[T]he only "god" which makes any shred of sense to me consistent with all human knowledge of nature and lived experience and does not insult my intelligence or undermine my dignity as a moral agent is the Pandeus.
I don't really think there are religious people active on this forum, besides some two or three members.
I was raised Catholic, and sometimes I tag along with relatives to go to Church if it is a special occasion. Catholic and Orthodox Churches are my favourite places to visit. I do not believe any of it is true however I don't even believe Jesus was a real person.
javi2541997February 16, 2024 at 13:31#8815160 likes
I understand your scepticism towards his image and the Christian dogma, but we should not deny the existence of his persona.
He was a normal person, born and raised in Judaea. I have read some interesting books by Kazantzakis and after thinking about what this Greek intellectual purposed, I personally believe that Jesus existed, but the Church poisoned his image with lucrative aims.
My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.
I think Jesus was a composite figure put together to make a coherent story of the events chronicled in the NT, some of which were certainly true. The christian heresy did originate somewhere, from somebody, before Saul of Tarsus made much hay of it. The rebellion of 66AD had long, deep roots.
But that's beside the point. One can be interested in religions and mythology without buying into them. In fact, I find that the more you learn about their history, the less you believe their content.
There seems to be far far more compelling, objective evidence that, for example, dinosaurs had existed +65 million years ago than there is that an itinerant rabbi from Nazareth in Roman-occupied Judea named Yeshua ben Yosef (aka "I?sus Chr?stus") had existed two millennia ago ... or, btw, that any g/G has ever existed. Just my two shekels.
It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.
In light of Yeshu ben Ananias, it is likely the case. It is said around that Jesus is a mix of Ananias, Mithras, and others. I think the article's comparison with Romulo is very apt. Thanks for the link.
There's no good evidence of this but I think it is safe to say the myth came to us via one or two messianic preachers of the time. There were many doing the rounds. This plus borrowing miracle stories etc from other places. Even today we can find living gurus and religious figures who do 'miracles' and have exaggerated stories attached to them.
I don't follow or accept any religion and I'm not a believer in gods or goddesses. I've written here before that (aside from enculturation) I think theism is a preference people have, like their sexuality or an aesthetic appreciation, which may be back filled, ad hoc with reasoning. The notion of god has never supported any of my sense making, nor seemed coherent to me. I haven't 'felt' a need for it.
There's no good evidence of this but I think it is safe to say the myth came to us via one or two messianic preachers of the time. There were many doing the rounds.
My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.
Exactly. This is what I attempted to say, but I didn't bother to keep debating because I understand that in this site religion is prosecuted and most of the members have baloney comments on theology. But I read your comment and your point is close to what Kazantzakis wanted to explain. Jesus of Nazareth did exist, but the people who surrounded him, poisoned his image with dogmatic purposes. The last temptation by Kazantzakis is a very interesting book where the image of Jesus is humanized. There are even chapters where Jesus refuses to become a messiah or similar. As a very good comment I have read around the internet: Kazantzakis shows in this book a different image of Jesus than we are used to in the Gospels. This is probably what happened in reality.
I read Kazantzakis some years ago. I do not remember whether he addresses the following. For many Christians death and resurrection is of central importance. If Jesus was a man then the resurrection stories become problematic.
Given the alleged distortions in the gospel stories what if anything is unique about Jesus?
javi2541997February 17, 2024 at 14:15#8817430 likes
Reply to Fooloso4 According to the Christian dogma, yes. The resurrection of Jesus, the trinity, and other aspects are key facts in the doctrine. As I said before, these are the patterns which build up the doctrine as we know today. This also happened to Asissi, for instance. We all agreed with the existence of St. Francis of Asissi, but it is obvious that he lived a very more complex life than we used to hear from partisans of Christianity. Did everything really happen what is typed in the Bible? What did exist? Jesus himself or the miracles?
Well, Kazantzakis wrote this in the novel: (The Last Temptation)
[i]Jesus: Did you see resurrected Jesus of Nazareth? How did he look like?
Paul: He was a thunder... A thunder that was speaking.
Jesus: LIAR!
Paul: His disciples saw him. After the crucifixion, they were reunited in a garret, with its doors closed, and he showed up in font of them and said: May peace be with you!
Jesus: LIAR
Paul: A man wasn't born. Her mother was virgin. The Archangel Gabriel descended from the sky and said: I salute you, Mary! And his words fell down like a seed in her breast. This is how Jesus were born.
Jesus: LIAR! LIAR! I am Jesus of Nazareth. I never got crucified. I never got resurrected. I am the son of Mary and Joseph, not the son of God. I am the son of a man, like everyone else.[/i]
There is nothing unique about Jesus. :smile: He was a normal person like you and me. That's the key to understanding him.
There is nothing unique about Jesus. He was a normal person like you and me. That's the key to understanding him.
How are we to understand him? If there is nothing unique about him what does this mean for Christianity?
If the stories of Jesus are distortions then what are we to make of the teachings ascribed to him?
javi2541997February 17, 2024 at 14:59#8817510 likes
Reply to Fooloso4 What do you mean by 'teachings'? As far as I know, Jesus was just a revolutionary. He tried to face the Roman Empire with a very basic dialectic. I imagine him as a person walking around Judae and reciting speeches. Some clever folks see him as a big opportunity and decide to misrepresent his beliefs and ideas. He maybe didn't even know how to write, but had everything a religion needs: Poverty, drama, guilt, sacrifice, etc. The people who surrounded him decided to exploit his image through his teachings. We have to consider that the we barely know about Jesus is thanks to the Gospels. But the latter is based on Jesus Christ, the sacred image, not Jesus the fisherman. I believe in his existence. I don't buy the resurrection and the dogma but the persona of Jesus.
As a legendary hero figure. (Hercules, Prince Yamato, Odin, Ta Kora, Maitreya, Boewulf...) A special human who is born to greatness, pursuing his assigned quest; his exploits exaggerated and embellished over time. Quoting Fooloso4
If there is nothing unique about him what does this mean for Christianity?
There is something unique about all hero figures, but they also conform to an archetype: their culture's ideal of virtue, accomplishment and perseverance. What is means for Christianity is not at issue: Christian churches have made up their own version of the religion, in most of which Jesus hardly signifies at all, except as a conduit to heaven and a focal point for the major feast days. Quoting Fooloso4
If the stories of Jesus are distortions then what are we to make of the teachings ascribed to him?
The stories have been edited, revised, Europeanized and abridged. If you're interested in the teachings, you'll find their essence in those texts, regardless of distortion.
He maybe didn't even know how to write, but had everything a religion needs: Poverty, drama, guilt, sacrifice, etc.
How do you know he was poor? Perhaps the drama was part of the stories told about him. Why guilt? What would he have to be guilty about? Guilt inflicted on him by his Jewish mother? Was he either so sinful or thought himself to be so that Yom Kippur was not enough? What kinds of sacrifice?
If you're interested in the teachings, you'll find their essence in those texts, regardless of distortion.
How do we distinguish between essence and distortion? What you might take to be essence others might see as distortion because it leaves out what they believe is essential.
ut there are no major religions worshiping these figures.
That no current religions worship those ancient figures, or that I left Gautama off the list, has little to do with their archetypal similarity.
Does this mean that Christianity is an enormous mistake?
No. It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith. Quoting Fooloso4
How do we distinguish between essence and distortion?
Each according his sensibility. The accuracy of the original doesn't matter a damn: it was preached to different peoples in different times and is relevant to our lives only in the most basic points: be decent to one another. Quoting Fooloso4
What you might take to be essence others might see as distortion because it leaves out what they believe is essential.
Yes, of course. How do you think all those different Christian sects came to exist? Why do you think they've made so many wars and persecutions over it? People are perverse: when they read "Love thy neighbour as thyself" they sometimes choose to understand it as "If thy neighbour is not enough like thyself, burn him at the stake for his own good."
Fire OlogistFebruary 17, 2024 at 19:30#8818130 likes
At the risk of losing all respect and credibility in a world dominated by physicalistic, scientific discourse, I am a Catholic and believe in God.
To (maybe) salvage some credibility among so many non-believers, the God of all the philosophers has been such a hollow shell of a creature, mostly invented to fill an empty space on the chessboard of other doubtful pieces. The monad, the evil-genius who is the perfection of perfection, the "good" personified, the zeit-geist of history, or the prime mover - each one of us is more consequential than these concepts and would contain these phantoms in our minds, making them smaller than ourselves. Augustine admitted that all that he said was like a grain of sand on the beach of what there is to say, and Aquinas called all of his work like straw. They were right!
There is no God found in philosophy or science that has impressed me or influenced why I believe in God. Similarly, I am not impressed with any arguments that show God can't exist either.
The whole point of science and philosophy is to figure this experience out for ourselves. We start from scratch. No God, no nothing. And then, once we know something, we don't need anyone or anything else to explain it for us, we have it ourselves. God hasn't yet entered this picture and to stay scientific and philosophical, God need not enter the picture.
Since I do believe in God, God has a place in the ontology somewhere. Maybe we will one day reason our way to the presence of God, sort of sneak up on God from behind and say "Hey, we are made in your image because we just created you." But I also believe (more accurately think it is reasonable to assume) that there are individuals in the ontology, separate from God. We have our hands full enough trying to exit the confines of our own solitary minds and to find any meaning anywhere at all, so leaps that would include the concept of "God" to help us explain "identity" or "motion" or "math" seem to lack rigor and honest scientific inquiry.
But then, we don't just talk philosophy and science do we. We have to live. We don't skip breakfast because our senses could be deceiving us. We don't wonder about the metaphysics of identity or set theory when going to the bathroom to draw clear and distinct lines between the crap and our asses. And we enjoy deep conversations with the people we love, about all sorts of experiences, and about beauty or tragedy, without constantly reminding everyone how we can't know the thing-in-itself or that meaning is actually use.
God is experienced in those conversations, not scientific ones.
It's like this to me, when I'm doing math, the existence of God is irrelevant. All of science and philosophy is still in that place for me. God may be irrelevant to them. God and science are totally irrelevant when I go to bathroom and see there is no toilet paper. You can put that scenario in the context of science (needing an absorbent tissue to address the viscosity of the crap) or God (who says I am created in his image, here frantically looking for something to wipe my ass), but really who cares at that moment.
And I'm being gross on purpose. You don't cringe from one philosophical concept, ever. You might cringe if the crap accidentally touches your hands. God is way more wholistic an experience than just the concepts of philosophy.
So when I talk about God, I would be talking about revelation and my response to that revelation, which is really something hard to express to someone who has not already themselves had that response, that experience. I can't give anyone the experience of God all by myself. You have to respond in some way that would deliver that experience, that would lead you to say "Is that God?"
Something like revelation is here on this forum though. You can't know me at all without me revealing myself to you. You cannot come close to saying I exist or know who I am until I reveal myself. I reveal myself to you here, and you reveal yourselves to me, here on this forum. Otherwise, no one is there to consider. The existence of God starts like that. That's why people feel blessed that they believe in God, and why they say faith is a gift. It doesn't come from me, it comes from an experience of me with God.
And religion, and church and all the institutionalization and edifice, that's all hogwash unless you are interested in finding God in it. If you don't believe in God at all, I wouldn't recommend trying to analyze a church or a religion from the outside in. If you happen to find you God, and you were interested in keeping that new line of communication open, you might then be able to find uses in the religions and churches. Otherwise, they look like every other human institution - a place filled only with people and all of our limitations.
Long story short, if Im reading it right you seem to be saying that youre a Catholic because of a revelation. If thats the case, did this revelation occur prior to becoming a Catholic?
That no current religions worship those ancient figures, or that I left Gautama off the list, has little to do with their archetypal similarity.
I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus against the background of how he is understood within Christianity. Put differently, what does Christian belief and practice look like to Christians who regard him as a moral man.
Reply to Fire Ologist So ... 'believing is seeing', is that it? or "Seek and ye shall find?" Seems to me an instance of the placebo-effect of confirmation bias.
Reply to javi2541997 No doubt, which is why I prefer the exemplary teachings of legendary "normal persons" other than Jesus of Nazareth like Socrates or Epicurus ... Btw, from what I recall (from reading the book in the 1980s), The Last Temptation of Christ is, IMHO, a great gnostic novel (i.e. 'existentialist' à la Hans Jonas / Gabriel Marcel).
Reply to Fire Ologist It's unclear to me what you are attempting to say other that there are different ways of knowing and that you believe in god because of personal experience. I was talking to a Muslim on Wednesday who put his argument the same way you do, except for him Jesus was a mortal who died and only Allah provides the way to Paradise. How do you measure one person's personal feelings (revelation) against another's, when the revelation grounds utterly different worldviews?
I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus
and my answer was: However you can, according to your own lights
[
against the background of how he is understood within Christianity.
Variously. So variously that you might not even recognize the different strains of it as the same religion. Indeed, the dominant one very often declared one or another variant as heretical and persecuted those who believed it.
Put differently, what does Christian belief and practice look like to Christians who regard him as a moral man.
Ask a Christian. Ask many Christians. You'll probably get as many answers. Quoting Fooloso4
Right, but its success does not mean it was not a mistake.
Who is to say which religion is "a mistake"? I'm sure there are plenty of opinions. Quoting Fooloso4
There is nothing particularly Christian about this.
Of course there isn't! It's the kernel of all practical instruction for a coherent society. Quoting Fooloso4
What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity?
The fact that it had Constantine as its patron, at a time when he was gaining power. (Paul was a pretty good salesman, but he couldn't have done it at the grass roots.)
Fire OlogistFebruary 17, 2024 at 23:06#8818540 likes
I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus
Fooloso4
and my answer was: However you can, according to your own lights
Is it your position that Christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as believers are decent to one another, regardless of what else is believed, said, and done?
Ask a Christian. Ask many Christians. You'll probably get as many answers.
Right. And many if not most will deny that Christianity without a divine savior is Christianity. My point is not that one must be right and the other wrong but that without some common element or perhaps family resemblance there is no referent. Nothing that distinguishes it from other religions or beliefs and practices.
If Jesus was just a man then it would be a mistake to worship him as a god. If he is a god then it would be a mistake to regard him as merely a man. Of course we are free to decide for ourselves but that does not solve the problem for someone struggling to decide.
What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity?
Fooloso4
The fact that it had Constantine as its patron, at a time when he was gaining power.
Constantine took sides in the dispute that the Council of Nicaea was supposed to resolve, but political fiat does not resolve theological differences. Consistent with what you said above I would think you would say that it is up to the individual. In which case it would would seem that there is nothing that distinguishes it.
(Paul was a pretty good salesman, but he couldn't have done it at the grass roots.)
Christianity was at its inception the religion invented by Paul and, according to Paul, at odds with what Jesus' disciples said Jesus preached. This was also the inception of the growing hatred of Jews by those who called themselves Christian.
Fire OlogistFebruary 17, 2024 at 23:40#8818630 likes
It's unclear to me what you are attempting to say other that there are different ways of knowing and that you believe in god because of personal experience. I was talking to a Muslim on Wednesday who put his argument the same way you do, except for him Jesus was a mortal who died and only Allah provides the way to Paradise. How do you measure one person's personal feelings (revelation) against another's, when the revelation grounds utterly different worldviews?
I responded to the question of what religion by just talking about my belief in God, so I wasn't really being sensitive to the differences between different religions. Since here, it seemed like there was a threshold question about whether God or any religion even makes sense, I basically tackled that.
But I find the same God shows up in all kinds of religions and peoples. If everyone in the world was a Catholic, each person would still have something unique and particular in their view of God. It's like knowing a person. My view of my wife is unlike anyone else's view of my wife. In a sense, anyone who has a belief in God has their own religion.
That very interesting because it seems to imply that your revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.
The OP asks what religion and why.
Fire OlogistFebruary 18, 2024 at 00:18#8818660 likes
revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.
Yes, I try to be a Catholic. When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. When Jesus was born, the story goes, he was visited by three wise men from the East. I find God has been revealing himself everywhere. I just think, personally, it's most explicit in the Catholic faith.
Fire OlogistFebruary 18, 2024 at 00:43#8818700 likes
Why interpret such an incredible ("I can't believe what I'm seeing") encounter as "God" or in some religious way?
Yeah. There is a leap of faith involved. I do doubt it all at times. Not lately. But when I do, I think God still wants me (and all of us) so he keeps pulling me back in. It's not just up to me. That is what I found has been revealed.
But you won't find me using wishful thinking or not confronting my biases here though. The words in this forum have to stand alone. A quote from Plato, or Kant or Nietzsche should not be taken as any kind of gospel, so neither would a quote from the Bible or revelation. And anyway, even two Catholics talking about Christ's death on the cross are often having two totally different conversations.
I'll throw out one personal take on it all to show you how tough it would be for me to tell you why I believe in God, or why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true. Kind of like, seeing the unbelievable is believing. I know that does my argument no good (but it's not an argument), but hopefully still means something.
Is it your position that Christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as believers are decent to one another, regardless of what else is believed, said, and done?
No. I have no 'position' on the matter. I describe things as i see them. If my perception is incorrect, then my answer is wrong. Quoting Fooloso4
If Jesus was just a man then it would be a mistake to worship him as a god. If he is a god then it would be a mistake to regard him as merely a man.
In the end, after all the true history would be sorted out, to me, they would still represent the whole rest of the world, that he was there in a horse trough for all of us and all of us were there represented with our finest for him. Besides the history of it all, the story get's a lot of mileage with the kids too. Cute baby sheep, silver and gold.
There is a leap of faith involved [ ... ] why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true.
:ok:
Noble DustFebruary 18, 2024 at 05:31#8819220 likes
I was raised evangelical Christian, perhaps borderline fundamentalist. I broke out of that prison a mere 8 or 10 years ago only to find myself in a different prison, one of belief paralysis, existential crisis, and extreme doubt about absolutely everything. To an outsider all of that fallout may look like a result of my religious indoctrination, which is probably true, but I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me.
All of that said, I'm not an atheist. But I no longer worry about any ongoing debate about God's existence; I'm now bored by them. Provisionally, my conception of God is probably closest to a Hindu conception, for anyone who cares. I feel no need to defend this belief; I don't care what other people think of it. And I think that's healthier than feeling the need to defend one's belief or lack thereof in God; I'm speaking from experience here.
I'm still not a believer in losing one's faith as being a universally enlightening or triumphant experience. Loss of faith has been one long, agonizing divorce for me.
I've witnessed this sort of "divorce" afflicting several friends and acquaintances throughout my life and always have felt fortunate that I didn't go through such "agony" because I'd realized while still at my Jesuit high school that, despite a decade or more by then of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing and education, I had had no "faith" to lose, recognizing that I didn't believe the biblical stories were any truer than the superhero comics (& Greco-Roman, Egyptian-African myths) I'd geeked-out on or that Catholic symbols & practices were anything but tribal customs like wearing team jerseys and flag waving. I can't say forty-five years later that the experience of 'coming out as a nonbeliever' (I wasn't aware of the word atheist or freethinker yet) was anything like "enlightening or triumphant" since it greatly displeased my mother, irritated both of my favorite teachers who were priests and confused my younger brother and our closest friends.
Fortunately, all I had to do was shut-up about my apostasy and go through the obligatory motions like before and no one mentioned it again until after I'd graduated high school a couple of years later. "Loss of God", however, was more of an intellectual than existential difficulty for me only after I'd been seriously reading philosophy for almost a decade because the "loss" had deprived my thinking of any "foundation" or "absolute" or "teleology", etc ... which, ironically, had gradually become illuminating.
NB: My irreligious 'road to Damascus':
i. apostasy > ii. agnostic/negative atheism > iii. positive atheism > antitheism > pandeism ...
My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.
Are you aware that this horse died about 1600 years ago?
?
Do you mean the Council of Ephesus (431)? Or the First Council (325)? Or the Gregorian calendar (425)? Or something else?
In any case, when it comes to theological matters, whatever some group of men come to agreement on is not the end of the matter. Here we are all those years later still discussing it.
Christianity without a Christ seems to be oxymoronic.
Yes, I get that. So? It does not alter the history or present state of Christianity. It doesn't make the least little difference to what people have done, what people do and what people believe. Quoting Fooloso4
Here we are all those years later still discussing it.
It doesn't make the least little difference to what people have done, what people do and what people believe.
Of course it does! Perhaps not to you but it makes a great deal of difference to some who question whether they can remain Christian and not believe that Jesus was more than human. I have been here long enough to think it likely that some of them might even be reading this. There is more to it than either giving them an answer or telling them it is up to them to make up their own mind. Some might be looking for help in sorting it all out for themselves. For them it may be that the question of this thread: "What religion are you and why?" is something they struggle with. For some it is the questioning, the inquiring, and not the answers anyone else gives that is most important.
Perhaps not to you but it makes a great deal of difference to some who question whether they can remain Christian and not believe that Jesus was more than human.
They will simply have to do whatever people who questioned have always had to do: decide what they believe.
Christianity got itself established quite firmly in the world without benefit of the pedigree you seem to require. It's done and has not come undone by force of arguments, debates, investigations, archeological digs, commentaries, apologetics or encyclicals. It will not come undone by some minor quibble over who is what religion and why in a tiny backwater of the internet. Whoever else wants to further discuss it will get exactly same forrurder.
Christianity got itself established quite firmly in the world without benefit of the pedigree you seem to require.
What pedigree? There is no pedigree. From the beginning there have been factions and differences with regard to both belief and practice.
Christianity has a history, much of which has been suppressed, lost, or forgotten. It did not become firmly established without two things:
1) The Church Fathers successful unification of what they misleadingly called the Catholic Church
by declaring certain texts and doctrines to be canonical and official and others heretical. The heretical texts include inspirational writing, testifying to the indwelling of spirit. Some regard this as the true genius of Christianity.
2) Prior to the establishment of the Church there were for the most part a small group of Jewish followers of Jesus who believed he was the promised messiah, and the Gentile followers of Paul, who in effect abolished what Jesus claimed to fulfill , God's Law. At some point the Gentile Christians, in line with their belief in deification and contrary to both Jesus and Paul, made Jesus a god. Despite their agreement on this, there were differences as to what this meant. These disputes threatened not only the Church, which Constantine at this point seemed to have little interest in, but political alliances, which he was very much interested in. It is an open question whether Christianity would have survived without Constantine.
It will not come undone by some minor quibble over who is what religion and why in a tiny backwater of the internet.
I agree that it will not come undone in this way. If you think that is what I intend you are wrong. In these discussions it is typical for someone to accuse me of either supporting or trying to undermine Christianity or religion. As if by raising questions and difficulties I must be doing one or the other. I have no interest in doing either.
Given its diversity, any focused discussion of Christianity or more generally religion needs to deal with some degree of specificity regarding beliefs and/or practices. It is not for the sake of a pedigree but so that we are talking about the same thing.
Added: By way of example. On several occasions people have told me that they "love philosophy", but then go on to talk about things that I would not regard as philosophy. I do not engage in a discussion of what I think is or is not philosophy, but I do come to see that we are not talking about the same thing.
Given its diversity, any focused discussion of Christianity or more generally religion needs to deal with some degree of specificity regarding beliefs and/or practices.
That sounds like a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure there are appropriate platforms for it.
This platform will do just fine. I did not start this topic. Others crop up all the time. If you have an issue with it take it up with the moderators. It was your choice to participate and to respond to me.
The question of the order of authority between reason and revelation is a perennial philosophical problem. Plato referred to it as 'the quarrel between philosophy and poetry'. Tertullian might have been the first to use the phrase 'Athens and Jerusalem'. In any case it remains an issue for both philosophers and theologians.
The term poet comes from the Greek poiein which means to make. The poets were the makers of myths, of stories, of images of men and gods. They were not simply entertainers, they were the primary educators. First among them was Homer. In the Republic the poets are the makers of the images of those things whose shadows are cast on the cave wall. The shadows or images of images the prisoners, that is, people, take to be the truth.
Socrates wants to banish the poets from the just city. The philosophers and not the poets should be the educators, the myth makers, the makers of truth, and of proper conduct toward men and gods.
Unless I have read you wrong, it looks to me that you feel that you have been provoked.
Your perception is incorrect in this instance. I do not feel provoked. The kind of provocation it takes to turn me against religion is far greater in scope and effect: it is in the realm of political influence.
I do believe that the historicity and mortality of Jesus, and how it affects modern Christians theology - is not well situated in the Lounge, and that, insofar as it relates to the OP question, has been exhausted.
Socrates wants to banish the poets from the just city. The philosophers and not the poets should be the educators, the myth makers, the makers of truth, and of proper conduct toward men and gods.
Thanks. I thought Plato saw poetry as immoral, distracting folk from truth. Doesn't he also agree that poetry has a role some later works?
How are we to understand this today - sounds like a culture war. Was it that poetry functioned a bit like sophistry, using its artfulness to manipulate rather than identify the good?
All of that said, I'm not an atheist. But I no longer worry about any ongoing debate about God's existence; I'm now bored by them.
My mother's attitude was the best non-atheist one I know. She had no use for (nor animosity toward) any formal doctrine; she simply didn't need them. Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation.
I thought Plato saw poetry as immoral, distracting folk from truth. Doesn't he also agree that poetry has a role some later works?
For Plato the distinction between philosophy, poetry, and sophistry is not as clear-cut as he makes it seem. Without getting too far into it, his writing is a kind of philosophical poetry, making extensive use of images, myths, and likely stories. It intends to persuade and to that end he engages in sophistical and rhetorical argument. Above all it is dialectical. Together with the engaged reader it moves and remains within the realm of thinking.
How are we to understand this today - sounds like a culture war. Was it that poetry functioned a bit like sophistry, using its artfulness to manipulate rather than identify the good?
It was a culture war. Only today there is no one comparable to Plato or Aristophanes. I don't think it was a matter of manipulating the good, but rather, in the absence of knowledge of the good, making images of its likeness.
When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern.
Not in my experience. "I am" and "I am not" both express a duality that many Eastern traditions seek to transcend. I once joined such a tradition for a short while, seeking a transcendent experience or 'revelation'. I've had what I might describe as intellectual revelations with the help of Eastern and Western philosophy and perhaps science, and shallow experiential revelations. I hope to someday have a deep experiential revelation, but it's not imperative because though I think it would be beneficial, at the end of the day it's just a transient experience.
Only today there is no one comparable to Plato or Aristophanes. I don't think it was a matter of manipulating the good, but rather, in the absence of knowledge of the good, making images of its likeness.
That's interesting. How did they consider poetry was able to do this - by aesthetic distraction and emotionality? Poetry as truth's false gold?
Things are not so different today. Stories and songs still play a major role in shaping what we find desirable, and what we desire is the basis of what we regard as good.
Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation.
This very much reminds of my mother's idiosyncratic non-doctrinnaire, or ceremonial, Catholicism: quiet prayer-focused and weekly charity work usually in lieu of Mass. I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.
Im not religious but part of me wants to be either Catholic or Muslim. Ive been in countries where most people come in one of those flavours of Abraham, and it feels strong and meaningful, like something that would give one a sense of belonging.
I also like Catholicism in science fiction, I like stories about monks or medieval theologians, and I feel comfortable in churches and mosques. I also find the early development of Christianity and Islam really interesting. To be part of that fascinating but chequered history would be quite something. Judaism has an attraction along those lines too, i.e., its history, but its more exclusive.
Sadly Im a total modernist and regard God as having died with the death of pre-modern tradition; I find some of the philosophy of Christianity objectionable; and I cannot muster the requisite beliefs anyway (not because I need evidence, but because God seems an obvious anthropological artifact).
I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.
It doesn't hurt. Of course, that independent religious view is part of a more comprehensive self-awareness and self-possession: an integrity of character that cuts through all the guff and bluster to the essence of things, hugely reducing doubt, anxiety and stress.
If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism; probably one of the North American Native varieties. Their gods and spirits are accessible; they have a sense of humour and can be playful. I like that in a supernatural entity, just as I like it in mortals.
That said, I was exposed to both Protestant and Catholic practice as a child. My city grandmother attended a grand cathedral with huge stained glass windows, marble columns and statues, zillions of candles, incense, overpowering music - and, oh, the pageantry of midnight mass! I loved it.
I also loved my country grandmother's village church of whitewashed adobe; the clean simplicity of the surroundings and the service, the warmth of breaking communion bread. There is something in the rituals of each religion that deeply appeals to the human psyche - not just in childhood, but always.
What I could not accept, once I was old enough to read the Bible, was the precepts.
What evidence or experience would convince you that [s](e.g.) "the God of Abraham"[/s] at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?
Reply to 180 Proof I suppose it would be any verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature in service of a biblical claim. Obviously I would be predisposed to doubt, which is an issue but as with Thomas, I imagine this would not be an issue at the time of realisation
What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" exists?
Couldnt say. But if this magical creature exists, no doubt it would know. I need god to show up in person and settle the matter.
There are some problems - the god of Abraham doesn't exist in as much as even many Jews and Christians recognise the allegorical nature of scripture. Yahweh as presented is likely a fiction (just as well as he behaves like a celestial Trump). So for the theists, who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT?
Reply to 180 Proof
I suppose he would have to tell me. Of course, I might have to be dead in order to understand him. Then I would regret my apostasy.
My biggest problem with Jehovah is not his existence but his reported behaviour. My father, when he was very drunk and worked himself into a lather regarding his due as paterfamilias, would bellow "I am the lord god!!" That's the model for the god of the OT. Any or all of the gods humans have set up could exist, I suppose, given a distant enough mountain/galaxy/plane to live on, but that would not make them worthy of reverence.
Since its not the lack of evidence that leads me to believe that God is not, maybe Id need more than evidence to persuade me that He is. What I mean is, I cannot bring myself to think of God in terms of evidence at all.
262. I can imagine a man who had grown up in quite special circumstances and been taught that the earth came into being 50 years ago, and therefore believed this. We might instruct him: the earth has long etc.We should be trying to give him our picture of the world.
This would happen through a kind of persuasion.
[quote=Wittgenstein, On Certainty]
612. At the end of reasons comes persuasion. (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.)[/quote]
In a nutshell, Ill believe in God when someone with enough charisma brainwashes me into it, but I can't really imagine that happening. And bearded men on clouds don't work on me either.
Reply to 180 Proof
The same pretty much applies to all entities that have been worshipped as deities, whether they created the world or just ruled it. Anyone who demands obedience through fear doesn't deserve respect. I'm sort of open to nature spirits - or was, until we destroyed nature: don't think I could stomach the wholesale massacre of dryads and naiads.
This is a tough one to answer. As I said earlier, I would probably need a god to show up and make its presence known or visible in a way that I can be sure isn't a hallucination or delusion. And all in a situation where this can be verified by others. This would need to be more than miracles/conjuring tricks: it would need to be big, like moving the planets around, changing the entire surface of the earth... that kind of thing. But there would also need to me a personal component, this god would need to speak directly to me and know things no one could know. All sounds kind of childish, I grant you.
With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else?
What would you need?
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 23, 2024 at 11:10#8831570 likes
With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else?
Exactly. If I witnessed a "miracle" or a verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature then I would probably assume that it was caused by an alien with advanced technology.
Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations).
I think that I possibly refuse to believe that a god exists on principle.
I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".
Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations).
Nobody ever follows the Prime Directive. If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey.
:chin: I can't imagine it would take anything less radical than sudden onset acute schizophrenia or dementia (or maybe undergoing a full lobotomy) for me to believe that hallucinate some "personal god" (e.g. mageia) exists. Otherwise, I think I'm too old now (60) too committed to p-naturalism (plus e.g. Clarke's 3rd Law > Schroeder's Law^) to be persuaded (rationally or not) out of my life-long, irreligious disbelief. No doubt, however, stranger things than 180°de-conversion have been known to happen, so ... :mask:
who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT?
Anybody they desire, want or need. That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable. When gods did not exist, people found it necessary to invent them (yes: Voltaire was simply stating an observation of what had already happened) - not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes.
What evidence or experience would convince you that [s](e.g.) "the God of Abraham"[/s] at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?
For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe. Ultimately I don't know if I have the capacity to comprehend that, like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity.
It appears to me that everything is interconnected and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. But I can't be certain, maybe somehow souls and such can exist.
[quote=praxis]For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe [ ... ] It appears to me that everything is interconnected [ontologically inseparable] and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe.[/quote]
:fire:
[quote=Vera Mont]That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable [ ... ] not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes.[/quote]
:100:
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 23, 2024 at 19:53#8832350 likes
If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey.
If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god.
I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise? Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god.
Aliens not only are not bound by the PD; they've never even heard of it. We can have no idea how they think or what motivates them. Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure.
Explain that to Data. We know the theory of why a PD was formulated, but that 'right measure' is a lot easier to put on paper than to carry out in the real world. For a start, how the hell do you know whether an action will eventually result in more harm than good? It's possible that a patient being fitted for a pacemaker right now will commit a mass murder next year, but that doesn't stop the cardiologist doing his job.
I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise?
Yes. But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves.
I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept.
But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves.
Then you know more about aliens than I do. As to whether it makes good sense - maybe not equally to everybody. Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept.
He understands the 'logic'; what he had trouble with was the cruelty, which is why he would not abandon Sarjenka.
And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel.
And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel.
It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin:
One of the things that I learnt as a parent is that sometimes you have to let you children make their own mistakes (allow them to get "hurt" - which is cruel). You could try to always stop them from making mistakes, but then they would never learn to take responsibility for their own lives. You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) in order to be kind (teach them to think for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions). In the right measure (you do try to stop them from driving while drunk).
It seems to me :nerd: the "non-interference" PD only makes statistical sense such that, if and when Terran civilization invents FTL "warp drive" so that there is non-negligble risk of making direct contact with biologically contaminating or even aggressively threatening an ETI's "civilization", only then will the need arise for an ETI to interfere with us either to Terra's benefit (à la Star Trek: First Contact) or detriment (à la Village of the Damned ... or Invasion of the Body Snatchers ... or Annihilation). TBD. :yikes:
And bearded men on clouds don't work on me either.
yet ;)
In a highly technical sense I'm Morman because I was baptised at the age of True Responsibility and Knowledge of Good and Evil: 8, and have yet to bother excising my name because it's just a hassle.
But I certainly don't believe their stuff, and haven't really found another religion that seems much different except that it's older and so the motives of their founders are harder to discern.
For the most part I think religious sexuality is so far out of date that it's not worth salvaging, because for the most part I think the family form and proper sexual etiquette are the main things preserved in churches.
What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?
Some poeple would say if God came down from the heavens and announced himself. But many would just conclude that they went insane. And wouldn't they be justified in thinking so? Everything that they experienced so far comes in contradiction with that one event, it is one event against the constant regularity of their past.
For me to be convinced, it is very simple, the evidence that there is a god would have to overall significantly outweigh {the evidence for any alternative for god in each issue where god has explanatory power} and {the evidence that there is not a god} together.
But if God came down from heavens to announce himself, not only would that have to be an experience like no other not just seeing lights in the sky or hearing voices like Saul , but this newfound knowledge would have to not contradict my past experiences but in fact explain many gaps in them.
It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin:
Yes, it's cruel to make children eat anything. And it doesn't work. In the short term, the child is unhappy and learns to hate foods that they might otherwise come to like in time; in the long term, this is a source of eating disorders. Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them)
Hitting, locking in a closet, starving, ear-pulling, burning with cigarette ends, force-feeding, carping and exorcism are cruelties. Allowing is not a cruelty. Is it not kind to let children bump a knee, but non-interference where the parent can see such a consequence might teach the child to exercise caution another time. Non-interference when he's about to fall off a three-storey building is counter-productive.
The operative phrase is: In the right measure. You use your judgment, case by case, situation by situation - rather than blindly obey a blanket directive from some uninvolved agency in the sky that's supposed to cover all contingencies.
This is what people actually do: interfere with everything - nature, their children, pets, their neighbours, other tribes, using their judgment, hoping to make improvements and often having the opposite effect.
Nobody obeys God's Prime Directive: "Don't touch the tree!" It's not in human nature to do so.
Here is a good example of convincing evidence: A novel I read some time ago, titled Towing Jehovah by James Morrow. I've read a couple of his other books, which have a similar slump in the middle where he doesn't seem to know where the story is going, but picks up again toward the end.
Agree-to-DisagreeFebruary 25, 2024 at 02:42#8834590 likes
What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?
Agree-to-Disagree
I step on them before they can develop the social conditions for philosophy.
Ants have been in existence for more than 100 million years. That is plenty of time to develop the social conditions for philosophy.
Ants are social insects. They live in organized communities, work cooperatively and efficiently, create a clear division of labor, wage war, and occasionally capture slaves.
In addition to being able to communicate, ants have an excellent sense of direction. They can find their way back to their nest by vision and smell. They orient themselves by the position of the Sun and by memory of landmarks, such as trees. Some ants also leave scent trails to aid other ants.
Leafcutter ants are industrious creatures that use the leaves to farm fungus which they eat they are essentially mushroom farmers.
Herder ants tend to aphids the little green bugs that drink plants nutrients and are considered pests by every farmer on earth, except for their own six-legged keepers. Ants love the sugary substance aphids exert and treat the bugs as their dairy cows.
Ants Have Been Raising And Milking Caterpillars Like Livestock For Millions Of Years. Some ant species have cared for certain insect species that produce food for them. Much like how humans milk cows, ants can milk a particular caterpillar species in order to obtain a nutritious beverage.
In return for providing ant colonies with sustenance, the ants care for the caterpillars in the same way that a farmer cares for his pigs or cows. In fact, some of these ant species have even been observed building shelters for their caterpillars.
During the dark of night, the ants will stand guard outside of the caterpillars shelter in order to protect them from predatory attacks. At the crack of dawn, the ants will herd the caterpillars up a tree in order to allow them to feed on leaves. These caterpillar herds are guarded around the clock by ant soldiers.
You have probably stepped on the ant equivalent of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.
unenlightenedFebruary 25, 2024 at 10:33#8834900 likes
I believe in Money, and his prophet, Trump.
These are the end times, when the disciples of Money will end poverty forever by slaughtering the the massed armies of the poor who are even now starting to sweep up from the South to invade our lands and rape our children. Only the few loyal worshippers will survive, to be caught up by the Great Penis Extension and transported to the Great Marketplace in the Sky, there to serve Bezos forever.
[quote=G.K.Chesterton]When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.[/quote]
Or to put it another way, one's life must have a centre; something must have more importance to a person than other things. Rather than tedious bickering about mere existence of a being with the name we have learned to give it, consider, when things fall apart, what you will seek to preserve? Some habit or understanding or relation to the world that is the last thing you will surrender.
Call that your god, or by some other name as you please.
If there are certain principles we believe are inherently good and worth committing ourselves to in a way that is not dependent on their monetary value, convenience, practicality or other contingencies; if there are values we hold that transcend our social norms and practices, that it may not in a sense even "make sense" to hold; if there is discernible to us a certain magic in an act, a creation, a word, a look that can't be reproduced without the right spirit, that is sublime, inexplicable, and unnameable; and if we can't hold our heads up unless we have protected and cherished all of this, then what of what we call it?
i.e. What @un said. But I felt like writing something. :halo:
When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."
Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.
(would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)
Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"
Im an atheist because I dont see any evidence for any of the religions.
Fine by me if you don't see any evidence.
I'm religious; I'm not spiritual. I respect religion more than I believe it. Religions are among humanity's great creations.
I might believe in God, but not the God whose program involves micromanaging the universe. The God I might believe in is omnipresent, but not omni-engaged. His eye may be on the sparrow (as the song goes) but if a hawk eats the sparrow God may notice but does not punish the hawk.
Perhaps God is the Primum Mobile and part of the Universe. Perhaps not. I wasn't there at the beginning, so I'm guessing.
Did Jesus once walk the streets of Jerusalem? @javi2541997 believes Jesus literally existed. I'm inclined to agree, though like the London Underground riders, we must "MIND THE GAP" when reading the Gospels. Jesus wasn't around to help edit his biography which was written by authors who did not know him personally and did not have access to his phone, his tax forms, his diaries, his trial records, his birth certificate, or back issues of the Jerusalem Post.
Whether the personal testimony that they did have in their hands was reliable, God only knows.
There is nothing bad about religion that isn't bad about believers. Whatever is good in religion is good in believers. As Kant put it, nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind.
It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith.
By the time the Empire, in the person of Constantine in 312, sort of got interested in Jesus the church had been in business for a while. The general policy of the Empire was to tolerate pagan sects as long as people continued to worship the official gods. Jews and Christians were not very good at this dual role. They received some static, but nothing like a vicious pogrom.
The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church.
The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church.
The church most certainly did convert* the Roman empire (and later, several more empires). Yes to the other half: once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... Lots and lots of clerics doing lots of lots of clerical work, skills which they later applied to the administration of individual kingdoms as well as the Vatican's far-reaching business interests.
(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power)
once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects....
True enough, but Holy Mother Church didn't become a holy big business until the medieval period -- say, around 800 to 1000 a.d. In the last centuries of the western Roman Empire (ending in 476), and for a few centuries after that, the church was a relatively small organization. As Roman/Medieval Historian Peter Heather points out, if you walked around Europe in 700, you would see some Romanesque cathedrals here and there (not big gothic ones) and little else in the way of church buildings. The church didn't deeply penetrate European societies until around 800 - 1000. Around that time, the church created parishes and lots of parish churches were built--some of them are still around.
This isn't to say that missionary work wasn't going on -- it was. And the church established footholds all over the place -- but wasn't able to expand those footholds until later.
The Roman church started out with the structure of the empire -- very top down and bureaucratic. That was the gift of Constantine and his successors.
(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power
It's a major contradiction: Jesus the poor itinerate preacher who said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" was answered by the worldly church: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!" It was OK for kitchen monks and nuns to be meek, but that lifestyle generally didn't appeal to popes and archbishops who thought of themselves as Roman nobles.
This contradiction is reconstructed in just about every church in the US, where the church building eventually becomes the tail that wags the dog. Most churches are real estate operations, whether they want to be or not. The building becomes the biggest line item in the budget. Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. .
There is a church in Minneapolis that was torn down to make way for a freeway. The Minneapolis Lutheran Synod created in its place the 'church without walls' which now serves a large public housing and Somali community. It's about the only such operation that I have heard of. It rents an office, but the pastor's work is mostly in the public housing buildings. It's a model I would like to see more of.
Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses.
The one I recall most fondly was in a little nothing village, built of adobe, like most of the houses, and whitewashed once every three years. Dirt floor, studded with walnut shells, got sprinkled with water in summertime. Wooden altar and pews. The roof would probably have to be reshingled about once a generation. Get enough volunteer hands, it cost hardly anything at all.
I don't suppose that church exists anymore; probably been bulldozed for a shopping mall.
Reply to Vera Mont Or it might have been run through a parish church compressor - a handy machine for reducing small, disorderly charming churches to standard sized gravel. Shards of stained glass can be set in mortar on the tops of stone walls to deter migratory populations.
Just joking. The parish church compressor was mentioned in an odd funny book published back in the '70s, The Universal Daisy Spacer. It included a plastic device to aid individuals in planting daisies precisely 2.73 inches apart. The objective of the author was to achieve an orderly world--or else.
Reply to BC It sounds like a fun read in the optimistic-by-our-fingernails 70's. Not so much now...
I tried to google it just now and all I get is ads for 100 daisy spacer beads for $11.60. Weird shite.
Anyhow, harking back a bit, there is much to recommend parish churches - any denomination; I don't take sides in internecine squabbles - and their role in communities.
Reply to Vera Mont There is much to recommend parish churches. I belong to a Lutheran church. I wasn't raised Lutheran, but its liturgy is meaningful and they are located across the street. The congregation used to be very large with many youth activities and programs for adult members. The sanctuary can hold about 250 - 300 people; Sunday services usually are about 125. When I joined 13 years ago, it was mostly old people (including me). Now we have a much younger congregation, have enough children to have Sunday school and (small) confirmation classes.
The church was built in 1949 for a large German Lutheran congregation belonging to the Missouri Synod. In those years they needed that much space. In the mid 1980s the Missouri Synod was split by a fundamentalist take over. Many of the Missouri Synod congregations voted to leave, as did this congregation. The vote was a 49% 51% vote in favor of leaving. Upon losing the vote, half of the congregation left.
Churches are, generally, on the decline but losing 1/2 of the congregation was bad news. It took about 20 years to recover. There are still a handful of members who have been belonged for roughly 75 years
The church was designed by Ellen Saarinen, a Finnish architect. It's a National Historic Landmark--partly because of who designed it, and partly because it broke the 'American Gothic' mold for new church buildings. It's mid-century modern--not a common style for church buildings then or later.
Eero Saarinen Elliel's son, designed the educational wing added in 1962. It includes classrooms, a huge church kitchen, dining rooms, and a full sized gymnasium. He also designed the TWA Terminal in NYC (now a hotel), Dulles Airport, and the St. Louis Arch.
here's a picture of the Luther Lounge in the Eero Saarinen wing:
Less famous, more modest churches can become the congregation's master; this one cracks the whip. The one very good thing about being a national landmark is that it enables us to apply for grants to help pay for repointing and replacing brickwork, reroofing, replacing worn out boilers, fixing damage from heavy rain, and so on. If it wasn't for the grants, the congregation would have been bankrupted.
I go to a reform synagogue. The cantor sings the songs with contemporary tunes. Last Friday night was Billy Joel/Elton John night, where every song was sung in one of their tunes. They also have a small band, with a guy on the bass, a piano, and drum. The bass guy thinks it's really funny, and he laughs the whole time.
They then read off the names of the people who they are going to pray for and the rabbi recites an ever growing list, many of whom I think recovered or died long ago. He has this little saying he says before the prayer and he ends it with the statement "some of whom may never recover." What kind of thing is that to say? I mean a little more self confidence would go a long way I think.
The rabbi is pretty shy one on one, so I try to get him to talk to me. He told me he needed to figure out a better way to talk about the biblical miracles because no one (including him) actually thinks they happened. The other day when he lamented the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my wife was like is this a religious service or some guy talking about current events? I think he was just talking about what he was thinking about.
There's this one song where at some point everyone says "woo!" and throws their kid in the air, each kid trying to grab more air than the next.
I get a kick out of the whole thing. It's a far way from the long beards and black hats of my youth. It's what religion should be. Part community, part entertainment, part spirituality, and part absurdity.
Reply to Hanover Preaching is hard work. You have to keep coming up with startling new interpretations of texts that has been chewed over for 2000 to 3000 years. The people expect their pastor/rabbi/priest to have original ideas. When I wrote a paper for a Shakespeare class the professor said we were not expected to come up with new ideas about Richard III -- there weren't any. Just prove whatever case we were trying to make. Shakespeare has been chewed on for only 400 years.
It's good to have posts in church; they enable the bored to doze during the sermon, unobserved.
Communion occurs twice: once in the service, a second time during coffee. If Jesus had been Lutheran, coffee would be the transubstantiating liquid, pie the flesh. Serving hot coffee and pie during communion would be more complicated than bread and wine.
Because God is merciful, we use a pipe organ and sing proper hymns. Why does 'hymn' have a silent 'n'? Many churches, even Lutherans, employ the abomination of "praise bands" which distinguish themselves mostly by being way too loud.
Our prayer list needs to be purged, but you know, bad optics.
The Knox Presbyterian church in our nearest city has a magnificent organ, as well as great acoustics. The church is often used for classical music concerts - far better than the college auditorium. I quite like the decor, too - clean, simple; big clear windows, white walls and lots of natural wood.
I don't consider myself an adherent to any religious system or practice, nor do i belong to any religious communities. But i think some claims which are often considered religious are true, for example, consciousness is ubiquitous, consciousness (but not self) continues after death. I also think creation myths should be taken seriously but not literally. I do wonder if they might reflect the phenomenology of the early universe in some way, or the psychological development of life, or something. I find the gospels to be extremely rich in valuable ideas. Likewise with other religions to the extent i am aware of them, which isn't much. So I'm not sure if in religious or not. I suppose i have beliefs which do affect my attitude to life and death, and how i relate to others, which are based on the ubiquity of consciousness.
"Look at the fish swimming about, said Chuang Tzu, They are really enjoying themselves. You are not a fish, replied the friend, So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves. You are not me, said Chuang Tzu. So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 01, 2024 at 02:21#8846770 likes
I was a fish in a past life and I can tell you: some fish enjoy swimming about and some are unhappy and some are bored and one recalls having been a hookworm in a former life and therefore considers himself wise enough to comment on the mental state of hookworms - if only anyone would ask.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 01, 2024 at 10:49#8847570 likes
Reply to Agree-to-Disagree We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy.
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 01, 2024 at 20:06#8848620 likes
We fish don't wear human-imposed collective names. We are individuals of our kind. Only humans stick labels on other beings and place them in some artificial hierarchy.
What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"?. Does "our kind" refer to a species, or is it all fish?
What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"?
Our kind. We don't think in terms of species - that's another label humans impose; we think of those who are enough like ourselves to mate with and swim with; who are not our food and don't see us as their food.
Got any more lame puns?
Agree-to-DisagreeMarch 02, 2024 at 00:10#8849020 likes
Huizi [his friend] said, Im not you, so I certainly dont know what you know. And since youre not a fish, you dont know what fish like. There, perfect!
Zhuangzi said, Lets go back to the beginning. When you asked how I knew what fish like, you had to know I knew already in order to ask. I know it by the Hao Riverthats how.
The word how can also be translated where. In other words, he knows it relative to his own perspective, from a bridge above the water. That is, from where they are standing looking at the fish. But Huizi is also standing on the bridge. When Zhuangzi suggests going back to the beginning it is not just the beginning of their conversation but back to what it means to know something.
Elsewhere Zhuangzi says:
Only as I know things myself do I know them.
Knowing the limits of his perspective is to know things in a way that differs from him not knowing his limits. I discuss this in a thread I started on Zhuangzi
My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables."
I think you agree that while for the West, epistemology represents the intellectual desire to know (even the "how we know")which is prevalent since Plato seemingly ignored Socrates and went on in a futile pursuit of knowledge.
While Zhuangzi was more "Socratic." For Zhuangzi, the exercise is fully practical. You cannot know, so be always open to the endless changes (I.e., the existential possibilities), like an uncarved block.
My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables."
I am in agreement with Wittgenstein when he says:
The language used by philosophers is already deformed, as though by shoes that are too tight.
[CV, p. 47].
Just as shoes that are too tight make it difficult to walk, the language used by philosophers makes it difficult to think.
To read Zhuagzi in terms of the theories and problems of epistemology can put us in a bind - disputes over in what way he is or is not in line with this or that epistemological claim. An objection would be that he misuses the term 'know'.
I don't agree that Plato ignored Socrates. On my reading he is a Socratic philosopher. He too knows that he does not know and demonstrates to other that they do not know either. At best, as Timaeus puts it, we have "likely stories". If you are interested I have several threads of varying length and detail on some of the dialogues:
Thank you. Informative. And I agree with you about Plato, ultimately. I am being hyperbolic owing to my appreciation for silence. . . And yet, I chatter on driven by my autonomous desire to know, and my autonomous desire to make known.
I don't know because then I can question everything, and it open up room for discovery lol. Fun fact I don't think those who follow a religion know either. nerd:
My prior response may have been more than you were looking for. More briefly:
We do not have knowledge of such things as the gods and the arche or origin of the whole of what is. At best we have stories or myths, ton eikota mython. that is, likely accounts. Timaeus proposes it is best to accept likely stories and not search for what is beyond the limits of our understanding.
Now, a philosopher, someone who desires truth and knowledge, but is aware that there are things that are beyond our understanding, will not accept such stories as more than at best what seems likely. But if the philosophers are the city's educators it is best that they tell some version that the people will accept as true and complete.
Forms are a likely story, but however likely it may seem, it is inadequate and problematic. The account is at best only part of an account of the whole. Timaeus' whose account, takes the Forms or intelligibles as part of his story, attempts to do what Socrates' cannot, that is, give an account of motion, of change and chance. But one of the most striking features is just how unlikely it is!
Reply to an-salad I believe in the atheist sect of the religion Flawlessism (yes, a real religion, not a secular one). I believe in it because it's internally consistent, and because believing in it has more positive benefit than not believing in it.
BitconnectCarlosApril 05, 2024 at 22:13#8943170 likes
I'm Jewish (because my mom is) and raised conservative and reform. Now I'm drawn towards reconstructionism but it's a small movement and not particularly well established. I am not particularly observant and have not stepped foot in a synagogue for years. I'm drawn towards this movement because I read Robert Alter's biblical translation and Alter is likely in the reconstructionist camp. There's a greater emphasis on literature than on theology in his commentary.
I tend to get the sense that every Jew (or every believer) is a little heretical in their own way. Some just don't believe in God, some believe the Bible is all fabricated, some believe in a different form of God like Spinoza's pantheism. For me it's being weirdly drawn to Jesus.
I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. He is downright bizarre in a way that makes him either very good or very bad. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like Jesus and I'm drawn to many of the parables and lessons (I truly believe internalizing his lessons will make one very attractive!). But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. It's like if doing one of Jesus's teachings gets you killed quickly it's like "oh well, he died in Christ!" Jesus burns bright but dies young in proper accord with his teachings.
I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character.
He (if he existed and there's any truth in the gospels) was not interested in other nations - his teaching was exported years after his death. He was concerned with reforming the Judaism of his time. Something like Martin Luther with a state of Christianity that he considered corrupt. Jesus is a singularly Jewish character, no matter that Paul and Christian proselytizers co-opted him and European artists systematically lightened his complexion.
But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being.
Or his own, for that matter. Asceticism was a well established practice among the many prophets of the time, as it was also in India, among Buddhist monks.
Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations. Jesus is concerned with mans salvation and the kingdom heaven as well as various scriptural matters debated among the rabbinic teachers of the day. Jesus emerges from the Israelite/Jewish tradition (he is Jewish) but his message is drawn from universalism within that tradition/civilization/their holy texts.
I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19.
Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations.
After he was dead. Not much indication of universalism in the gospels. Some tolerance, yes: even a centurion's servant is worth healing; (though it sounds as if this particular Roman had gone native - "Luke 7:4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.) that even a lowly Samaritan may be charitable - and there's Mark 7:28, which puts Greeks firmly in their place under the table.
I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19.
That's more an accusation that he consorts with the common people. I make it two actual instances of indulgence: the wedding in Cana and the farewell supper. Not a strict ascetic, I agree, but mostly they seemed to be as the fowls of the air, trusting God to feed them, or fasting in the desert or subsisting on a few loaves and fishes or plucking corn along the roadside - on the (gasp!) Sabbath. Cursing the fig tree sounds to me as if he were hungry and pissed off that it had no fruit. (Makes him sound less than divine, that bit.)
Though it's been years since I've read his books, I'd always found Robert Alter's scholarship excellent (i.e. rewards rereading), especially e.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative ... Necessary Angels: Tradition and Modernity in Kafka, Benjamin, and Scholem ... The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Btw, have you read Spinoza's Tractatus, Theologico-Politicus? If so, BC, what did you think? And what about God In Search of Man by Abraham Heschel? Two more masterworks which have also helped to exorcize the last dregs of my latent Catholicism (re: Pauline Christianity). An 'irreligious atheist' through and through, the scars throughout my psyche of a dozen years of parochial schooling have never left me such that I'm still haunted by the Jewishness of "Christ" (read the Aramaic-English verson of the New Testament AND The Gospel of Jesus According to The Jesus Seminar) and thereby fascinated with biblical (or ancient) Judaism.
BitconnectCarlosApril 07, 2024 at 20:06#8947090 likes
What I mean by "universalism" is, imo, revealed in Jesus's dialogues/arguments with the Pharisees. I found that Jesus's views were often (but not always) grounded in the early books of Genesis. Gen 1-11 is universal/applies to all of mankind. Gen 12-50 is particular to Israel. Just something that I noticed whether it relates to marriage, food purity, or the sabbath among others.
Jesus surely did consort with the common folk; he consorted with the lowest of the low. Tax collection in antiquity was a nasty institution yet Jesus did not shun them. Jesus shuns no one. That's what is unique about the character and places him in the "very good" or "very bad" camp. Traditional Jewish sages caution us against associating with the wicked. But I also believe the quote reveals he was a man of appetites and not like the ascetic John the Baptist.
I'm fascinated though in the ways that that Jesus helps socialize one. He is the ideal in many ways, if not all ways. So he is potentially something to emulate. I found that through internalizing at least some of his teachings the person becomes transformed and this is what I find so fascinating.
Appetites, maybe; and therefore sympathy for the weaknesses of other men. To what degree did he satisfy them? There is very little indication in the gospels - but then, I suppose those chroniclers would want to present him, and themselves, in the best possible light.
(You've put me in a mood to watch Jesus Christ, Superstar again.)
I found that through internalizing at least some of his teachings the person becomes transformed
I don't know about that. Certainly, some of the most altruistic (though not necessarily sensible) people I've met were devout Christians - but I wonder whether it was Jesus who changed them or if they were drawn to Jesus in the first place by their own character?
I don't believe in a divine Jesus - which is just as well, since the sacrifice of animals, people or demigods is an abhorrent practice and any god who demands it is abhorrent - but the biblical character had some good speech-writers.
BitconnectCarlosApril 13, 2024 at 16:54#8961770 likes
Alter is indeed brilliant. One of the top in the field.
I have not read Spinoza but I'm sure I could gain something from it. I'm not partial to pantheism but I know Spinoza was brilliant. Heschel I would read but have not yet. Am currently reading Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis and Exodus. Recently read Shaye Cohen's "From Maccabees to the Mishnah" which is a good overview of later second temple Judaism, roughly around the time of Jesus.
Comments (153)
Quoting 180 Proof
Is Atheism a religion?
I was raised Catholic, and sometimes I tag along with relatives to go to Church if it is a special occasion. Catholic and Orthodox Churches are my favourite places to visit. I do not believe any of it is true however I don't even believe Jesus was a real person.
Jesus of Nazareth did exist.
I understand your scepticism towards his image and the Christian dogma, but we should not deny the existence of his persona.
He was a normal person, born and raised in Judaea. I have read some interesting books by Kazantzakis and after thinking about what this Greek intellectual purposed, I personally believe that Jesus existed, but the Church poisoned his image with lucrative aims.
I have convinced myself this is not the case. See here, here, and here.
Who is Mark or what is Mk 14.2?
The evidence may not be so solid:
https://aeon.co/essays/why-the-son-of-god-story-is-built-on-mythology-not-history
My guess is that he did exist but that we know nothing about this man. It may even be that 'Jesus' became the name for a composite from the stories of different individuals claiming or believed to be the messiah.
I think Jesus was a composite figure put together to make a coherent story of the events chronicled in the NT, some of which were certainly true. The christian heresy did originate somewhere, from somebody, before Saul of Tarsus made much hay of it. The rebellion of 66AD had long, deep roots.
But that's beside the point. One can be interested in religions and mythology without buying into them. In fact, I find that the more you learn about their history, the less you believe their content.
In light of Yeshu ben Ananias, it is likely the case. It is said around that Jesus is a mix of Ananias, Mithras, and others. I think the article's comparison with Romulo is very apt. Thanks for the link.
There's no good evidence of this but I think it is safe to say the myth came to us via one or two messianic preachers of the time. There were many doing the rounds. This plus borrowing miracle stories etc from other places. Even today we can find living gurus and religious figures who do 'miracles' and have exaggerated stories attached to them.
I don't follow or accept any religion and I'm not a believer in gods or goddesses. I've written here before that (aside from enculturation) I think theism is a preference people have, like their sexuality or an aesthetic appreciation, which may be back filled, ad hoc with reasoning. The notion of god has never supported any of my sense making, nor seemed coherent to me. I haven't 'felt' a need for it.
For sure, check this.
Exactly. This is what I attempted to say, but I didn't bother to keep debating because I understand that in this site religion is prosecuted and most of the members have baloney comments on theology. But I read your comment and your point is close to what Kazantzakis wanted to explain. Jesus of Nazareth did exist, but the people who surrounded him, poisoned his image with dogmatic purposes.
The last temptation by Kazantzakis is a very interesting book where the image of Jesus is humanized. There are even chapters where Jesus refuses to become a messiah or similar. As a very good comment I have read around the internet: Kazantzakis shows in this book a different image of Jesus than we are used to in the Gospels. This is probably what happened in reality.
I read Kazantzakis some years ago. I do not remember whether he addresses the following. For many Christians death and resurrection is of central importance. If Jesus was a man then the resurrection stories become problematic.
Given the alleged distortions in the gospel stories what if anything is unique about Jesus?
Well, Kazantzakis wrote this in the novel: (The Last Temptation)
[i]Jesus: Did you see resurrected Jesus of Nazareth? How did he look like?
Paul: He was a thunder... A thunder that was speaking.
Jesus: LIAR!
Paul: His disciples saw him. After the crucifixion, they were reunited in a garret, with its doors closed, and he showed up in font of them and said: May peace be with you!
Jesus: LIAR
Paul: A man wasn't born. Her mother was virgin. The Archangel Gabriel descended from the sky and said: I salute you, Mary! And his words fell down like a seed in her breast. This is how Jesus were born.
Jesus: LIAR! LIAR! I am Jesus of Nazareth. I never got crucified. I never got resurrected. I am the son of Mary and Joseph, not the son of God. I am the son of a man, like everyone else.[/i]
There is nothing unique about Jesus. :smile: He was a normal person like you and me. That's the key to understanding him.
How are we to understand him? If there is nothing unique about him what does this mean for Christianity?
If the stories of Jesus are distortions then what are we to make of the teachings ascribed to him?
I mean such things as the Sermon on the Mount.
Quoting javi2541997
How do you know he was poor? Perhaps the drama was part of the stories told about him. Why guilt? What would he have to be guilty about? Guilt inflicted on him by his Jewish mother? Was he either so sinful or thought himself to be so that Yom Kippur was not enough? What kinds of sacrifice?
But there are no major religions worshiping these figures. Does this mean that Christianity is an enormous mistake?
Quoting Vera Mont
How do we distinguish between essence and distortion? What you might take to be essence others might see as distortion because it leaves out what they believe is essential.
That no current religions worship those ancient figures, or that I left Gautama off the list, has little to do with their archetypal similarity. No. It's an enormous PR success. It was promulgated and sold in Roman format, under the auspices of a mighty empire with some pretty canny administrators. They had the missionaries, the architects and enforcers to cobble every pagan sect into some semblance of the Christian faith. Quoting Fooloso4Each according his sensibility. The accuracy of the original doesn't matter a damn: it was preached to different peoples in different times and is relevant to our lives only in the most basic points: be decent to one another. Quoting Fooloso4Yes, of course. How do you think all those different Christian sects came to exist? Why do you think they've made so many wars and persecutions over it? People are perverse: when they read "Love thy neighbour as thyself" they sometimes choose to understand it as "If thy neighbour is not enough like thyself, burn him at the stake for his own good."
To (maybe) salvage some credibility among so many non-believers, the God of all the philosophers has been such a hollow shell of a creature, mostly invented to fill an empty space on the chessboard of other doubtful pieces. The monad, the evil-genius who is the perfection of perfection, the "good" personified, the zeit-geist of history, or the prime mover - each one of us is more consequential than these concepts and would contain these phantoms in our minds, making them smaller than ourselves. Augustine admitted that all that he said was like a grain of sand on the beach of what there is to say, and Aquinas called all of his work like straw. They were right!
There is no God found in philosophy or science that has impressed me or influenced why I believe in God. Similarly, I am not impressed with any arguments that show God can't exist either.
The whole point of science and philosophy is to figure this experience out for ourselves. We start from scratch. No God, no nothing. And then, once we know something, we don't need anyone or anything else to explain it for us, we have it ourselves. God hasn't yet entered this picture and to stay scientific and philosophical, God need not enter the picture.
Since I do believe in God, God has a place in the ontology somewhere. Maybe we will one day reason our way to the presence of God, sort of sneak up on God from behind and say "Hey, we are made in your image because we just created you." But I also believe (more accurately think it is reasonable to assume) that there are individuals in the ontology, separate from God. We have our hands full enough trying to exit the confines of our own solitary minds and to find any meaning anywhere at all, so leaps that would include the concept of "God" to help us explain "identity" or "motion" or "math" seem to lack rigor and honest scientific inquiry.
But then, we don't just talk philosophy and science do we. We have to live. We don't skip breakfast because our senses could be deceiving us. We don't wonder about the metaphysics of identity or set theory when going to the bathroom to draw clear and distinct lines between the crap and our asses. And we enjoy deep conversations with the people we love, about all sorts of experiences, and about beauty or tragedy, without constantly reminding everyone how we can't know the thing-in-itself or that meaning is actually use.
God is experienced in those conversations, not scientific ones.
It's like this to me, when I'm doing math, the existence of God is irrelevant. All of science and philosophy is still in that place for me. God may be irrelevant to them. God and science are totally irrelevant when I go to bathroom and see there is no toilet paper. You can put that scenario in the context of science (needing an absorbent tissue to address the viscosity of the crap) or God (who says I am created in his image, here frantically looking for something to wipe my ass), but really who cares at that moment.
And I'm being gross on purpose. You don't cringe from one philosophical concept, ever. You might cringe if the crap accidentally touches your hands. God is way more wholistic an experience than just the concepts of philosophy.
So when I talk about God, I would be talking about revelation and my response to that revelation, which is really something hard to express to someone who has not already themselves had that response, that experience. I can't give anyone the experience of God all by myself. You have to respond in some way that would deliver that experience, that would lead you to say "Is that God?"
Something like revelation is here on this forum though. You can't know me at all without me revealing myself to you. You cannot come close to saying I exist or know who I am until I reveal myself. I reveal myself to you here, and you reveal yourselves to me, here on this forum. Otherwise, no one is there to consider. The existence of God starts like that. That's why people feel blessed that they believe in God, and why they say faith is a gift. It doesn't come from me, it comes from an experience of me with God.
And religion, and church and all the institutionalization and edifice, that's all hogwash unless you are interested in finding God in it. If you don't believe in God at all, I wouldn't recommend trying to analyze a church or a religion from the outside in. If you happen to find you God, and you were interested in keeping that new line of communication open, you might then be able to find uses in the religions and churches. Otherwise, they look like every other human institution - a place filled only with people and all of our limitations.
Long story short, if Im reading it right you seem to be saying that youre a Catholic because of a revelation. If thats the case, did this revelation occur prior to becoming a Catholic?
I asked the question of how we are to understand Jesus against the background of how he is understood within Christianity. Put differently, what does Christian belief and practice look like to Christians who regard him as a moral man.
Quoting Vera Mont
Right, but its success does not mean it was not a mistake.
Quoting Vera Mont
There is nothing particularly Christian about this. What, if anything, distinguishes Christianity?
No doubt, which is why I prefer the exemplary teachings of legendary "normal persons" other than Jesus of Nazareth like Socrates or Epicurus ... Btw, from what I recall (from reading the book in the 1980s), The Last Temptation of Christ is, IMHO, a great gnostic novel (i.e. 'existentialist' à la Hans Jonas / Gabriel Marcel).
and my answer was: However you can, according to your own lights
[
Variously. So variously that you might not even recognize the different strains of it as the same religion. Indeed, the dominant one very often declared one or another variant as heretical and persecuted those who believed it.
Ask a Christian. Ask many Christians. You'll probably get as many answers. Quoting Fooloso4
Who is to say which religion is "a mistake"? I'm sure there are plenty of opinions.
Quoting Fooloso4
Of course there isn't! It's the kernel of all practical instruction for a coherent society.
Quoting Fooloso4
The fact that it had Constantine as its patron, at a time when he was gaining power. (Paul was a pretty good salesman, but he couldn't have done it at the grass roots.)
Short answer, yes.
More like the other way around. Like, "I can't believe what I am seeing" or "I wasn't seeking anything and it found me and knocked me on my ass."
Is it your position that Christianity is whatever you want it to be as long as believers are decent to one another, regardless of what else is believed, said, and done?
Quoting Vera Mont
Right. And many if not most will deny that Christianity without a divine savior is Christianity. My point is not that one must be right and the other wrong but that without some common element or perhaps family resemblance there is no referent. Nothing that distinguishes it from other religions or beliefs and practices.
Quoting Vera Mont
If Jesus was just a man then it would be a mistake to worship him as a god. If he is a god then it would be a mistake to regard him as merely a man. Of course we are free to decide for ourselves but that does not solve the problem for someone struggling to decide.
Quoting Vera Mont
Then secular rather than religious?
Quoting Vera Mont
Constantine took sides in the dispute that the Council of Nicaea was supposed to resolve, but political fiat does not resolve theological differences. Consistent with what you said above I would think you would say that it is up to the individual. In which case it would would seem that there is nothing that distinguishes it.
Quoting Vera Mont
Christianity was at its inception the religion invented by Paul and, according to Paul, at odds with what Jesus' disciples said Jesus preached. This was also the inception of the growing hatred of Jews by those who called themselves Christian.
I responded to the question of what religion by just talking about my belief in God, so I wasn't really being sensitive to the differences between different religions. Since here, it seemed like there was a threshold question about whether God or any religion even makes sense, I basically tackled that.
But I find the same God shows up in all kinds of religions and peoples. If everyone in the world was a Catholic, each person would still have something unique and particular in their view of God. It's like knowing a person. My view of my wife is unlike anyone else's view of my wife. In a sense, anyone who has a belief in God has their own religion.
That very interesting because it seems to imply that your revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.
The OP asks what religion and why.
Yes, I try to be a Catholic. When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. When Jesus was born, the story goes, he was visited by three wise men from the East. I find God has been revealing himself everywhere. I just think, personally, it's most explicit in the Catholic faith.
Yeah. There is a leap of faith involved. I do doubt it all at times. Not lately. But when I do, I think God still wants me (and all of us) so he keeps pulling me back in. It's not just up to me. That is what I found has been revealed.
But you won't find me using wishful thinking or not confronting my biases here though. The words in this forum have to stand alone. A quote from Plato, or Kant or Nietzsche should not be taken as any kind of gospel, so neither would a quote from the Bible or revelation. And anyway, even two Catholics talking about Christ's death on the cross are often having two totally different conversations.
I'll throw out one personal take on it all to show you how tough it would be for me to tell you why I believe in God, or why I believe something revealed is a revelation from God: it is precisely because the story of God told in the bible makes no sense that I believe it has to be true. Kind of like, seeing the unbelievable is believing. I know that does my argument no good (but it's not an argument), but hopefully still means something.
On that, they might have been Zoroastrian. The translation to English "three wise men" does not tell the whole story.
Edit: the archived version presents an extremely poor text compared to what I remember, but I hope the idea is still understandable.
No. I have no 'position' on the matter. I describe things as i see them. If my perception is incorrect, then my answer is wrong.
Quoting Fooloso4
That's your position, is it? Fine.
Quoting Fooloso4
Any society.
Quoting Fooloso4
Fine.
Are you aware that this horse died about 1600 years ago?
In the end, after all the true history would be sorted out, to me, they would still represent the whole rest of the world, that he was there in a horse trough for all of us and all of us were there represented with our finest for him. Besides the history of it all, the story get's a lot of mileage with the kids too. Cute baby sheep, silver and gold.
What do you mean by religion?
:ok:
All of that said, I'm not an atheist. But I no longer worry about any ongoing debate about God's existence; I'm now bored by them. Provisionally, my conception of God is probably closest to a Hindu conception, for anyone who cares. I feel no need to defend this belief; I don't care what other people think of it. And I think that's healthier than feeling the need to defend one's belief or lack thereof in God; I'm speaking from experience here.
I've witnessed this sort of "divorce" afflicting several friends and acquaintances throughout my life and always have felt fortunate that I didn't go through such "agony" because I'd realized while still at my Jesuit high school that, despite a decade or more by then of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing and education, I had had no "faith" to lose, recognizing that I didn't believe the biblical stories were any truer than the superhero comics (& Greco-Roman, Egyptian-African myths) I'd geeked-out on or that Catholic symbols & practices were anything but tribal customs like wearing team jerseys and flag waving. I can't say forty-five years later that the experience of 'coming out as a nonbeliever' (I wasn't aware of the word atheist or freethinker yet) was anything like "enlightening or triumphant" since it greatly displeased my mother, irritated both of my favorite teachers who were priests and confused my younger brother and our closest friends.
Fortunately, all I had to do was shut-up about my apostasy and go through the obligatory motions like before and no one mentioned it again until after I'd graduated high school a couple of years later. "Loss of God", however, was more of an intellectual than existential difficulty for me only after I'd been seriously reading philosophy for almost a decade because the "loss" had deprived my thinking of any "foundation" or "absolute" or "teleology", etc ... which, ironically, had gradually become illuminating.
NB: My irreligious 'road to Damascus':
i. apostasy > ii. agnostic/negative atheism > iii. positive atheism > antitheism > pandeism ...
It is the position that is under discussion. The question was raised, and not by me, whether Jesus was a real person. I joined in to say:
Quoting Fooloso4
This was followed by your post:
Quoting Vera Mont
So, we agree on that.
But it does not have to be my position in order to discuss it and what follows from that.
Quoting Fooloso4
Christianity without a Christ seems to be oxymoronic.
Quoting Vera Mont
?
Do you mean the Council of Ephesus (431)? Or the First Council (325)? Or the Gregorian calendar (425)? Or something else?
In any case, when it comes to theological matters, whatever some group of men come to agreement on is not the end of the matter. Here we are all those years later still discussing it.
Yes, I get that. So? It does not alter the history or present state of Christianity. It doesn't make the least little difference to what people have done, what people do and what people believe. Quoting Fooloso4
We were. Now, only you are.
Of course it does! Perhaps not to you but it makes a great deal of difference to some who question whether they can remain Christian and not believe that Jesus was more than human. I have been here long enough to think it likely that some of them might even be reading this. There is more to it than either giving them an answer or telling them it is up to them to make up their own mind. Some might be looking for help in sorting it all out for themselves. For them it may be that the question of this thread: "What religion are you and why?" is something they struggle with. For some it is the questioning, the inquiring, and not the answers anyone else gives that is most important.
Quoting Vera Mont
'We' is not limited to you and me. But now 'we' includes one less participant. At least for now.
They will simply have to do whatever people who questioned have always had to do: decide what they believe.
Christianity got itself established quite firmly in the world without benefit of the pedigree you seem to require. It's done and has not come undone by force of arguments, debates, investigations, archeological digs, commentaries, apologetics or encyclicals. It will not come undone by some minor quibble over who is what religion and why in a tiny backwater of the internet. Whoever else wants to further discuss it will get exactly same forrurder.
Of course. But they need not be alone in doing so. They might find discussion and the articulation of questions helpful.
Quoting Vera Mont
What pedigree? There is no pedigree. From the beginning there have been factions and differences with regard to both belief and practice.
Christianity has a history, much of which has been suppressed, lost, or forgotten. It did not become firmly established without two things:
1) The Church Fathers successful unification of what they misleadingly called the Catholic Church
by declaring certain texts and doctrines to be canonical and official and others heretical. The heretical texts include inspirational writing, testifying to the indwelling of spirit. Some regard this as the true genius of Christianity.
2) Prior to the establishment of the Church there were for the most part a small group of Jewish followers of Jesus who believed he was the promised messiah, and the Gentile followers of Paul, who in effect abolished what Jesus claimed to fulfill , God's Law. At some point the Gentile Christians, in line with their belief in deification and contrary to both Jesus and Paul, made Jesus a god. Despite their agreement on this, there were differences as to what this meant. These disputes threatened not only the Church, which Constantine at this point seemed to have little interest in, but political alliances, which he was very much interested in. It is an open question whether Christianity would have survived without Constantine.
Quoting Vera Mont
I agree that it will not come undone in this way. If you think that is what I intend you are wrong. In these discussions it is typical for someone to accuse me of either supporting or trying to undermine Christianity or religion. As if by raising questions and difficulties I must be doing one or the other. I have no interest in doing either.
Given its diversity, any focused discussion of Christianity or more generally religion needs to deal with some degree of specificity regarding beliefs and/or practices. It is not for the sake of a pedigree but so that we are talking about the same thing.
Added: By way of example. On several occasions people have told me that they "love philosophy", but then go on to talk about things that I would not regard as philosophy. I do not engage in a discussion of what I think is or is not philosophy, but I do come to see that we are not talking about the same thing.
That sounds like a worthwhile endeavour. I'm sure there are appropriate platforms for it.
This platform will do just fine. I did not start this topic. Others crop up all the time. If you have an issue with it take it up with the moderators. It was your choice to participate and to respond to me.
The question of the order of authority between reason and revelation is a perennial philosophical problem. Plato referred to it as 'the quarrel between philosophy and poetry'. Tertullian might have been the first to use the phrase 'Athens and Jerusalem'. In any case it remains an issue for both philosophers and theologians.
You said that you are:
Quoting Vera Mont
Unless I have read you wrong, it looks to me that you feel that you have been provoked. Why?
Nice - can you expand a little?
The term poet comes from the Greek poiein which means to make. The poets were the makers of myths, of stories, of images of men and gods. They were not simply entertainers, they were the primary educators. First among them was Homer. In the Republic the poets are the makers of the images of those things whose shadows are cast on the cave wall. The shadows or images of images the prisoners, that is, people, take to be the truth.
Socrates wants to banish the poets from the just city. The philosophers and not the poets should be the educators, the myth makers, the makers of truth, and of proper conduct toward men and gods.
Homer was one in a long lineage of rhapsodes.
Your perception is incorrect in this instance. I do not feel provoked. The kind of provocation it takes to turn me against religion is far greater in scope and effect: it is in the realm of political influence.
I do believe that the historicity and mortality of Jesus, and how it affects modern Christians theology - is not well situated in the Lounge, and that, insofar as it relates to the OP question, has been exhausted.
First as in preeminent not chronologically.
Thanks. I thought Plato saw poetry as immoral, distracting folk from truth. Doesn't he also agree that poetry has a role some later works?
How are we to understand this today - sounds like a culture war. Was it that poetry functioned a bit like sophistry, using its artfulness to manipulate rather than identify the good?
My mother's attitude was the best non-atheist one I know. She had no use for (nor animosity toward) any formal doctrine; she simply didn't need them. Her relationship with the version of God she believed in was secure without intervention or interpretation.
For Plato the distinction between philosophy, poetry, and sophistry is not as clear-cut as he makes it seem. Without getting too far into it, his writing is a kind of philosophical poetry, making extensive use of images, myths, and likely stories. It intends to persuade and to that end he engages in sophistical and rhetorical argument. Above all it is dialectical. Together with the engaged reader it moves and remains within the realm of thinking.
Quoting Tom Storm
It was a culture war. Only today there is no one comparable to Plato or Aristophanes. I don't think it was a matter of manipulating the good, but rather, in the absence of knowledge of the good, making images of its likeness.
Not in my experience. "I am" and "I am not" both express a duality that many Eastern traditions seek to transcend. I once joined such a tradition for a short while, seeking a transcendent experience or 'revelation'. I've had what I might describe as intellectual revelations with the help of Eastern and Western philosophy and perhaps science, and shallow experiential revelations. I hope to someday have a deep experiential revelation, but it's not imperative because though I think it would be beneficial, at the end of the day it's just a transient experience.
That's interesting. How did they consider poetry was able to do this - by aesthetic distraction and emotionality? Poetry as truth's false gold?
Things are not so different today. Stories and songs still play a major role in shaping what we find desirable, and what we desire is the basis of what we regard as good.
This very much reminds of my mother's idiosyncratic non-doctrinnaire, or ceremonial, Catholicism: quiet prayer-focused and weekly charity work usually in lieu of Mass. I wonder if this 'blessed' state is why she's still the healthiest, most optimistic octogenerian I know.
I also like Catholicism in science fiction, I like stories about monks or medieval theologians, and I feel comfortable in churches and mosques. I also find the early development of Christianity and Islam really interesting. To be part of that fascinating but chequered history would be quite something. Judaism has an attraction along those lines too, i.e., its history, but its more exclusive.
Sadly Im a total modernist and regard God as having died with the death of pre-modern tradition; I find some of the philosophy of Christianity objectionable; and I cannot muster the requisite beliefs anyway (not because I need evidence, but because God seems an obvious anthropological artifact).
It doesn't hurt. Of course, that independent religious view is part of a more comprehensive self-awareness and self-possession: an integrity of character that cuts through all the guff and bluster to the essence of things, hugely reducing doubt, anxiety and stress.
If i myself had any spiritual leanings, I'd be attracted to some form of animism; probably one of the North American Native varieties. Their gods and spirits are accessible; they have a sense of humour and can be playful. I like that in a supernatural entity, just as I like it in mortals.
:up:
I also loved my country grandmother's village church of whitewashed adobe; the clean simplicity of the surroundings and the service, the warmth of breaking communion bread. There is something in the rituals of each religion that deeply appeals to the human psyche - not just in childhood, but always.
What I could not accept, once I was old enough to read the Bible, was the precepts.
What evidence or experience would convince you that [s](e.g.) "the God of Abraham"[/s] at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists?
edit: I hope the question is clearer ...
Couldnt say. But if this magical creature exists, no doubt it would know. I need god to show up in person and settle the matter.
There are some problems - the god of Abraham doesn't exist in as much as even many Jews and Christians recognise the allegorical nature of scripture. Yahweh as presented is likely a fiction (just as well as he behaves like a celestial Trump). So for the theists, who is it they suppose is really there, buried underneath those horrible stories in the OT?
I suppose he would have to tell me. Of course, I might have to be dead in order to understand him. Then I would regret my apostasy.
My biggest problem with Jehovah is not his existence but his reported behaviour. My father, when he was very drunk and worked himself into a lather regarding his due as paterfamilias, would bellow "I am the lord god!!" That's the model for the god of the OT. Any or all of the gods humans have set up could exist, I suppose, given a distant enough mountain/galaxy/plane to live on, but that would not make them worthy of reverence.
Since its not the lack of evidence that leads me to believe that God is not, maybe Id need more than evidence to persuade me that He is. What I mean is, I cannot bring myself to think of God in terms of evidence at all.
[quote=Wittgenstein, On Certainty]
612. At the end of reasons comes persuasion. (Think what happens when missionaries convert natives.)[/quote]
In a nutshell, Ill believe in God when someone with enough charisma brainwashes me into it, but I can't really imagine that happening. And bearded men on clouds don't work on me either.
The same pretty much applies to all entities that have been worshipped as deities, whether they created the world or just ruled it. Anyone who demands obedience through fear doesn't deserve respect. I'm sort of open to nature spirits - or was, until we destroyed nature: don't think I could stomach the wholesale massacre of dryads and naiads.
This is a tough one to answer. As I said earlier, I would probably need a god to show up and make its presence known or visible in a way that I can be sure isn't a hallucination or delusion. And all in a situation where this can be verified by others. This would need to be more than miracles/conjuring tricks: it would need to be big, like moving the planets around, changing the entire surface of the earth... that kind of thing. But there would also need to me a personal component, this god would need to speak directly to me and know things no one could know. All sounds kind of childish, I grant you.
With a question like this, I am always mindful of Clarke's third law, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' How do we tell the difference between an apparent miracle and something else?
What would you need?
Exactly. If I witnessed a "miracle" or a verified suspension of the known laws of physics/nature then I would probably assume that it was caused by an alien with advanced technology.
Perhaps God IS an alien with advanced technology. If so, then he/she has not followed the Prime Directive (from Star Trek - the guiding principle that prohibits interfering with the natural development of other civilizations).
I think that I possibly refuse to believe that a god exists on principle.
I am always mindful of Voltaire's statement, "if god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him".
Yes, I've sometimes said this myself, mainly as a provocation.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I think inventing a magic man as a way to fill gaps in our knowledge is irresistible.
Nobody ever follows the Prime Directive. If you have space travel capability and an impulsion to help those in trouble, it's impossible to obey.
:chin: I can't imagine it would take anything less radical than sudden onset acute schizophrenia or dementia (or maybe undergoing a full lobotomy) for me to believe that hallucinate some "personal god" (e.g. mageia) exists. Otherwise, I think I'm too old now (60) too committed to p-naturalism (plus e.g. Clarke's 3rd Law > Schroeder's Law^) to be persuaded (rationally or not) out of my life-long, irreligious disbelief. No doubt, however, stranger things than 180° de-conversion have been known to happen, so ... :mask:
^ https://absentofi.org/2021/05/karl-schroeder-any-sufficiently-advanced-technology-is-indistinguishable-from-nature/
Anybody they desire, want or need. That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable. When gods did not exist, people found it necessary to invent them (yes: Voltaire was simply stating an observation of what had already happened) - not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes.
For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe. Ultimately I don't know if I have the capacity to comprehend that, like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity.
It appears to me that everything is interconnected and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. But I can't be certain, maybe somehow souls and such can exist.
:fire:
[quote=Vera Mont]That's the beauty of imaginary entities: they are infinitely adaptable and interpretable [ ... ] not to explain things, which they could do very well for themselves, accurately or otherwise, but to grant wishes. The gods are images of man magnified to whatever size it takes to grant their wishes.[/quote]
:100:
What proof do you have that ants don't philosophize?
Proof? Aliens could be watching us now without interfering. They probably want to see if Donald Trump can win the next election without their help.
Quoting Vera Mont
If you know that interfering is likely to cause things to be worse than not interfering, then it would be possible to obey the Prime Directive. Some aliens might not want to play god.
Quoting Vera Mont
You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure.
It is amazing that the gods want the same things that I want.
I've seen every Star Trek, Next Generation, Voyager and DS9 episode at least three times. You do realize that the Prime Directive is exclusive to that franchise?
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Aliens not only are not bound by the PD; they've never even heard of it. We can have no idea how they think or what motivates them.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Explain that to Data. We know the theory of why a PD was formulated, but that 'right measure' is a lot easier to put on paper than to carry out in the real world. For a start, how the hell do you know whether an action will eventually result in more harm than good? It's possible that a patient being fitted for a pacemaker right now will commit a mass murder next year, but that doesn't stop the cardiologist doing his job.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
The gods don't. Only the one particular customized god you invent for yourself does.
Yes. But the Prime Directive makes good sense and I am sure that aliens with space travel capability are intelligent enough to work it out for themselves.
Quoting Vera Mont
Aliens may not have heard the term "Prime Directive" but I am sure that they understand the concept.
Quoting Vera Mont
True. So they might follow a belief similar to the Prime Directive. :grin:
Quoting Vera Mont
I am confident that Data can understand the logic behind "You've gotta be cruel to be kind, in the right measure". Human parents usually understand this concept.
Then you know more about aliens than I do. As to whether it makes good sense - maybe not equally to everybody.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
He understands the 'logic'; what he had trouble with was the cruelty, which is why he would not abandon Sarjenka.
And it's BS, by the way. Parents need to be firm sometimes, but they never have to be cruel.
Agree-to-Disagree
The gods don't. Only the one particular customized god you invent for yourself does.[/quote]
:smirk:
It is cruel to make children eat vegetables. :grin:
One of the things that I learnt as a parent is that sometimes you have to let you children make their own mistakes (allow them to get "hurt" - which is cruel). You could try to always stop them from making mistakes, but then they would never learn to take responsibility for their own lives. You have to be cruel (let them make mistakes which "hurt" them) in order to be kind (teach them to think for themselves and take responsibility for their decisions). In the right measure (you do try to stop them from driving while drunk).
It seems to me :nerd: the "non-interference" PD only makes statistical sense such that, if and when Terran civilization invents FTL "warp drive" so that there is non-negligble risk of making direct contact with biologically contaminating or even aggressively threatening an ETI's "civilization", only then will the need arise for an ETI to interfere with us either to Terra's benefit (à la Star Trek: First Contact) or detriment (à la Village of the Damned ... or Invasion of the Body Snatchers ... or Annihilation). TBD. :yikes:
yet ;)
In a highly technical sense I'm Morman because I was baptised at the age of True Responsibility and Knowledge of Good and Evil: 8, and have yet to bother excising my name because it's just a hassle.
But I certainly don't believe their stuff, and haven't really found another religion that seems much different except that it's older and so the motives of their founders are harder to discern.
For the most part I think religious sexuality is so far out of date that it's not worth salvaging, because for the most part I think the family form and proper sexual etiquette are the main things preserved in churches.
Some poeple would say if God came down from the heavens and announced himself. But many would just conclude that they went insane. And wouldn't they be justified in thinking so? Everything that they experienced so far comes in contradiction with that one event, it is one event against the constant regularity of their past.
For me to be convinced, it is very simple, the evidence that there is a god would have to overall significantly outweigh {the evidence for any alternative for god in each issue where god has explanatory power} and {the evidence that there is not a god} together.
But if God came down from heavens to announce himself, not only would that have to be an experience like no other not just seeing lights in the sky or hearing voices like Saul , but this newfound knowledge would have to not contradict my past experiences but in fact explain many gaps in them.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
I step on them before they can develop the social conditions for philosophy.
Yes, it's cruel to make children eat anything. And it doesn't work. In the short term, the child is unhappy and learns to hate foods that they might otherwise come to like in time; in the long term, this is a source of eating disorders.
Quoting Agree-to-Disagree
Hitting, locking in a closet, starving, ear-pulling, burning with cigarette ends, force-feeding, carping and exorcism are cruelties. Allowing is not a cruelty. Is it not kind to let children bump a knee, but non-interference where the parent can see such a consequence might teach the child to exercise caution another time. Non-interference when he's about to fall off a three-storey building is counter-productive.
The operative phrase is: In the right measure. You use your judgment, case by case, situation by situation - rather than blindly obey a blanket directive from some uninvolved agency in the sky that's supposed to cover all contingencies.
This is what people actually do: interfere with everything - nature, their children, pets, their neighbours, other tribes, using their judgment, hoping to make improvements and often having the opposite effect.
Nobody obeys God's Prime Directive: "Don't touch the tree!" It's not in human nature to do so.
Ants have been in existence for more than 100 million years. That is plenty of time to develop the social conditions for philosophy.
Ants are social insects. They live in organized communities, work cooperatively and efficiently, create a clear division of labor, wage war, and occasionally capture slaves.
In addition to being able to communicate, ants have an excellent sense of direction. They can find their way back to their nest by vision and smell. They orient themselves by the position of the Sun and by memory of landmarks, such as trees. Some ants also leave scent trails to aid other ants.
Leafcutter ants are industrious creatures that use the leaves to farm fungus which they eat they are essentially mushroom farmers.
Herder ants tend to aphids the little green bugs that drink plants nutrients and are considered pests by every farmer on earth, except for their own six-legged keepers. Ants love the sugary substance aphids exert and treat the bugs as their dairy cows.
Ants Have Been Raising And Milking Caterpillars Like Livestock For Millions Of Years. Some ant species have cared for certain insect species that produce food for them. Much like how humans milk cows, ants can milk a particular caterpillar species in order to obtain a nutritious beverage.
In return for providing ant colonies with sustenance, the ants care for the caterpillars in the same way that a farmer cares for his pigs or cows. In fact, some of these ant species have even been observed building shelters for their caterpillars.
During the dark of night, the ants will stand guard outside of the caterpillars shelter in order to protect them from predatory attacks. At the crack of dawn, the ants will herd the caterpillars up a tree in order to allow them to feed on leaves. These caterpillar herds are guarded around the clock by ant soldiers.
You have probably stepped on the ant equivalent of Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato.
These are the end times, when the disciples of Money will end poverty forever by slaughtering the the massed armies of the poor who are even now starting to sweep up from the South to invade our lands and rape our children. Only the few loyal worshippers will survive, to be caught up by the Great Penis Extension and transported to the Great Marketplace in the Sky, there to serve Bezos forever.
[quote=G.K.Chesterton]When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.[/quote]
Or to put it another way, one's life must have a centre; something must have more importance to a person than other things. Rather than tedious bickering about mere existence of a being with the name we have learned to give it, consider, when things fall apart, what you will seek to preserve? Some habit or understanding or relation to the world that is the last thing you will surrender.
Call that your god, or by some other name as you please.
i.e. What @un said. But I felt like writing something. :halo:
Like what? Wasting away needlessly toiling in A dead world where everything, no matter how grand or monumental, flesh or stone, will inevitably decay and crumble to sand, for no purpose other than to do so for the sake of having something to do? Mindless pleasure that decays the mind? Grandiosity and a feeling of power over others that grows old faster than a piece of fruit left out in the hot sun? Yeah, no thanks pal. Keep your atheism. It is neither needed nor welcome in this land.
(would be my reply to the author of the quote in question)
Good thread. Not surprised to see the level of emotion and effort being expressed here. After all, people struggle to come up with a question more profound than the most basic: "What is life, after all?"
Fine by me if you don't see any evidence.
I'm religious; I'm not spiritual. I respect religion more than I believe it. Religions are among humanity's great creations.
I might believe in God, but not the God whose program involves micromanaging the universe. The God I might believe in is omnipresent, but not omni-engaged. His eye may be on the sparrow (as the song goes) but if a hawk eats the sparrow God may notice but does not punish the hawk.
Perhaps God is the Primum Mobile and part of the Universe. Perhaps not. I wasn't there at the beginning, so I'm guessing.
Did Jesus once walk the streets of Jerusalem? @javi2541997 believes Jesus literally existed. I'm inclined to agree, though like the London Underground riders, we must "MIND THE GAP" when reading the Gospels. Jesus wasn't around to help edit his biography which was written by authors who did not know him personally and did not have access to his phone, his tax forms, his diaries, his trial records, his birth certificate, or back issues of the Jerusalem Post.
Whether the personal testimony that they did have in their hands was reliable, God only knows.
There is nothing bad about religion that isn't bad about believers. Whatever is good in religion is good in believers. As Kant put it, nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind.
Quoting Vera Mont
Sure.
Quoting Vera Mont
By the time the Empire, in the person of Constantine in 312, sort of got interested in Jesus the church had been in business for a while. The general policy of the Empire was to tolerate pagan sects as long as people continued to worship the official gods. Jews and Christians were not very good at this dual role. They received some static, but nothing like a vicious pogrom.
The church may or may not have christianized the Empire, but more significantly, the Empire certainly imperially bureaucratized the church.
The church most certainly did convert* the Roman empire (and later, several more empires). Yes to the other half: once the organization was solidly established, it required an enormous, far-reaching administrative structure - communications, banking, supervision of the monastic orders, educational facilities, construction projects.... Lots and lots of clerics doing lots of lots of clerical work, skills which they later applied to the administration of individual kingdoms as well as the Vatican's far-reaching business interests.
(I don't say christianize, since Christ seems to have been pushed farther and farther from the center of The One True Faith as it gained power)
Good.
True enough, but Holy Mother Church didn't become a holy big business until the medieval period -- say, around 800 to 1000 a.d. In the last centuries of the western Roman Empire (ending in 476), and for a few centuries after that, the church was a relatively small organization. As Roman/Medieval Historian Peter Heather points out, if you walked around Europe in 700, you would see some Romanesque cathedrals here and there (not big gothic ones) and little else in the way of church buildings. The church didn't deeply penetrate European societies until around 800 - 1000. Around that time, the church created parishes and lots of parish churches were built--some of them are still around.
This isn't to say that missionary work wasn't going on -- it was. And the church established footholds all over the place -- but wasn't able to expand those footholds until later.
The Roman church started out with the structure of the empire -- very top down and bureaucratic. That was the gift of Constantine and his successors.
Quoting Vera Mont
It's a major contradiction: Jesus the poor itinerate preacher who said "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth" was answered by the worldly church: "It's not the earth the meek inherit, it's the dirt!" It was OK for kitchen monks and nuns to be meek, but that lifestyle generally didn't appeal to popes and archbishops who thought of themselves as Roman nobles.
This contradiction is reconstructed in just about every church in the US, where the church building eventually becomes the tail that wags the dog. Most churches are real estate operations, whether they want to be or not. The building becomes the biggest line item in the budget. Don't get me wrong -- I love a nicely maintained charming old church. But charming old churches are a bottomless pit of maintenance expenses. .
There is a church in Minneapolis that was torn down to make way for a freeway. The Minneapolis Lutheran Synod created in its place the 'church without walls' which now serves a large public housing and Somali community. It's about the only such operation that I have heard of. It rents an office, but the pastor's work is mostly in the public housing buildings. It's a model I would like to see more of.
The one I recall most fondly was in a little nothing village, built of adobe, like most of the houses, and whitewashed once every three years. Dirt floor, studded with walnut shells, got sprinkled with water in summertime. Wooden altar and pews. The roof would probably have to be reshingled about once a generation. Get enough volunteer hands, it cost hardly anything at all.
I don't suppose that church exists anymore; probably been bulldozed for a shopping mall.
Just joking. The parish church compressor was mentioned in an odd funny book published back in the '70s, The Universal Daisy Spacer. It included a plastic device to aid individuals in planting daisies precisely 2.73 inches apart. The objective of the author was to achieve an orderly world--or else.
I tried to google it just now and all I get is ads for 100 daisy spacer beads for $11.60. Weird shite.
Anyhow, harking back a bit, there is much to recommend parish churches - any denomination; I don't take sides in internecine squabbles - and their role in communities.
The church was built in 1949 for a large German Lutheran congregation belonging to the Missouri Synod. In those years they needed that much space. In the mid 1980s the Missouri Synod was split by a fundamentalist take over. Many of the Missouri Synod congregations voted to leave, as did this congregation. The vote was a 49% 51% vote in favor of leaving. Upon losing the vote, half of the congregation left.
Churches are, generally, on the decline but losing 1/2 of the congregation was bad news. It took about 20 years to recover. There are still a handful of members who have been belonged for roughly 75 years
The church was designed by Ellen Saarinen, a Finnish architect. It's a National Historic Landmark--partly because of who designed it, and partly because it broke the 'American Gothic' mold for new church buildings. It's mid-century modern--not a common style for church buildings then or later.
Eero Saarinen Elliel's son, designed the educational wing added in 1962. It includes classrooms, a huge church kitchen, dining rooms, and a full sized gymnasium. He also designed the TWA Terminal in NYC (now a hotel), Dulles Airport, and the St. Louis Arch.
here's a picture of the Luther Lounge in the Eero Saarinen wing:
Less famous, more modest churches can become the congregation's master; this one cracks the whip. The one very good thing about being a national landmark is that it enables us to apply for grants to help pay for repointing and replacing brickwork, reroofing, replacing worn out boilers, fixing damage from heavy rain, and so on. If it wasn't for the grants, the congregation would have been bankrupted.
Which seat do you sit in?
I'd choose immediately behind the pole.
They then read off the names of the people who they are going to pray for and the rabbi recites an ever growing list, many of whom I think recovered or died long ago. He has this little saying he says before the prayer and he ends it with the statement "some of whom may never recover." What kind of thing is that to say? I mean a little more self confidence would go a long way I think.
The rabbi is pretty shy one on one, so I try to get him to talk to me. He told me he needed to figure out a better way to talk about the biblical miracles because no one (including him) actually thinks they happened. The other day when he lamented the overturning of Roe v. Wade, my wife was like is this a religious service or some guy talking about current events? I think he was just talking about what he was thinking about.
There's this one song where at some point everyone says "woo!" and throws their kid in the air, each kid trying to grab more air than the next.
I get a kick out of the whole thing. It's a far way from the long beards and black hats of my youth. It's what religion should be. Part community, part entertainment, part spirituality, and part absurdity.
It's good to have posts in church; they enable the bored to doze during the sermon, unobserved.
Communion occurs twice: once in the service, a second time during coffee. If Jesus had been Lutheran, coffee would be the transubstantiating liquid, pie the flesh. Serving hot coffee and pie during communion would be more complicated than bread and wine.
Because God is merciful, we use a pipe organ and sing proper hymns. Why does 'hymn' have a silent 'n'? Many churches, even Lutherans, employ the abomination of "praise bands" which distinguish themselves mostly by being way too loud.
Our prayer list needs to be purged, but you know, bad optics.
:up:
(i.e. libertarian socialism)
"Look at the fish swimming about, said Chuang Tzu, They are really enjoying themselves. You are not a fish, replied the friend, So you can't truly know that they are enjoying themselves. You are not me, said Chuang Tzu. So how do you know that I do not know that the fish are enjoying themselves?
:up: :100:
Rock on! :meh:
Were you a flounder? :grin:
What do you mean by "We are individuals of our kind"?. Does "our kind" refer to a species, or is it all fish?
It sounds like you have no "sole". :grin:
Our kind. We don't think in terms of species - that's another label humans impose; we think of those who are enough like ourselves to mate with and swim with; who are not our food and don't see us as their food.
Got any more lame puns?
Quoting Vera Mont
Yes. Were you a Monta ray? :grin:
Weird that freedom is opposed in the face of property. I'm hoping my kiddos get better than I.
You cut the story short:
The word how can also be translated where. In other words, he knows it relative to his own perspective, from a bridge above the water. That is, from where they are standing looking at the fish. But Huizi is also standing on the bridge. When Zhuangzi suggests going back to the beginning it is not just the beginning of their conversation but back to what it means to know something.
Elsewhere Zhuangzi says:
Knowing the limits of his perspective is to know things in a way that differs from him not knowing his limits. I discuss this in a thread I started on Zhuangzi
Thank you. I've never seen that "extended" (?) version. Zhuagzi, the Father of epistemology!?
I'll check out your thread!
Having read your thread, I like your take.
My earlier comment about epistemology was in jest, and yet that seems to have been your read on these Daoist "parables."
I think you agree that while for the West, epistemology represents the intellectual desire to know (even the "how we know")which is prevalent since Plato seemingly ignored Socrates and went on in a futile pursuit of knowledge.
While Zhuangzi was more "Socratic." For Zhuangzi, the exercise is fully practical. You cannot know, so be always open to the endless changes (I.e., the existential possibilities), like an uncarved block.
I am in agreement with Wittgenstein when he says:
[CV, p. 47].
Just as shoes that are too tight make it difficult to walk, the language used by philosophers makes it difficult to think.
To read Zhuagzi in terms of the theories and problems of epistemology can put us in a bind - disputes over in what way he is or is not in line with this or that epistemological claim. An objection would be that he misuses the term 'know'.
I don't agree that Plato ignored Socrates. On my reading he is a Socratic philosopher. He too knows that he does not know and demonstrates to other that they do not know either. At best, as Timaeus puts it, we have "likely stories". If you are interested I have several threads of varying length and detail on some of the dialogues:
Timaeus
Phaedo
metaphysics
Socratic Philosophy
Euthyphro
Thank you. Informative. And I agree with you about Plato, ultimately. I am being hyperbolic owing to my appreciation for silence. . . And yet, I chatter on driven by my autonomous desire to know, and my autonomous desire to make known.
More on that?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12008/shaken-to-the-chora/p1
My prior response may have been more than you were looking for. More briefly:
We do not have knowledge of such things as the gods and the arche or origin of the whole of what is. At best we have stories or myths, ton eikota mython. that is, likely accounts. Timaeus proposes it is best to accept likely stories and not search for what is beyond the limits of our understanding.
Now, a philosopher, someone who desires truth and knowledge, but is aware that there are things that are beyond our understanding, will not accept such stories as more than at best what seems likely. But if the philosophers are the city's educators it is best that they tell some version that the people will accept as true and complete.
Forms are a likely story, but however likely it may seem, it is inadequate and problematic. The account is at best only part of an account of the whole. Timaeus' whose account, takes the Forms or intelligibles as part of his story, attempts to do what Socrates' cannot, that is, give an account of motion, of change and chance. But one of the most striking features is just how unlikely it is!
We should not expect more.
I tend to get the sense that every Jew (or every believer) is a little heretical in their own way. Some just don't believe in God, some believe the Bible is all fabricated, some believe in a different form of God like Spinoza's pantheism. For me it's being weirdly drawn to Jesus.
I read Jesus without any Christian background (obviously) and I just can't get over the strangeness of the character. He is downright bizarre in a way that makes him either very good or very bad. I know of no other character who jumps off the page like Jesus and I'm drawn to many of the parables and lessons (I truly believe internalizing his lessons will make one very attractive!). But Jesus never seems to care about his followers' physical life or well-being. It's like if doing one of Jesus's teachings gets you killed quickly it's like "oh well, he died in Christ!" Jesus burns bright but dies young in proper accord with his teachings.
He (if he existed and there's any truth in the gospels) was not interested in other nations - his teaching was exported years after his death. He was concerned with reforming the Judaism of his time. Something like Martin Luther with a state of Christianity that he considered corrupt. Jesus is a singularly Jewish character, no matter that Paul and Christian proselytizers co-opted him and European artists systematically lightened his complexion.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Or his own, for that matter. Asceticism was a well established practice among the many prophets of the time, as it was also in India, among Buddhist monks.
Jesus first came for the Jews but he later sent his disciples out among the nations. Jesus is concerned with mans salvation and the kingdom heaven as well as various scriptural matters debated among the rabbinic teachers of the day. Jesus emerges from the Israelite/Jewish tradition (he is Jewish) but his message is drawn from universalism within that tradition/civilization/their holy texts.
I dont read Jesus as an ascetic because of passages like Matt 11:19.
After he was dead. Not much indication of universalism in the gospels. Some tolerance, yes: even a centurion's servant is worth healing; (though it sounds as if this particular Roman had gone native - "Luke 7:4And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this: 5For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.) that even a lowly Samaritan may be charitable - and there's Mark 7:28, which puts Greeks firmly in their place under the table.
Quoting Moses
That's more an accusation that he consorts with the common people. I make it two actual instances of indulgence: the wedding in Cana and the farewell supper. Not a strict ascetic, I agree, but mostly they seemed to be as the fowls of the air, trusting God to feed them, or fasting in the desert or subsisting on a few loaves and fishes or plucking corn along the roadside - on the (gasp!) Sabbath. Cursing the fig tree sounds to me as if he were hungry and pissed off that it had no fruit. (Makes him sound less than divine, that bit.)
:up:
Though it's been years since I've read his books, I'd always found Robert Alter's scholarship excellent (i.e. rewards rereading), especially e.g. The Art of Biblical Narrative ... Necessary Angels: Tradition and Modernity in Kafka, Benjamin, and Scholem ... The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
Btw, have you read Spinoza's Tractatus, Theologico-Politicus? If so, BC, what did you think? And what about God In Search of Man by Abraham Heschel? Two more masterworks which have also helped to exorcize the last dregs of my latent Catholicism (re: Pauline Christianity). An 'irreligious atheist' through and through, the scars throughout my psyche of a dozen years of parochial schooling have never left me such that I'm still haunted by the Jewishness of "Christ" (read the Aramaic-English verson of the New Testament AND The Gospel of Jesus According to The Jesus Seminar) and thereby fascinated with biblical (or ancient) Judaism.
What I mean by "universalism" is, imo, revealed in Jesus's dialogues/arguments with the Pharisees. I found that Jesus's views were often (but not always) grounded in the early books of Genesis. Gen 1-11 is universal/applies to all of mankind. Gen 12-50 is particular to Israel. Just something that I noticed whether it relates to marriage, food purity, or the sabbath among others.
Jesus surely did consort with the common folk; he consorted with the lowest of the low. Tax collection in antiquity was a nasty institution yet Jesus did not shun them. Jesus shuns no one. That's what is unique about the character and places him in the "very good" or "very bad" camp. Traditional Jewish sages caution us against associating with the wicked. But I also believe the quote reveals he was a man of appetites and not like the ascetic John the Baptist.
I'm fascinated though in the ways that that Jesus helps socialize one. He is the ideal in many ways, if not all ways. So he is potentially something to emulate. I found that through internalizing at least some of his teachings the person becomes transformed and this is what I find so fascinating.
(You've put me in a mood to watch Jesus Christ, Superstar again.)
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Might that be why the modern capitalist Christians shy away from him and cleave to Moses? And why the punitive, repressive evangelists prefer the OT?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I don't know about that. Certainly, some of the most altruistic (though not necessarily sensible) people I've met were devout Christians - but I wonder whether it was Jesus who changed them or if they were drawn to Jesus in the first place by their own character?
I don't believe in a divine Jesus - which is just as well, since the sacrifice of animals, people or demigods is an abhorrent practice and any god who demands it is abhorrent - but the biblical character had some good speech-writers.
Alter is indeed brilliant. One of the top in the field.
I have not read Spinoza but I'm sure I could gain something from it. I'm not partial to pantheism but I know Spinoza was brilliant. Heschel I would read but have not yet. Am currently reading Nahum Sarna's work on Genesis and Exodus. Recently read Shaye Cohen's "From Maccabees to the Mishnah" which is a good overview of later second temple Judaism, roughly around the time of Jesus.