is the art of changing consciousness at will."
Sigh. Brief lesson in magic.
...
Ta-da!
...
Now, if there's a doctor in the house, I need someone who can put her back together.
I get what your saying, man, but even if we go by your definition, then I'm still out $49.95 for panties that, will or no will, consistently fail to change consciousness. They don't even support "the area" adequately.
lsmiley "[The Bible] was written to be taken as truth. The fact so many people still accept it as such (even if you do not) belies its intent."
And how well does that reflect on the Truth™ if it leads to the wrong answer?
"elsmiley" "The slept on dirt floors and washed their hair with animal dung. But they were, of course, sophisticated enought to write metaphorical literature."
Don't confuse "ancient" and "dumb". You don't need hovercars and chrome jumpsuits to make up poetry.
Xopher,
Tom had already stated he was a member of the Chuch of Christ, so it was explicit when Foetus' replied.
Modus,
"Ta Da!"
I LOLed my ass off :)
"I'm perfectly aware of the readership profile of BB."
I know that. You were just flailing wildly when you said "your book" in such an accusatory tone.
I thought Jeff (and he will correct me if I'm wrong) was saying that the book had some good lessons in it, for anyone. Not just those who follow it, or those who fervently believe every line to be fact.
The surest way to get everyone to shut up is to turn off the computer and go outside.
absolutely true - i'm a treeplanter though, so i spend 2 months of my year living in a tent and i am in canada and shit be cold.
anyways - God is a vengeful God because he is a God of righteous judg(e)ment. War is warranted. There is a time to use the sword, and a time to beat the sword into a plow and allow the widows and orphans to glean.
Jesus came to bring peace, but Messiah will have to take this world by force - pour out thousands of years of foolish civilization and then build a new earth.
We all have our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs. God of peace, we want you.
And:
Hi Kenneth! :)
I'm not saying they were ancient, I'm saying they were dumb. If they couldn't figure out how to make concrete or boil water to avoid disease, they sure the hell couldn't understand the concept of metaphorical literature. They meant it to be literal. Calling it metaphorical only came about much later when people who believed in science and the bible at the same time were conflicted and tried to resolve that conflict.
Ok, I shouldn't have said "your book". I offer my sincere apologies. Now about the Inquisition...
arkizzle "I LOLed my ass off :)"
I do have that effect on people. I'd say that it comes naturally, but it actually comes from many years of Rocky-like workout montages.
Thx Arkie, I'll tell him you said Hi.
Our whole family calls him Tommy,but for some reason his girlfriend and online friends call him Kenneth - weird huh?
"I'm saying they were dumb. If they couldn't figure out how to make concrete or boil water to avoid disease, they sure the hell couldn't understand the concept of metaphorical literature."
O K
Except concrete and germs are discoveries, whereas the potential for metaphorical thought is brain function. Brain function hasn't changed one iota in two thousand years.
You are so far off with this tack.
There needs to be a point where a comment area (eg, a bulliten board) turns into a chat room. It's the new paradigm! Any discussion that goes on forever turns into a chat room! I got this!
elsmiley "I'm not saying they were ancient, I'm saying they were dumb. If they couldn't figure out how to make concrete or boil water to avoid disease, they sure the hell couldn't understand the concept of metaphorical literature."
And that's why there are no metaphors in the Tanakh. Oh, wait (the earliest "like a"-style metaphor is in Judges, circa 1000BC, but there are obvious metaphors earlier than that. On a side note, Song of Songs is still pretty hot. It's widely considered to be the Bolero of its era. True story).
"They meant it to be literal."
Even if they did, shush, you! It's hard enough pulling the literalists into the Enlightenment without you agreeing with them. Baby steps, man. Baby steps.
"..for some reason his girlfriend and online friends call him Kenneth - weird huh?"
No more weird than Arkizzle, I suspect :)
PS, my thanks to Mrs Hale are @ 247
If they couldn't figure out how to make concrete or boil water to avoid disease, they sure the hell couldn't understand the concept of metaphorical literature.
That's quite a leap there (Leap being a metaphor for your QED). I disagree.
What is a totem animal other than a metaphor? Why are female australian aboriginals disallowed from touching a digeredoo? (hint, it's a metaphorical penis).
I think relational thinking and stories with lessons predated writing. Simile probably came first (this four legged fanged creature is probably as dangerous as that one that ate my brother last week), but metaphor is waaaaay back there too, and is probably what got us out of the trees.
El, you don't know what you're talking about at all. And you don't listen when people who know slightly more tell you the facts. You're acting like the narrowminded bibliolaters you so despise.
Someone once said to me "People change sides, but don't change." You're so convinced of your own rightness (as if it were intrinsic to you rather than contingent on your believing correct things) that you won't let any facts in.
Making concrete? Germ theory? MOST of the world's great literature (including Shakespeare) predates those developments! The Poem of Inanna, one of the world's most ancient texts, contains these lines:
I don't know how you can call that anything but a metaphor. (Unless you really think she's talking about milk, and is so ancient and stupid that she thinks you get cheese by churning it.)As I said above and you ignored, storytelling predates literal history as an activity. By millennia. If you want to claim to be taking a scientific viewpoint, you have to deal with actual facts.
Ark--I respect the point you're making. I may be wrong. (Let's see a christian say that.)
But I'm thinkin of it in an evolutionary sense in both cases--brain function and "discoveries" both as aspects of evolution. Brain function has, of course, evolved like anything else. But I see your point that they may not have progressed at the same rate.
Modusoperandi: Way diggin the bass line your laying down. Baby steps.
markmarkmark -
There is a time to use the sword, and a time to beat the sword into a plow and allow the widows and orphans to glean.
allow?
Jesus came to bring peace, but Messiah will have to take this world by force - pour out thousands of years of foolish civilization and then build a new earth.
have to? foolish?
We all have our beliefs, but we don't want our beliefs. God of peace, we want you.
WHAT?!?! Peace will come when ever fool who disagrees with you is either forced out or allowed to eat?
Hhas it occurred to you that you are a vengeful man of righteous judgement who has created God in your own image, then found a house full of people of like mind to back you up?
Just a thought.
MDH - except the righteous part. Friendly amendment? 'Self-righteous' or 'prideful' instead of 'righteous'?
I'm a stranger, killing an arab.
i may be wrong.
Jesus is my rabbi and all that is best in me is him and every mistake is my own.
mdh "Why are female australian aboriginals disallowed from touching a digeredoo? (hint, it's a metaphorical penis)."
I don't think they thought it through. If it's a metaphorical penis, shouldn't you want the ladies to "play" it?
Xopher "Making concrete?...MOST of the world's great literature (including Shakespeare) predates those developments!"
I get your vibe, but to be accurate, Concrete predates Shakespeare by a considerable margin. How else should Shakespeare have written An Ode to a Concrete Slab otherwise? His "Constructionist Epics" are all quite underrated, IMO, except the one on roads (The Scholar of Rhodes), which just rambles.
markymark: I hope that's sarcastic
markmarkmark "Jesus is my rabbi and all that is best in me is him and every mistake is my own."
When the last scene of his life flashed before him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of his life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times in his life.
This really bothered him and he questioned the Lord about it. "Lord, you said that once I decided to follow you you'd walk with me all the way, but I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life, there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me." The Lord replied, "My precious, precious child, I love you and would never leave you. Also, you're being intermittently stalked by the Invisible Man."
I've read more than a few ancient texts. The impression I usually take away is that modern people, including myself, are very shallow.
Maybe that's why so many modern people insist that ancient holy books must be read literally; perhaps most of us just don't have the capacity to comprehend them as their authors intended.
modus, +1 FTMFW! and tom, if you think THAT'S weird...
ElSmiley @ 292
I've eyeballed your comment, it's uneccessarily inflammatory for the weak pint I can only guess you were making.. And frankly you are beginning to show the random, aggressive out-lashings of a troll.
Be careful.
Modus WIN!
But please stop, my laptop is now covered in buttery cracker crumbs :)
i think it might be the Holy Ghost
el, a well-boiled Stylite could be plunked down next to you at work and pass in a week. Visit any "stone age" Amazon tribe and you'll find wheeling and dealing and scheming and politicking just like home. Metaphors are stories and you apes have been telling stories FOREVER.
The Cure?
Standing on the beach
With a gun in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring down the barrel
At the arab on the ground
I can see his open mouth
But I hear no sound
I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an arab
I can turn
And walk away
Or I can fire the gun
Staring at the sky
Staring at the sun
Whichever I chose
It amounts to the same
Absolutely nothing
I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an arab
I feel the steel butt jump
Smooth in my hand
Staring at the sea
Staring at the sand
Staring at myself
Reflected in the eyes
Of the dead man on the beach
The dead man on the beach
I'm alive
I'm dead
I'm the stranger
Killing an arab
ElSmiley
As to understanding what I was saying, yes it's about rates of change, but it's something we track. And I don't think you are getting the time-scale of evolution.
We have extensive evidence of the ability of humans thousands of years ago. For example: Australian Aboriginals have been in Australia for 40,000 years. On the whole, up until very recently they had near-zero interaction with outside breeding populations (some northern Australians traded and may have intermarried with Torres Strait Islanders, but they would have had very little significant north-south travel).
As there are zero differences in the brain capability of an Australian Aboriginal or a Nordic European. The only thing that that can suggest, as they evolved separately since the 40,000-year-ago split, is that we have had the same brain power/structure since at least that time.
If there were significant differences in cognition or ability between the two, we would know that things had changed over that time.
40,000+ years, just as smart.
Ah, context. Thank you Takuan.
Now, have you any idea what his point was?
Modus, you just made the front page!!
"I'm not saying they were ancient, I'm saying they were dumb. If they couldn't figure out how to make concrete or boil water to avoid disease, they sure the hell couldn't understand the concept of metaphorical literature."
Elsmiley,
You're at the deep end of the pool now. When I was working on a doctorate in cultural anthropology (lo these many years!) I was struck again and again by the poetry of certain extant primitive cultures that could barely mix mud, much less cement, and had no idea of the germ theory of disease.
You have mistaken metaphorical language for some sort of advanced cultural sophistication that includes the practice of the scientific method. Whereas, in fact, it is an ancient ability; it's as old as the innate human ability to symbol. Language came first. If you will pardon me, ahem: In the beginning was the Word.
Start paddling.
I've been humming this song since #248, (Isiah 14:12)
Can't believe I didn't think to post it til now.. Sorry gang.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ORJBFI_OLdU
@298 minT - his middle name is Kenneth, I just thought its odd that he wants to go by that name with his friends when his family calls him Tommy. I know all about what's on his myspace page - I'm not worried, I imagine he'll grow out of that stuff. If not, its pretty harmless and none of it carries over to his off line life.
Composer Robert Smith has said that the song "was a short poetic attempt at condensing my impression of the key moments in L'Étranger (The Stranger) by Albert Camus" (Cure News number 11, October 1991). The lyrics describe a shooting on a beach, in which the Arab of the title is killed by the song's narrator; in Camus' story the main character, Meursault, shoots an Arab standing on a beach after staring out at the sea and being overwhelmingly blinded by the sun, reflected on the sea, the sand and the knife the Arab was holding.
249, FAILIX
I didn't equate rationality with anything negative.
There is a world of difference between being able to EXPLAIN something through a rational or scientific process, and having the thing itself be driven by purely rational choices- you are confusing categories. You can explain your attraction to a member of the opposite sex in biochemical terms, but that does not mean your experience when in their presence is a rational one. I don't doubt religious feelings are explainable in scientific/ rational/ evolutionary/ biochemical terms as well, that does not make them meaningless. Or pointless.
I don't believe in irrational things- though some things I am willing to admit may well exist outside the bounds of conventional causality. I am married to a physicist, after all... I don't believe in a "supreme being" in the sense that I think you mean it- no grand puppet masters. It is no doubt surprising to many that you an be a Christian without such beliefs, but you can be.
I'll paraphrase something I heard that noted theologian Carl Sagan say when asked if he believed in God: "If you mean some great being who is intimately involved with and directing the day to day operations of the universe, then no, I see no evidence of that. But if you mean God as the sum total of all the laws of the universe, and all that is still unknown, then I have no problem with that sort of belief."
253, XOPHER
Revelations is an example of a popular form of genre writing of the day- like first century Sci-Fi.
It's a political/ social commentary intended to encourage those who were being persecuted by Rome. All of the "prophetic" interpretations laid on it are complete and utter nonsense.
"The Bible" is not a monolithic document, and any time anyone refers to it as such ("the Bible says") it's a dead giveaway they don't know what they are talking about.
Some of it is clearly philosophy and allegory (the creation story, Jonah and the whale); some of it is history, a bunch (the Prophets, mostly) is recorded op-ed and punditry- the Noam Chomskys of ancient Israel- many of them disagreeing with each other and castigating their rulers; There are the legal and religious codes, the laws; some of it is poetry. And that's just the Old Testament, which many here have correctly observed is filled with violence, brutality, punishment, and genocide. Anyone who can take this as "literal truth" is courting mental instability.
The New Testament is much simpler; a few versions of Jesus' life, which differ in details but give a sense of the man, and collected letters and documents of the early Church.
I'm old enough to remember "The Bible" being used to justify Jim Crow. And at the same time being used to justify racial justice. I can explain this easily- the first group were wrong- they picked Old Testament phrases out of context, and used mythical explanations to justify their prejudice. Those working for racial justice were operating consistently with the "love your neighbor as yourself" teachings in the New Testament.
259, ESMILEY
You can pull phrases out of any part of the Bible, out of context and without understanding, and either "prove" whatever you want or make the whole thing appear ridiculous. "I think those words do not mean what you believe they mean"
Tak@310
*roll eyes*
No, ElSmiley@292's point.
Thanks :D
El Smiley @288: "Ark--I respect the point you're making. I may be wrong." Any other tricks you want to see?
278, ELSMILEY
Wow.
This is by far the most ill-informed, culturally ignorant and arrogant statement I have read on any forum for a very long time. As an Anthropologist and a student of linguistics I can tell you there is massive evidence that symbolic/ metaphoric thought is incredibly ancient, predating all human technology. It is basic to language and probably built into our brain structure.
Try plopping yourself down in a pre-literate society and see how well you get along- see who's smarter... Geez.
XOpher - sure!
MO - FTW!
and is it not said that philosophers seeking the truth may be likened unto a band of old, blind and excessively perverted men whom have taken unto a dark closet an olliphaunt and a tub of lubricant?
Takuan, know yet not the tale of the One Man and the Ten Blind Elephants? The elephants rapidly arrived at a consensus: Men are flattish, damp, and scream a lot.
OceanConcepts, I won't deny that El Smiley has been furnishing ammo to the Trolls for Jesus, and I agree about the symbolic/metaphoric aspect of our brains; but either that was a seriously excessive string of adjectives you laid out there, or you haven't been hanging out in a lot of forums lately.
oh,"theology"
You're grasping at straws to believe the bible was intended to be metaphorical. Even if the concept of metaphor existed then, there is no way it was so elaborately realized. You actually believe that the people who wrote the bible had a different intention then Paul and the church and all the things that came right after? Whatever. hp yr slf-dcptn gvs y hppnss. Rd Th Dth f vn lych.
The reference to Camus may have been too oblique, I suppose. I meant to say that some people don't believe in morals at all. We (man) invented them. Oh, nevermind. I'm on the verge of gettings censured for my opinions again anyway. Don't worry, Teresa, I'm used to it.
Tom,
Your wife knows a suspicious lot about demons and your son is kitsune. Does a kid named Inuyasha hang out around your house, too?
now now, we don't censure you for your opinions, that would be wrong; we stab you and set you on fire because you're a dirty heretic, give us SOME credit (lousy heathen!)
I do have to ask you though, based on on your avowed opinion about abstract human mental capacity; where have you lived in your life so far?
elsmiley,
Your comments about the philosophical capacity of ancient writers display a breathtaking absence of knowledge, education and common sense. I'd be tempted to disemvowel you if you hadn't already turned yourself into such an appealing piñata.
Takuan: Lived or been to? I've travelled extensively. I like Buenos Aries. But I've lived in LA, SFO, NY, Paris, Morocco, and now Philly.
Smiley @320:
Oh, nonsense. Who told you that whopper? Of course metaphor existed. Furthermore, there was no barrier to its being elaborately realized. The technology of metaphor and language is in our heads.Are you aware that as a general rule, older languages are more complex than newer ones?
That's good. I wouldn't want it to come as a shock to your system.Antinous: Breathtaking? Hyperbole is the sign of having nothing of value to say. I'm well educated in the area of "ancient" writers. Please attempt to "disemvowel" me--and use as many internet cliches as possible. If I were also one to use cliches and such, I would say, "Bring it".
Smiley, please don't say things like that. It obliges me to demonstrate, for the benefit of onlookers, that that's not a fight you or anyone else is going to win.
Teresa Nielsen Hayden; The elephants are a little bitter about the whole "ivory" thing. Plus, I think they found out about Edison electrocuting one of their own.
elsmiley "Even if the concept of metaphor existed then, there is no way it was so elaborately realized."
Again, you're grossly underestimate the power of mind. They weren't rocket scientists, but there weren't rockets, so rocket scientists would have little to do except...tell stories to each other.
Stories improve with the telling, which you can see, fairly literally, in the Gospels of the NT (which are all different people telling the same story). Starting small at Mark they steadily get bigger as the story is told and retold over a minimum 45 year period - Mark wrote it down for his Roman audience, Matthew took that and edited it for a Jewish one, Luke did the same for gentiles. John just wrote about how great and awesome and great Jesus was.
Now imagine if Mark's version was passed orally for several centuries before it was written down.
Don't underestimate the mind of "primitive" Man. That their tales of why things happened (God did it) and how things worked (God did it) turned out to be incorrect is no surprise, as they were dealing with a critically limited dataset to work from. Their stories reflected the world around them (and their view of it). As such, the tall tales, history (and pseudo-history) of the Tanakh show about what you'd expect from a quasi-nomadic (at least at the start), subsistence level desert tribe. A focus on obedience (because the difference between listening to the elders and not is the difference between starving and not), violence (both inter and intra-tribal war over meager resources) and, not surprisingly, poetry (because there isn't much to do around the fire other but talk).
"You actually believe that the people who wrote the bible had a different intention then Paul and the church and all the things that came right after?"
Which people? Paul was a propagandist. Some of the OT is propaganda. Some of it is propaganda that competes with propaganda on other pages in the same book. The whole "Reconquest of Canaan" is nothing but propaganda. That doesn't mean that they really, really though that Jonah spend a long-weekend inside a whale (it doesn't mean that they didn't, either).
There are metaphors there that are presented as metaphor. As for Genesis, people have been arguing about what's literal in that and what isn't since forever. In any event, the narrative thread goes off the rails around Gen3:1 or so and doesn't recover.
"The reference to Camus may have been too oblique..."
We don't much cotton to them existential philosophizers around these parts, I reckon.
Where to begin?
My words were carefully chosen to allow for the fact there could even be a gay furry in the church of christ. That your son appears to be one, means nothing more than that, being gay does not automatically confer some badge of liberalism or theological progressiveness. His page seems to indicate he has fairly conventional beliefs for the Church of Christ. Gay people, even gay furries, come in every theological and political stripe.
In other words, I left room for exceptions and stand by my statements. In general the CofC, as I know it, is a very conservative organization whose membership is for the most part homophobic, anti-science, and accepts the bible whole cloth and literally. Children who grow up in churches of this kind, who develop any curiosity outside of their church's doctrine, will probably be as existentially confused, ignorant, and close minded as their elders. However, most will never question their families beliefs, and if they do will generally still believe in the supernatural judeo-christian god.
"It obliges me to demonstrate.."
It's all been worth it..
Pleeeeaasse!
@Oceanconcepts:
I don't doubt religious feelings are explainable in scientific/ rational/ evolutionary/ biochemical terms as well, that does not make them meaningless. Or pointless.
I know, and I never said or meant that. It's even my point, just because we are able to explain things doesn't make them pointless.
...but that does not mean your experience when in their presence is a rational one.
I have to be honest, I don't quite understand that part.
I have the feeling this is taking a whole different direction, and isn't about religion itself, but 'spirituality' and feelings in general.
I'll paraphrase something I heard that noted theologian Carl Sagan say when asked if he believed in God: "If you mean some great being who is intimately involved with and directing the day to day operations of the universe, then no, I see no evidence of that. But if you mean God as the sum total of all the laws of the universe, and all that is still unknown, then I have no problem with that sort of belief."
So you're a pantheist? In what way does Christianity or any other religion satisfy your belief system then?
failix "So you're a pantheist?"
No, he's a Magic Pantheist.
I thought mod policy comments were supposed to be on the mod policy page. God I love comment drama.
@329 FoetusNail - You're right about the Church of Christ - but since you included my kids, I wanted to show you that we aren't a close minded, anti-science, homophobic family. About my son being gay, he said he struggled with that and was confused about that for a bit (his own words) - he says he isn't gay, and he does have a girlfriend. We're close enough that I believe he would be honest with me about that. He knows that no matter what, he has our love and support 100%.
he meant "magic pantiest"
Takuan: No, that's my cult. I had to do something after someone ate my Monkey.
318, TERESA
Both, no doubt. The "our ancestors, the dummies" theory is a pet peeve. And I'm not much of a forum hanger outer.
331 FAILIX
A sort of pantheist, at least some of the time. I rather think Jesus was, as well- just not in the shallow all-is-one sense. More in the sense of all-is-information, logos. As in the opening of the Gospel of John. I'm not a dualist, in any case. The remarkable thing is that there exists a reality in which things make sense. Apparently to us, anyway. "The eternal mystery of the world is its comprehensibility." Albert Einstein
Christianity doesn't always totally satisfy my belief system- some days not much at all. But I find a lot of value in it. And yes, this is about "spirituality", which religion should also be about. I'll make the distinction between the spiritual side of religion and the institutional side- the institutions are just a different kind of political entity.
And thanks for the good questions/ respectful tone. Though I thought the Magic Pantheist page was pretty funny as well.
magic panther sounds cooler then a spaghetti monster or a pink unicorn that is also invisible
"edible and scientifically constructed"
http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1065/70345uacyw7ww.jpg
Thanks, I did not include your kids, as I don't know your children. What I wrote concerned my personal experience with members of the CofC and their children, which includes three sister-in-laws.
Also, for the record, I had second thoughts after submitting my comment and did poke myself in the eye, asking the Mods to unpublish the comment. The only reason I gave was because it was unnecessary. I was worried you would take it personally and did not feel like getting into a discussion.
Also, please tell your son, whether straight or gay, if anyone judges him on his sexual orientation they are making a mistake. Sexual orientation is unimportant. In my opinion, sexual orientation is no more a defining characteristic than the false distinction of race.
Sexual orientation is unimportant.
One's own is. The other person's can really make or break a date.
I had second thoughts after submitting my comment and did poke myself in the eye, asking the Mods to unpublish the comment.
FYI - I see what's in the ModPile, but only Teresa gets the eyeball notes, so I have to guess why they're flagged.
we really ought to be writing to Attenborough about now, angrily demanding why he has never done a programme on the evolution of magic panties.
..how to describe the Ineffable?...they'd HAVE to glow, that's a given....
And levitate.
what powers would they convey? I think it would impossible to do anything but tell the truth in their presence. - that would be a drawback, for me anyway...
Smiley,
Come on now. "Breathtaking" may be ready for retirement, but "pinata?" Magnifique! I guess that's why they pay him the big bucks.
It's been a very enriching discussion. I appreciate the time and care so many commenters have invested here. And please pray for me I get religion so I can say, "Thanks be to God," instead of compulsively posting my every thank you here. But seriously, thanks. My fourth chakra is shiny and happy.
Oh Elsmiley, you thing you!
Here was I thinking you were a tough mark, and you go and reveal this rather planet sized gap in your understanding. I'm paying Buddy66 @307 as the clearest, most concise and authoritive response to this big lapse. But it is truly amazing to see something so obvious even requiring defence. I would drop this one and back away slowly, were I you.
Well, duh. Thats my point, most religions have spokespeople who'll trot out the "when science proves otherwise we'll change" line. The fundamental priciples of religious thought are often untestable and unprovable, like, say, the existance of God. That's why religion can't start poking it's nose into the science curriculum. You claimed that Christianity was not open to this same scrutiny, I offered some examples of how it can be.
To be honest, your body of work in this thread is a baffling mystery, each clue more puzzling than the last. You reject even the most thoughtful defence of Christianity, but are quite happy accepting the scientific plausibility of reincarnation to justify the status of Buddhism as a non-religion.
I am guessing you had a real tough time at your Catholic school, and this is clouding your judgement. I hope you find in Buddhism, or whatever philosophy you embrace, the peace and understanding we all seek.
WHOA. Just looked at Kenneth's profile, Tom. Duuuude! He is a FOX!
(I ask no forgiveness. I know there can be none.)
Xopher,
Don't let your wife hear you say that.
Regarding the earlier literal vs metaphor part of the conversation:
There is an unspoken undertsanding within fundamentalism that God isn't capable of making use of more advanced literary and rhetorical techniques, such as metaphor.
Thanks Antinous, and BTW don't give it a thought, all's well that ends well.
@Falix
Broadly speaking, Jung felt that human beings shared a subconscious, unspoken language of symbols. He found that the same characters, or archetypes, appeared in different forms in widely divergent cultures.
He felt these ideas had a profound effect on our behaviour, although we weren't consciously aware of them. They drive an emotional life, and emotional self, that operates below the threshold of awareness, but strongly affects our behaviour. Our conscious rational minds, the voice you here in your head narrating your life, is a reaction to this subconscious life, not the driver of it.
This is what I mean when I talk of religion being part of a symbolic irrational mode of thought. It is not that the principles themselves don't comply with a rational view of the universe, it is that our intimate experience of this inner world is emotional, not rational. It is inherently impossible to deal with your subconscious directly, so ritual and symbol manipuation provide a doorway to this world.
I hope that's clear and I haven't pissed of any genuine scholars of Jung...
Antinous...MY closet contains only clothes. Well, and some Christmas lights and books, and a lot of dust, and maybe some other stuff. Anyway, not me.
well, yeah, that's true, I've talked to Him enough to know he ain't too bright. Kind of an asshole really.... Well, neveryoumindyoungfellowmelad, there's Deities galore out there and they are all looking for work. Bit of a theological recession really, it's a believers market so I strongly advise you all to pick and choose carefully. Make 'em do at least a few interviews, check their references too - shocking how a little omnipotence goes to the head and they start lying like rugts about "miracles" and suchlike.
Dear Xopher; I want you to know you are among friends, and if there is anything you wished to share, you should feel safe and cherished for who you are.
glow and have lace and ribbons - I want lace and ribbons
@328 Modusoperandi Funny you should mention that it goes off the rails at Genesis 3. One argument is (and one I tend to agree with) is that Genesis 2:4 on is a much older oral account of the creation story and that Genesis 1 is a more recent account and represents an early attempt at taking note of dependencies that exist between things. It is certainly a written account as compared to the oral account of Genesis 2. So, rather than the narrative goes off track it is more that the narrative (as a rhetorical pattern) starts at Genesis 2.
as a linguist/semiotician I tend to think that language is at the centre of things anyway :)
Xopher, Yeah, that furry stuff is kind of weird. But, who knows what I would have gotten into if I had the internet when I was his age - I'm not going to judge him. He's happy, had a really good ACT score, and will be the first in our family to go to college. What he does in his spare time is his own business.
I've been away for a bit. Is it too late to say
'Look out! Potential Religion Argument!!'
Is it too late, isn't it?
you could work vacuum tubes into the panties.
Dunno Ross, why don't you try it and see?
In furrydom, being a fox seems pretty dignified. Or have you never seen Fur and Loathing?
man someone post some Jesus/furry fanart
i think that he's like a lion maybe, or a lamb?
Ah, yes, the ritualized sacrificial lamb of god, nothing metaphorical about that story. Please pass the mint jelly.
Takuan "you could work vacuum tubes into the panties."
No. I'm pro-science, but I'm anti-mad science.
embroidered vacuum tubes?
rdng ths psts s hlrs nd mbrrssng - knw tht bngbng dsn't ttrct lt f rlgs rdrs bt cn't blv tht s mny ppl hv sch n ttr lck f knwldg bt th bk tht hs prtty mch cntrlld hstry snc t ws wrttn.
vryn sht p, rd th bbl, nd thn y r llwd t pst bt t.
don't do that again M3
Was that a time slip, or a challenge?
mene mene tekel upharsin
Markmarkmark: I don't know if it helps but I, at least, have been fairly consistently off topic.
Antinous: did you know that 'mene mene tekel upharsin' is an anagram of 'teen semen hankie rumple'?
And markmarkmark, to explain a little, if something has been disemvowelled, that constitutes being warned that it was unacceptable. Reposting it is not OK.
So the handwriting wasn't actually on the wall. And it definitely wasn't ink.
Jesus was known to frequently complain to the disciples:
"Why is there always someone who thinks I am really just talking about sheep?"
To which one of the disciples always had to remind Jesus that the metaphor hadn't been invented yet.
no metaphor in the bible?!? bitch, pleeze! "i am the lamb of god"...oh, yeah. definitely literal.
it was an accident i promise. i'm running a lot of windows and youtube videos and editing my wiki and all sorts of things.
i am a lot of things, but i am not a troll/
also, the rose of sharon.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=apvKxyR6Vzs
this is a lovely song btw
minTphresh no metaphor in the bible?!?... "i am the lamb of god"...oh, yeah. definitely literal."
This is the earliest clear metaphor that I could fine without trying too hard:
...and with that out of the way, stories like the Deluge are literal. Even the NT seems to take it literally (Matt24:37-39, Luke17:26-27, 1 Peter 30:20, 2 Peter 2:5, etc). That it's didn't happen (or, at least, didn't happen as presented) only shows that God had a wicked speech impediment.
And it wasn't exactly handwriting.
well actually God carved words into the wall, with his hand.
A most peculiar use of the word 'actually', methinks.
I have just one question for creationists:
What makes the Biblical creation story more valid than those of other cultures?
The Hindu creation myth holds that the gods and the demons churned the cosmic ocean of milk, out of which everything in this world came.
The Australian Aborigines hold that the world was dreamed into existence.
Similarly there are other tales by the Aztecs, the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Tibetans and so on.
Why shouldn't we teach all of them in school? Why be partial to the Christian version? Let's see them juggle the logical fallacy of all of them being true at the same time.
because the Judeo Christian creation story is more then simply a religious tale - it is ingrained into every part of our world.
How many days are in a week. why? explain that without talking about religion.
@Robulus:
"He felt these ideas had a profound effect on our behaviour, although we weren't consciously aware of them."
Nonetheless these ideas, emotions and feelings aren't irrational just because we aren't consciously aware of them, and you don't need religion to experience them. Depending on what you are looking for, music will do the trick, or paintings, or marijuana... I don't think religion is a wise alternative for our present society.
"Ingrained into every part of our world", how exactly??
How do you justify one fairy tale over another?
'It's true because it says so in the Bible' or 'It's true because I say so' doesn't count.
OK: The cultures that had seven-day weeks out-murdered, out-enslaved, and out-conquered everyone else, and imposed their calendar.
How'd I do?
I don't mind if this isn't posted, I just wanted to mention this where it might be seen by the editors of the site. I love Boing Boing and I've been reading it for years; I especially love the positive spirit, the focus on creative thought and the DIY attitude that would generally uplift anyone I'd show the site to. But then, every once in awhile, there's an attack on something a dumb religious person said, generally attributing the dumbness to the religiousness without much of any nuance.
I understand why you'd want to do it. I'm a gay man who practices a mix of discordianism, christianity and the way of Bob (with all due deference to the dark elder gods.) I find most of the pink gods in this world to be justifiably infuriating.
But I get into the whole religion vs. reason fight with my friends all the time, and many of them (gods love 'em) come down on me as belligerently as any fundie Christian for my belief in the Giant Fighting Robot Jesus from the End of Time--a belief which is very important to me, even if it's funny and fantastical. And so when I come across another jab at religion on Boing-Boing, it deflates much of the positive spirit I otherwise take away from the site, and drags me back into a topic that I've seen push friends apart again and again.
I know it's your site and I don't presume to tell you what to do with it, I can only make an appeal for you to consider how these kinds of posts compare to the tone and content of pretty much everything else that's here. It's the everything else that brings me here, and I love it, and so I'll suck up the religion digs as long as I can, but it's gotten heavy enough that I wanted to say something. Thanks for what's generally my favorite site on the internet.
Peace,
Jonathan Prykop aka Rev. Jack Ditch
And yet David Attenborough gets a lot of money from, a lot of celebrity from, and a lot of fascination for (well, we only have the last in common) this immense variety in nature.
It seems that Attenborough is the one who should believe in a benevolent creator, at least as far as he himself is concerned.
That's the problem both creationists and (hard) atheists get into when they approach from this angle - all good things in the universe prove a benevolent creator, all bad things prove the lack of one. May as well say all bad things in the universe prove an evil creator, and all good things prove the lack of one. Or that the creator has massively different standards of value from us. It's a logical dead-end, and it may make Attenborough brave, but it doesn't make him (or his courage) philosophically valid.
@falix
Irrational is probably the wrong word. What I mean is more like non-rational.
Like I said, it is your personal experience of your subconscious that is not rational. Your conscious mind cannot, by definition, have any sort of rational dialogue with your subconscious. You can understand rationally that this is the mechanism of your psyche, but you can't see the wheels turn.
Yep. Certainly these are all tools that can allow you a sideways glance at what lies below the surface, and maybe make some ripples. But mysticism is the ancient toolbox to actually work with it. Psychoanalysis / psychiatry / psychology are the new ones. I like it old school!
No worries. Then you shouldn't be bothered with it. But I maintain it is a valid choice. A great one, even.
I have just been reading through this thread, which has become a document of historical significance in its own right, and saw Xophers response #262 to Elsmileys, now classic, "metaphor hadn't been invented yet" argument. Sorry buddy66, but I have to pay that one for timeliness.
@ Tom, your boy is great and what a wonderful father you must be. I hope to be as good. Your household must be either complete chaos or sublime serenity.
The seven day week probably predates the Jews.
From Wikipedia:
When will the supporters/defenders of the judeo-christian religions finally admit they were late to the game, and stop taking credit for everything. And besides, hasn't religion always run everything. Kings and emperors have been controlled by the priests and astrologers from the beginning. It has taken thousands and thousands of years for us to progress to the point of laws that specifically separate church and state. And the fundies are doing everything they can to reverse this crowning achievement of modern societies.
Many apologies for the wall of text, but...
Roach "That's the problem both creationists and (hard) atheists get into when they approach from this angle - all good things in the universe prove a benevolent creator, all bad things prove the lack of one."
If other atheists are like me (and they all are. Every God damn last one of them! Moo ha-ha!), then the case against theism is fairly simple, and doesn't require positing malevolent/incompetent design. Essentially, it all breaks down to an interventionalist God who, nonetheless, consistently fails to intervene on any level higher than placebo (and when He is posited to do so, He frequently shows up as other, incompatible gods from other religions, in a pattern that's quite consistent by the religions of that area. Catholics see Mary. Protestants tend to see Jesus. They do not see Shiva or Huitzilopochtli).
That aside, the "worm in the eye"-Problem of Suffering-Problem of Evil ''is'' a good argument against an all-good, all-loving, 3-0'd God. If it wasn't, apologists throughout the history of the Church wouldn't have spent (and continue to spend) so much time trying to figure out why God gives children cancer. None of the counter-arguments work very well, IMO, and they tend to open up other theological holes: suffering is inconsequential because it's temporary while Heaven is eternal, it's not God's fault (it's Satan's/Adam's/your own), it's a test (or if it's your kid that gets "tested", He's torturing your child to test you...although you'll never hear it phrased that bluntly), God has a reason for everything/divine ineffability, you ''dare'' to judge Him?!, etc)...all of which tend to compromise the all-good, all-loving or any of the three O's of the posited deity.
Job, even with forty-two chapters to work with, didn't do a good job of it. Two chapters of story, then some thirty-six following that trying to figure out why bad things happen to good people. In chapter thirty-eight God pops in and, instead of explaining anything, He berates Job, tells him about how great and powerful He is and about all the other stuff that He does. Finally, having received essentially a multi-chapter non-sequitur, in the last chapter Job apologizes...not because God is good, not because He is loving, but because He is powerful. Then the LORD gives Job new stuff to replace the old stuff that was taken from him, Job replaces the kids that the Satan/God plot killed with new ones, he grows old and dies, confident in the knowledge that God is God, and it's His universe to do with as He pleases, and there's jack shit that Job can do about it.
Granted, my interpretation of Job is probably heterodox (sometimes agnostic, occasional deist, mostly atheist, natch), but it's a profoundly depressing answer (non-answer, really) to the Problem of Evil. Between Job, and Ecclesiastes, I'd take the latter any day (how did a book of doubt make the canon, anyway?)
The naturalistic answer fits the facts much better, with no mental gymnastics required, even if its conclusion is no consolation: Shit happens, sometimes.
This, I believe, is why atheism has such a hard time recruiting. Atheists, ideally, freely admit ignorance on some matters, and the answers when they do have enough information to come to a reasonable conclusion tend to suck. "You ''are'' special. You just aren't ''that'' special" and "You are going to die" make terrible bumperstickers.
"Or that the creator has massively different standards of value from us."
Tom, one question, if you are as you say you are, which I have no reason to doubt, why in hell are you a member of an admittedly backwards looking homophobic church? This question becomes even more important if your son is indeed gay. Why be a member of any organization that would discriminate against, instead of love and accept, one of the most precious people in your life? The way I read your comments you appear to be searching for a spiritual understanding and freedom the CofC cannot provide.
MO, these questions are why I state this god is not the god of infinite forgiveness or unconditional love. The canon states all this crap started when god refused to forgive Eve her transgression, thus condemning not just her, but all of us that have followed her, to lives of suffering. We are never given another chance, but are born into sin. As jews our only chance is to worship this vindictive asshole; as christians our only recourse is predicated upon the condition we must accept Jesus as our lord and savior. Failing this we are consigned to an eternity in hell. Hey, but it is our choice. Love me or swim in a lake of burning sulfer forever! Oh, I get it, this is not a god, but a godfather. God ain't George Burns, he's Marlon Brando.
And another thing is why in hell isn't there a commandment that says "Thou shall not keep slaves." Why was slavery OK? Why didn't Jesus free the slaves?
"as christians our only recourse is predicated upon the condition we must accept Jesus as our lord and savior."
Not every Christian believes that; many believe Christ saves even the non-believers. Others believe that "accepting Christ" is more about attitude than creed; they find in Christianity a spirit of love, charity and forgiveness that leads us out of places of suffering ("hell") and builds communities of mutual respect and concern ("heaven.")
As for why would an all-forgiving God allow slavery? Seems obvious to me--because that sort of God forgives the slave drivers, too. The way the story goes, he forgave his murderers as they were murdering him; if you're looking for a God that punishes the wicked, in my estimation, you're looking in the wrong place.
HA! You might think. Christian churches are some of the quickest to judge and condemn in the nation! Well, yeah. An all-forgiving God does tend to end up with some of the lousiest followers. What's Jesus supposed to do, die for everyone's sins but theirs?
Anyway, that's just what I believe. Once upon a time an all-powerful superhero was sent to earth to punish the wicked, but instead he found out he kinda loved even the wicked (cuz everyone's got *something* good about 'em, y'know?) and so he let them kill him instead of raising a finger against them. It's a simple little story at heart, but I've found more wisdom in it than in most any biology book. And so it's tough for me to see people condemned for taking it more seriously than they take a biology book. In general, everyone condemning each other for their faults is just so the opposite of what I was raised to worship.
FoetusNail "And another thing is why in hell isn't there a commandment that says "Thou shall not keep slaves."
Because people wrote it. Those people had slaves (most societies had variations on slavery/indentured servitude, as that economy worked really well at the time).
The book makes much more sense if you approach it through the eyes of its writers (that's why the Amalekites were bad; they didn't write the Tanakh. I'm sure that in their text, they'd write about "those nasty Israelites". Even the "bad" legalistic Jews in the NT were only bad because they were the wrong, not-believing that He was who He thought He was, group. Rome, with some exceptions like Herod, only avoided being another group of bad guys because it was a friggin' superpower. Piss off Rome and you get crushed. See Jewish–Roman War, which was less of a war and more of a revolt followed by a massacre, with the survivors being enslaved and scattered. Also, it was under Nero's reign, if that helps paint the picture. If memory serves, the Colloseum was financed with the loot from Judea...taken from the Temple of Jerusalem that Herod, yes, that Herod, helped upgrade).
Read the Torah as though the Israelites were, oh I don't know, the Hyskos, who ruled parts of Egypt for a century before being unceremoniously kicked out, re-remembering their history as being the oppressed rather than the oppressors.
Read Daniel (and later, Revelations) as though the intended readers were living through some pretty dark days and needed a motivational fiction where everything works out in the end.
Read Mark (the earliest and least "tweaked" Gospel) as though the main character was an apocalyptic preacher who thought that the end was nigh.
Read Paul's Epistles as though Paul was a zealous persecutor of heretics who began to empathize with them, his mind eventually snapped, and he became a zealous propagandist for Christianity.
"Why didn't Jesus free the slaves?"
He was more concerned with the world to come and thought that it was going to be really soon (hence the "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." of Mat 24:34, among others, that apologists have to make mean something other than what it says). He could waste time fighting the Establishment, or He could gather the sheep.
Unfortunately, "this generation" did pass (and many after that), leaving the OT's pro-slavery message, Jesus' relative neutrality, leading to the "obedience above all" message of passages like 1Peter 2:18. Combined, they helped slavery last longer than it should've (see Southern Baptist Convention, and it only came under fire when some Christians (Quakers and Unitarians, for the most part, with some from other denominations) started ignoring those bits and focussing on the larger, vaguer, ultimately healthier, "love thine neighbor" parts.
Jesus said, I'm the only way, only through me, etc.
If you don't believe that your a jew or a muslim.
At any rate, I'm not looking for a god.
I'm especially not looking for a god that punishes the wicked.
Though if I were looking for a god, I would definitely stay away from a god that condemns the innocent. A god that wants me to believe his allowing people to be born with or die from genetic disasters is somehow educational or ennobling.
If I were looking for a god, I wouldn't want one that practices human sacrifice, even once.
Martyrs are so first century.
If I were looking for a god or a savior, I would want one that took an unambiguous stand against slavery, a subject the god of Abraham avoids like the plague. Jesus must have been in the pocket of Big Slavery.
Actually your missing my point, god doesn't forgive anyone, god condemns all of us to lives of suffering because he refused to forgive Eve.
Also, why would anyone be looking in a biology book for wisdom or the bible for that matter. I prefer Mark Twain.
Believe me, I do approach all these holy works as the unholy products of men. I see all this stuff for exactly what they are, outdated sales brochures and weapons of fear.