Thread: Is religion wasting valuable time and resources? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029682
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Susan Doris raised an interesting point here.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
... there are good people everywhere who do their best to work toward improving the life of others, but if they are doing it in the name of any god, or think there is any god providing any kind of back-up, then the parts of their minds that are used by this could be totally focused on the fact that human thinking is 100% of it.
I go to a Church where a lot of good work is done, including food banks, soup kitchens, lunches for the elderly etc.
My friend was asked by one of the homeless why she does it and she replied "I am a Christian, which means I follow Jesus and I do it because Jesus asked me to". A good answer I think. They do no overt prosthelytising when carrying out these good works.
But would they do better/more if they didn't worship God? Or does the worship recharge their batteries?
Would those who spread evil in the name of their religion cease or just find another excuse?
Is belief in God/Gods really a problem?
Is religion part of 'human flourishing' (quoting Mr Cheesy) or is co-operation between humans all that is needed.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
I think this is massively complex, on the one hand lots of awful things that people have done might not of been done if they didn't have the self-justification and the nudge of their religious beliefs to do it...
On the other hand many people would not have confidence to do some of the good things they do without religion... on this front I part with the new atheists view that religion poisons everything.
The same could maybe said for political beliefs though?
Neil
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It is the same problem if we confine the question to one subset: church buildings, for instance. Clearly it is very expensive indeed to build glorious cathedrals, and the money would be far better used housing the homeless and feeding the hungry. Jesus said nothing about building Gothic!
But, OTOH, it is in churches and cathedrals that you get the best of the art of certain ages. It would be a poorer world, without Chartres and Notre Dame. Without rich patrons paying for adorning churches, Da Vinci and Michelangelo would not have been artists. Bach would have composed advertising jingles.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Insofar as the OP assumes that the good works are the end and the "religion" bit merely the means, I think it is based on a false premise.
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Another reason why I am not an RC. The first Commandment is to love God. The second is like it: to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Indeed, in loving our neighbour, we are loving God. No subordination or division necessary.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Indeed, calling the love for our neighbours subordinate to our love for God seems like a direct violation of Jesus' command to me.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Another reason why I am not an RC. The first Commandment is to love God. The second is like it: to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Indeed, in loving our neighbour, we are loving God. No subordination or division necessary.
Although, Chesterbelloc's RC response doesn't look very different from the reformed protestant Westminster Shorter Catechism's formulation: "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever."
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Although, Chesterbelloc's RC response doesn't look very different from the reformed protestant Westminster Shorter Catechism's formulation: "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever."
Maybe. I didn't say I rated that either.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
I'm of the opinion that nothing worthy of worship requires it, but everything worthy of appreciation deserves it.
In terms of wasted time and attention, I think that's for the individual to determine. IMO, what you get out of it largely depends on what you put into it.
If we are talking purely about the ethical quandaries of inequality of social justice, and the availability of human time and attention to balance this equation, I think the remedy for that was prescribed to us in the Great Commandment.
That's a social experiment I would dearly love to see put successfully into practice.
AFF
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
It is the same problem if we confine the question to one subset: church buildings, for instance. Clearly it is very expensive indeed to build glorious cathedrals, and the money would be far better used housing the homeless and feeding the hungry. Jesus said nothing about building Gothic!
But, OTOH, it is in churches and cathedrals that you get the best of the art of certain ages. It would be a poorer world, without Chartres and Notre Dame. Without rich patrons paying for adorning churches, Da Vinci and Michelangelo would not have been artists. Bach would have composed advertising jingles.
I don't think that is at all the same question as the OP. This question can be answered quite easily by Jesus' anointing at Bethany and the response to the indignant disciples - beautifying worship v spending on the poor is not a new question!
The OP is asking about the value of religion with regards to serving the poor, not how best to serve the poor from a religious perspective.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
I'm going to say no.
I am coming to believe that religion (meaning rituals in one's life, belief in something beyond oneself) is a necessary part of human psychology. I believe this because of what biology, evolutionary psychology and sociology tells us about our species but you can just as easily believe it's because a god made us that way without it altering the idea that religion is crucial to us.
Religion, in the broad sense of something that encourages one to look beyond oneself, to find meaning in life and purpose in what is quite often a chaotic and meaningless mess, isn't a 'waste of time and resources' because it allows us to be sentient, self aware and not to go mad at the chaos, randomness and apparent cruelty of life. It also allows us to bind ourselves together in communities and groups which allowed us to survive in our pre-agricultural and pre-industrial times.
It's open to abuse and misuse of course, but so are all large institutions or systematic approaches to life. So much as I'd love to blame religion for all ills, I can't and won't because it won't stand up.
The problem we have to overcome (if we can and how we can do this is yet to be determined) is how to live in communities both locally and globally with others whose ideas about religion and identity are in opposition to our own.
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Religion, in the broad sense of something that encourages one to look beyond oneself, to find meaning in life and purpose in what is quite often a chaotic and meaningless mess, isn't a 'waste of time and resources' because it allows us to be sentient, self aware and not to go mad at the chaos, randomness and apparent cruelty of life. It also allows us to bind ourselves together in communities and groups which allowed us to survive in our pre-agricultural and pre-industrial times.
Love this sentiment, and am going to steal it for my own use
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Neil
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Another reason why I am not an RC. The first Commandment is to love God. The second is like it: to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Indeed, in loving our neighbour, we are loving God. No subordination or division necessary.
The subordination is right there in the utterance of Jesus : "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment."
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Another reason why I am not an RC. The first Commandment is to love God. The second is like it: to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Indeed, in loving our neighbour, we are loving God. No subordination or division necessary.
And yet this is not quite how Jesus put it in Matthew: quote:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great[est]* commandment. And the second is like unto it[.]
*This passage is rendered as "great" or "greatest", depending on the particular translation used.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
[X-p'd with Fr W, obvs.]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
*This passage is rendered as "great" or "greatest", depending on the particular translation used.
I'm not going to play proof-texting, but I think Matthew 25 is fairly clear that loving the neighbour is loving God. But of course YMMV.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
I think worship has to be seen as an end in itself. I can't think of any ends that it could be the most efficient means to.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Let me see if I've got this right, mr cheesy: it's not proof-texting when you quote scripture, but it is proof-texting when I use the same verses to show you that your eisegesis is not supported by that that very text? M'okay.
As Fr W says, the ranking is right there in the text itself. If both "parts" of that commandment basically break down as "love your neighbour" why did Jesus separate them and call the God bit the "first and great/est" of them?
[ 22. March 2016, 16:09: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
There is NO argument mr cheesy. Loving God is meaningless if it doesn't translate to loving neighbour.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I'm not ducking SusanDoris's question, but let me ask another one which I think is similar. Leave God out of it for a moment and suppose I help people in need because I have a great love for people both in general and in particular. I care about them and part of my time is spent thinking about them, hoping that they are happy, and reflecting on the value of being part of the human race in all its wonderful and multi-faceted glory, as expressed by me and shown to me in the help that I am fortunate enough to be able to give.
Is my thinking and reflecting in that way a waste of time and effort because I'm not spending them thinking about improving the balance and calorific value of peoples' diets, or trying to negotiate a bulk order of warm socks for the local rough sleepers, or even making a fuss with the council about the lack of cold weather shelters?
I'd say no, for much the same reason as I'd say that religion and worship- even if (and we're getting into rocky ground here) there is actaully no God or God is indifferent whether I worship or not- is not a waste of time. It's about the element of love, of relationship, of belief about your place in the universe and the wishes, affections and duties that flow from that. Take all that away, whether or not you fit God into the picture, and the world, and your actions within it however materially beneficial to others, become very chilly indeed.
[ 22. March 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I don't understand the OP. In what sense could worship of God be a waste of time?
If God is there, than I worship him (and in so doing declare Him to be the self-causing source of unprovable Truth, including unprovable Truths about what constitutes a waste of time). I pray to be saved from myself.
If He is not there, then the category 'waste of time' ceases to exist, for who would define it?
Sod it, ETA something inflammatory. In proposing to depose God's worship from the 'top of the tree' in the cause of 'valuable resources', the OP proposes worship of neighbour as the ultimate good.
Good luck, and choose your neighbours with great care.
[ 22. March 2016, 16:59: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Loving God is meaningless if it doesn't translate to loving neighbour.
If by that you mean that love of God is entirely reducible without remainder to love of neighbour, then that rather makes a nonsense of what Jesus taught, doncha think?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Chesterbelloc: If by that you mean that love of God is entirely reducible without remainder to love of neighbour, then that rather makes a nonsense of what Jesus taught, doncha think?
No, it doesn't.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
It is what Jesus taught.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Let me see if I've got this right, mr cheesy: it's not proof-texting when you quote scripture, but it is proof-texting when I use the same verses to show you that your eisegesis is not supported by that that very text? M'okay.
Well no. What I meant was that this is not the forum to debate bible verses, if you want to do that there is a perfectly formed place on this website called Kerygmania.
I'm telling you that I consider the chapter I mentioned above to be indicative of Jesus' attitude that serving neighbour = serving God.
I appreciate that you think differently and that you consider the RCC doctrine as you've expressed it to be correct.
If you want to compare biblical interpretations, then fine let's discuss that. Just not here. Comprende?
quote:
As Fr W says, the ranking is right there in the text itself. If both "parts" of that commandment basically break down as "love your neighbour" why did Jesus separate them and call the God bit the "first and great/est" of them?
Why indeed. I don't consider asking this question to be enough to completely disprove my idea - we just have two bits of gospel scripture which apparently say different things.
I have some ideas, but again, that's not the purpose of Purgatory.
[ 22. March 2016, 17:15: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
So , does either of you want to have a go at parsing the "greatest" commandment verses such that it is both still meaningful and yields no remainder?
If you're both right and love of God precisely equals love of neighbour with no remainder then Christ is telling us that love of neighbour is first and great(er) than love of neighbour. What do you think that means?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
mr cheesy, you were the one who brought that particular scripture passage into the discussion. If you had no intention of defending your claim in regard to it on this thread, why did you introduce it to this thread?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
mr cheesy, you were the one who brought that particular scripture passage into the discussion. If you had no intention of defending your claim in regard to it on this thread, why did you introduce it to this thread?
No sorry, you introduced "good works" as subservient to "worship" and I disagreed. You then offered one verse and I offered a chapter, making it fairly clear that I believed this was not the place to trade bible verses.
I don't agree with you or your doctrine. No biggie.
If you want to discuss how we should interpret these verses, then we need to do it elsewhere. That's all.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
Loving God is meaningless if it doesn't translate to loving neighbour.
True. "If a man love not his brother who he has seen, how can he love God who is has never seen".
But I don't think it works the other way, namely that care to others is per se love to God. It brings in the idea of "unaware believers" which I think it a little patronising towards those like SusanDoris and other atheists, who would totally reject the idea that they are loving God by caring for others.
Plus, assuming you don't just junk it, the NT makes it clear that Jesus saw love as including keeping his commandments. It is not obvious to me that caring for others involves this. Is it not possible to care for others without ever making the slightest attempt to pray? If my wife were to care for my kids and never speak to me, I would be grateful for the care given to the kids, but less sure of her love to me. And prayer is only one example.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I go to a Church where a lot of good work is done, including food banks, soup kitchens, lunches for the elderly etc.
My friend was asked by one of the homeless why she does it and she replied "I am a Christian, which means I follow Jesus and I do it because Jesus asked me to". A good answer I think.
It is obviously a very good thing that people help others as a result of being inspired by others' advice and the example of said others' altruistic behaviour. If my circumstances were different, I would undertake some kind of voluntary work. It would be because it is a human, helpful thing to do. It would have no connection with an associated religious belief but the results would be the same. quote:
But would they do better/more if they didn't worship God? Or does the worship recharge their batteries?
That probably would not make any difference to the amount of effort and care they put into the work, since they are the same human beings whether they believe in and worship God or not. quote:
Would those who spread evil in the name of their religion cease or just find another excuse?
In current circumstances, that is far too difficult a question I think. quote:
Is belief in God/Gods really a problem?
Only if those who believe in a god hurt, kill, and aim to control and have power over others. quote:
Is religion part of 'human flourishing' (quoting Mr Cheesy) or is co-operation between humans all that is needed.
It has been an integral part of human history, but since it is clear that humanists and atheists, plus members of NSS etc, live full and happy lives without any belief in any god, then no idea of god is actually essential.
Not a very good response, but I have spent a lot of time thinking about it.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Albertus
Very interesting post.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I go to a Church where a lot of good work is done, including food banks, soup kitchens, lunches for the elderly etc.
My friend was asked by one of the homeless why she does it and she replied "I am a Christian, which means I follow Jesus and I do it because Jesus asked me to". A good answer I think. They do no overt prosthelytising when carrying out these good works.
But would they do better/more if they didn't worship God? Or does the worship recharge their batteries?
Would those who spread evil in the name of their religion cease or just find another excuse?
Is belief in God/Gods really a problem?
Is religion part of 'human flourishing' (quoting Mr Cheesy) or is co-operation between humans all that is needed.
What motivates us to help other people, if not love? Some do so for kudos, status, because it makes them feel good about themselves, or because they like to look down on 'the needy'. Might we genuinely love others as equal to ourselves - all members of the human family - without loving God first? A genuine question. I know I didn't.
I don't worship to recharge my batteries. I worship to express my love of God along with others who love God, but I often do receive a boost from God, either during worship or in private devotions.
Belief in the living God is not a problem, quite the opposite, as above. What is a problem is if we try to impose our belief or lack of it on others. Invite, yes. Impose, no.
I believe that our relationship with God, via our interaction and co-operation with Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, helps us to flourish both individually and collectively in community.
Time in prayer is time well spent.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The question puts the cart before the horse.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Sod it, ETA something inflammatory. In proposing to depose God's worship from the 'top of the tree' in the cause of 'valuable resources', the OP proposes worship of neighbour as the ultimate good.
The OP doesn't propose anything, it asks a series of questions.
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on
:
I'm sorry, you're right. I'll try again, and remove some redundancy from the end of the sentence too:
'If we depose God's worship from the 'top of the tree' in the cause of 'valuable resources', as we are invited to consider in the OP, then we propose worship of neighbour.'
[ 22. March 2016, 21:07: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We propose worship of God in and through neighbour, as the top of the tree.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Sod it, ETA something inflammatory. In proposing to depose God's worship from the 'top of the tree' in the cause of 'valuable resources', the OP proposes worship of neighbour as the ultimate good.
Good luck, and choose your neighbours with great care.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I'll tell you all straight out that I do any number of things* for Jesus that I would never do for money. I'm afraid love of neighbor is a weaker motivator as well.
* Dealing with bodily effluvia, paperwork, government agencies...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Agreed, most of us are appallingly inadequate humanists even with God let alone without Him.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
mr cheesy, you were the one who brought that particular scripture passage into the discussion. If you had no intention of defending your claim in regard to it on this thread, why did you introduce it to this thread?
No sorry, you introduced "good works" as subservient to "worship" and I disagreed. You then offered one verse and I offered a chapter, making it fairly clear that I believed this was not the place to trade bible verses.
I don't agree with you or your doctrine. No biggie.
If you want to discuss how we should interpret these verses, then we need to do it elsewhere. That's all.
Not wishing to be tedious, but I want to get this straight.
The closest I came to citing scripture was admitting that of course we were commanded to love our neighbour. You were the one who then went on the actually quote the Matthean passage that the second commandment was "like" the first, claiming by that that the passage proved that there was no subordination of the second to the first.
You were making a scriptural case for your opinion.
I merely questioned how strong your case was given that the subordination you denied was right there in the verses immediately adjacent to the one you quoted.
Have a quick look upthread and you'll see that's actually the way things went.
To say now that you're not interested in swapping biblical quotes is nothing to the point - I was merely quoting back to you the immediate context of the snippet you cited.
I cannot for the life of me see why, given your eagerness to quote the Matthean passage to me as evidence for your contention, you cannot respond to my observation right here rather than dismissing it as out-of-place proof-texting that really belongs in Kerygmania.
I'm afraid it looks to me as if you just don't want to address the prima facie contradiction of your scriptural observation by its immediate context.
Your choice, of course.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm telling you that I consider the chapter I mentioned above to be indicative of Jesus' attitude that serving neighbour = serving God.
I agree that serving neighbour is a form of serving God. I don't think one can say it's identical to serving God without slipping into some form of pantheism.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
We're panENtheist here. So, apart from serving neighbour, how else can one serve, worship God? In emotional hygiene, in gratitude, in looking after ones property from the body out, in walking, working, aging, dying, of course, in everything.
But the top of the tree is the privilege of worshiping Him IN, AS, through ALL others.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, apart from serving neighbour, how else can one serve, worship God?
Well, Jesus seemed to be pretty keen on both private prayer and public, cultic worship. So there's that.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
Has Jesus said anything about cultic worship? (Out of curiosity.)
[ 23. March 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
He worshipped in the Temple.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
More to the point he instituted the Eucharist, which can certainly be described in cultic terms.
Sharing, equality, stewardship and thanksgiving at the heart of the characteristically Christian act of worship .
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Yup - that too.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's the idea of 'valuable time' which I find strange, but I suppose for some Christians, there is a kind of utilitarian ethic at work? I mean, I used to work with people, helping them (in therapy), and now I don't. However, I don't consider my time now as less valuable.
In fact, I don't know how one measures this. A lazy afternoon walking along the river is valuable to me. But as I said, some Christians strike me as adopting a very utility-focused viewpoint, OK, fair enough. I am too old and gnarly for that!
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
In the OP the question was posed more from a secular point of view as to whether Christians were wasting time that could be considered valuable and put to better use. Whatever the Christians are guilty of, coming up with the concept of "valuable time" isn't one of them on this thread.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
In the OP the question was posed more from a secular point of view as to whether Christians were wasting time that could be considered valuable and put to better use. Whatever the Christians are guilty of, coming up with the concept of "valuable time" isn't one of them on this thread.
OK, but you could argue that some elements of Christianity directly challenge the notion of valuable time, couldn't you? For example, they toil not, neither do they spin.
It's just my impression that utilitarianism has become a big strand in Christian thinking and practice, especially in Protestantism.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
Yes - its also arguable that Protestant Europe drove the particular version of capitalist utilitarianism that now dominates the world. But as you say one can get a more whimsical, hippified world-view from scripture as well. Both have their secular cognates.
Assigning a value to things, including time, is definitely capitalist.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
More to the point he instituted the Eucharist, which can certainly be described in cultic terms.
Sharing, equality, stewardship and thanksgiving at the heart of the characteristically Christian act of worship .
This I have my doubts about. It was a Seder, the second night of Pesach, hence the "last" supper.(though for the disciples it wasn't really the last, if you count the fish He ate with them in His resurrected body).
I have trouble believing that as a good Rabbi, He would have altered the script of that meal in order to include an incantation that so closely resembles a pagan cannibalistic ritual. I think that was added later.
In fact, to me, almost everything about the Sunday order of worship seems to have parallels in pagan conjuring rituals.
But I guess that's a topic for another thread, and what I think really doesn't matter.
AFF
Posted by starbelly (# 25) on
:
quote:
But would they do better/more if they didn't worship God? Or does the worship recharge their batteries?
Would those who spread evil in the name of their religion cease or just find another excuse?
Is belief in God/Gods really a problem?
Is religion part of 'human flourishing' (quoting Mr Cheesy) or is co-operation between humans all that is needed.
The opening post has four very separate questions, which means we are all trying to answer a different one... confusing.
Neil
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Yes - its also arguable that Protestant Europe drove the particular version of capitalist utilitarianism that now dominates the world. But as you say one can get a more whimsical, hippified world-view from scripture as well. Both have their secular cognates.
Assigning a value to things, including time, is definitely capitalist.
Interesting point. I don't know enough about the history of the notion of value, but certainly its mercantile sense has become very dominant, and presumably infected Christianity, esp. Protestantism.
I think the other view is a bit more than hippeyish, since the notion of being having its intrinsic value has always been present in mystical Christianity. See Traherne for example:
"The corn was orient and immortal wheat, which never should be reaped, nor was ever sown. I thought it had stood from everlasting to everlasting. The dust and stones of the street were as precious as gold: the gates were at first the end of the world. The green trees when I saw them first through one of the gates transported and ravished me, their sweetness and unusual beauty made my heart to leap, and almost mad with ecstasy, they were such strange and wonderful things: The Men! O what venerable and reverend creatures did the aged seem!"
Centuries of Meditations; Third Century.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
The problem with referring to Jesus as a rabbi is that it suggests he was a practitioner of rabbinical Judaism, which at the time he was living had not yet coalesced. Its seeds were certainly present in the Pharasaical faction, but we have to be very careful about equating 1st-century Judaism to the religion as it is practiced today. It's changed.
I don't have any trouble believing that the words of institution are ipsissima verba. Jesus is reported as saying all kinds of things that went against the grain of the Temple establishment and the school of the Pharisees. The Gospel authors were certainly not unaware of how statements about body and blood would play--see the reaction of the multitude to the Eucharistic discourse in ch. 6 of St John.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
More to the point he instituted the Eucharist, which can certainly be described in cultic terms.
Sharing, equality, stewardship and thanksgiving at the heart of the characteristically Christian act of worship .
This I have my doubts about. It was a Seder[.]
Actually, it wasn't. From the linked article: quote:
Jesus could not have known what a “seder” was, let alone have modeled his Last Supper after one. The elements of even the primitive seder originated decades after he died.
Also, you seem to use the Gospel passages as reliable evidence that it was a seder meal but reject that same evidence when it differs with your own ideas about what must/couldn't have happened. That seems very much like eisegesis to me.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
More to the point he instituted the Eucharist, which can certainly be described in cultic terms.
Sharing, equality, stewardship and thanksgiving at the heart of the characteristically Christian act of worship .
This I have my doubts about. It was a Seder[.]
Actually, it wasn't. From the linked article: quote:
Jesus could not have known what a “seder” was, let alone have modeled his Last Supper after one. The elements of even the primitive seder originated decades after he died.
Also, you seem to use the Gospel passages as reliable evidence that it was a seder meal but reject that same evidence when it differs with your own ideas about what must/couldn't have happened. That seems very much like eisegesis to me.
Be this as it may, and even if your source is correct, it make no sense to me, not one lick of sense or logic, that Jesus as the Emissary of the One in Whom we have our being, and a good Hebrew Rabbi, would have found it necessary to introduce elements of ritual cannibalism to His followers.
The ritual Shabbos meal was already in full form at that time, even if it weren't a modern Seder.
When I place the eucharist in the context of the rest of the Order of Worship, it appears to me very much as an element of a pagan conjuring ritual that has been overlaid with Christian vocabulary and imagery.
Call it whatever you like, this is the inescapable conclusion of my reasoning that accepts as a premise that the Christ is the Emissary of the One in Whom we have our being.
I can't escape this conclusion, and so can't view the eucharist in any other light.
As I said earlier - what is worthy of worship does not require it, and what is worthy of appreciation deserves it.
I don't think it's complicated.
AFF
Posted by whitebait (# 7740) on
:
Following this sideline on the eucharist.
Early apocryphal texts such as the Didache don't even mention the body and blood of Jesus when mentioning the bread and cup. If this text predates the gospels (or at least the later gospels such as John), it does tend to suggest that the understanding of the Eucharist was radically modified by those gospel writers from the Eucharist practiced by sections of the early church.
(Didache Chapt 9, Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In fact, I don't know how one measures this. A lazy afternoon walking along the river is valuable to me.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
My brother says "nobody is lazy, we all just use our time in different ways"
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by whitebait:
Following this sideline on the eucharist.
Early apocryphal texts such as the Didache don't even mention the body and blood of Jesus when mentioning the bread and cup. If this text predates the gospels (or at least the later gospels such as John), it does tend to suggest that the understanding of the Eucharist was radically modified by those gospel writers from the Eucharist practiced by sections of the early church.
(Didache Chapt 9, Roberts-Donaldson Translation)
The Didache might predate the Gospels (though the evidence for that is scanty, and precise dating of this document is impossible), but I doubt it predates I Corinthians (AD 53-57). And certainly, the Didache doesn't pretend to be a work of systematic theology, so leaning on the absence of "body" and "blood" is approaching an argument from silence.
Ultimately, the only thing you can conclude about the Didache's silences or omissions is that there are silences or omissions.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
Be this as it may, and even if your source is correct, it make no sense to me, not one lick of sense or logic, that Jesus as the Emissary of the One in Whom we have our being, and a good Hebrew Rabbi, would have found it necessary to introduce elements of ritual cannibalism to His followers.
I'm not sure what weight that's supposed to have, to be frank. And he was not a "good Hebrew Rabbi" in anything like the sense that phrase has to modern ears.
It's the ancient and all-but universal custom of Christians to consider these passages as genuine and Christ's command to "do this" in the Eucharsist as normative.
The Gospels tell us that Christ's talk of eating and drinking His body and blood did indeed seem scandalous and anomolous to those who heard it, even to his disciples. But it has never been seriosly disputed and has been a fundamental part of the Church from the earliest times. Why would that be?
In whose interests would it have been to lard the scriptures with innumerable made-up references to eating the body and blood of the Lord, something which you admit sounds on the surface so off-putting and barbaric?
How would this be any more simple an explanation than that Christ actually taught this hard teaching?
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force
Be this as it may, and even if your source is correct, it make no sense to me, not one lick of sense or logic, that Jesus as the Emissary of the One in Whom we have our being, and a good Hebrew Rabbi, would have found it necessary to introduce elements of ritual cannibalism to His followers.
The story of the Last Supper is not the first place in the gospels where there is mention of eating Jesus' body; John 6:49-51 says quote:
Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats of this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’
Moo
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
For the RCC, as I'm sure for many others, the worship of God is principal duty of the Church - it is the supreme end. Doing good works are also essential - we are commanded to love our neighbour as ourselves - and are also ends, not means, but they are subordinate ends.
Another reason why I am not an RC. The first Commandment is to love God. The second is like it: to love our neighbour as ourselves.
Indeed, in loving our neighbour, we are loving God. No subordination or division necessary.
Although, Chesterbelloc's RC response doesn't look very different from the reformed protestant Westminster Shorter Catechism's formulation: "What is the chief end of man? The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him forever."
As one who was raised on the Westminster standards, who memorized the catechism at age 11, and who has heard this particular question and answer quoted his entire life, I read Chesterbelloc's post about worship of God being the supreme end and loving neighbor bring a subordinate end, and thought "no!"
Along with being taught the chief end of man, I was taught that loving and serving our neighbor is the worship and glorification of God. We worship God not just in the formal gatherings we call "worship" or in our private and family prayers and devotions. We are called to worship and glorify God by how we live our lives, offering all that we are to God.
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
A Feminine Force: quote:
Be this as it may, and even if your source is correct, it make no sense to me, not one lick of sense or logic, that Jesus as the Emissary of the One in Whom we have our being, and a good Hebrew Rabbi, would have found it necessary to introduce elements of ritual cannibalism to His followers.
To me, the trick is to see it as adding a living part of the Word to ourselves, not dead food like cannibalism. I see it more like a a spiritual blood transfusion to add health where it is lacking. Yeah, yeah, not an idea of his time, but still closer in meaning than cannibalism, IMO.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
It can be argued that the Scandinavian countries are examples of where the majority of people kept the ethic of Christianity, while rejecting to a certain degree, the religiosity of the faith. There is something to commend about it, I know people who wish that Christians spend more time living out the Sermon of the Mount, than arguing over the precise clauses of the Creed or bickering over liturgy.
But I think humans have spiritual needs as well as physical and emotional needs, and a healthy faith I think tries to address them all. For example, out of my Christian faith, I think we should have a decent public health care system with good and skilled doctors and nurses operating with the best of medical science. At the same time, I also believe in praying for the sick. Both are not mutually exclusive of one another.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It can be argued that the Scandinavian countries are examples of where the majority of people kept the ethic of Christianity,...
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think. quote:
... while rejecting to a certain degree, the religiosity of the faith. There is something to commend about it,...
Definitely agree. quote:
But I think humans have spiritual needs as well as physical and emotional needs, and a healthy faith I think tries to address them all.
Is there any doubt that all humans have an aesthetic or spiritual side to their nature? That aspect of people is evident in the way that in pre-history people painted images and, as far as we know, told stories. quote:
For example, out of my Christian faith, I think we should have a decent public health care system with good and skilled doctors and nurses operating with the best of medical science. At the same time, I also believe in praying for the sick. Both are not mutually exclusive of one another.
Yes, I agree, and such sentiments are felt by most people, at least in the 'west', whether with or without faith.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The simplicity of Christ, IN Him, is that FIRST we should be kind. NO: relentlessly, sacrificially, penitently, vulnerably, nakedly, empoweringly, patiently, exhaustingly, quietly, thunderously, justly, mercifully, kind. Oh, and by the way, we're in the reception room of the palace of eternity.
And NOBODY else ever said that. Nobody else could. Ever.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think.
From which pre-exisiting ethical code did Christianity appropriate: quote:
But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
From Buddhist teachings?
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
– The Dhammapada
500 ish years BC?
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
In some ways religions are using resources well and in others less well. Rest assured, though, that the influence of Islam, Christianity and, to a lesser extent, Judaism are impeding human progress. We could have developed much better treatments for AIDS, cancer and other deadly diseases had it not been for the interference of religion—or at least the application of those religions (I accept there is a difference). The slow reaction (in the US in particular, but not only there) to the AIDS crisis in the 80s was religiously driven. The opposition to stem-cell research was largely religiously driven. The bullying, murders and regular oppression of LGTB people is almost entirely religiously driven. The blocking of condom use in Africa, as well as the destruction of condom shipments to Africa—largely by western Evangelicals and Catholics—is religiously driven and killing many thousands every year. The advocacy and maintenance of corporal punishment for children (at home and in schools) was religiously driven (explicitly so in many US states). The persistence and frequency of 'faith healing' continues to cause unnecessary deaths. In terms of 'wasting resources', the biggest concern is wasting intellects. Instead of doing what is right, the religious are/feel compelled to do what their faith instructs. Neil deGrass Tyson put it perfectly: 'revelation replaced investigation'.
Do you *really* want to know how to use your resources better? Stop harming other people—no matter what your book says or your personal revelation seems to reveal.
With best wishes,
K.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
You can probably proof-text it either way, but St Paul doesn't see ethical behaviour as unique to one group of people:
quote:
Romans 2:14-15:
When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From Buddhist teachings?
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
– The Dhammapada
500 ish years BC?
I cannot see an equivalence between that rather generalised, unspecific observation and the direct particularity of Christ's command to "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Are you suggesting on the basis of that text that loving your enemies was always a central teaching of Buddhist ethics?
[ 24. March 2016, 09:25: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think.
From which pre-exisiting ethical code did Christianity appropriate: quote:
But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
This is a common misconception: the barbarity of the God of the Bible is simply on par with the existing morality of the time. Budda—a far more morally upright figure than any in the entire Bible—was half a millennium before Jesus. Jainism is even older than that (perhaps around the 9th century BC) and again, a much more morally upright code.
You can argue (quite easily, of course) that Jesus is much nicer than his father (though they are one and the same, sort of), but still, Jesus plans to burn adultresses alive and kill their children. I don't think you'll find such barbarity in Jainism.
Best,
K.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It can be argued that the Scandinavian countries are examples of where the majority of people kept the ethic of Christianity,...
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think.
Oh really. So which values and moral principles did the Scandinavian Christians appropriate from pre-existing pagan religions in Northern Europe - y'know the ones famous for rape, pillage, human sacrifice, public execution and so on.
One thing to claim that Christianity was/is no better than any other form of religion or non-religion. But quite another thing to make an assertion without any effort to give reasons which do not stand up to a moment's thought.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
From Buddhist teachings?
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
– The Dhammapada
500 ish years BC?
I cannot see an equivalence between that rather generalised, unspecific observation and the direct particularity of "love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Are you suggesting on the basis of that text that loving your enemies was always a cornerstone of Buddhist ethics?
Fear not—it is a common misapprehension amongst Christians that Jesus' teaching to love one's enemies was unique. Buddism and Taoism taught that centuries before Jesus was born. I'm sure there are other examples.
K.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Be this as it may, could someone tell me who is actually promulgating anything like this as an approach to life from a non-religious basis, and how many people they are actually reaching?
What I see happening is a retreat to a very narrow individualistic "risk-based" approach, promoted by hard-line materialism, to which even humanism contains too much that is not "evidence-based".
"Evidence-based" is a phrase that, outside its proper sphere in science, deserves all the quotation marks on earth. It simply means that the other side is not saying something that the speaker wants to hear.
Christianity, or at least the life of Christ, is, I would suggest, the most widely heard, radical alternative approach.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
This is a common misconception: the barbarity of the God of the Bible is simply on par with the existing morality of the time. Budda—a far more morally upright figure than any in the entire Bible—was half a millennium before Jesus. Jainism is even older than that (perhaps around the 9th century BC) and again, a much more morally upright code.
Mmm. But there is no indication that early Christianity was influenced by Buddhism - well other than by fruitloops peddling way-out-there unprovable historical conspiracy stories.
And anyway, as far as I understand it, early Buddhists were not necessarily non-theists anyway.
So if Susan is claiming that Christianity was somehow influenced to get good behaviours from other non-theist beliefs, then she's failed in both respects - if she's suggesting that those good behaviours came from Buddhism.
I don't think that is what she's saying FWIW.
quote:
You can argue (quite easily, of course) that Jesus is much nicer than his father (though they are one and the same, sort of), but still, Jesus plans to burn adultresses alive and kill their children. I don't think you'll find such barbarity in Jainism.
I'd be interested to hear your biblical evidence for Jesus Christ being in favour of capital punishment for adultery. Maybe you could lay it out for me in Kerg?
[ 24. March 2016, 09:34: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In relation to Buddhism and Jainism, it also depends on how much credence you give to the idea of the Axial Age, from about 8th - 3rd centuries BCE. It's a rather speculative idea that human thinking underwent a radical shift, a kind of primary Enlightenment, during which time radical ideas about compassion and love emerged, amongst others. I think Jainism emerged at the beginning of this period, not sure about the Vedic texts.
Admittedly, some historians pour scorn on the Axial Age as a speculative baggy monster.
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
The Gospels tell us that Christ's talk of eating and drinking His body and blood did indeed seem scandalous and anomolous to those who heard it, even to his disciples. But it has never been seriosly disputed and has been a fundamental part of the Church from the earliest times. Why would that be?
Because the ritual it forms a part of is older than the church.
Look, what I think about it makes no difference here or there to anybody but myself, and I'm not really interested in arguing the point or inflaming the sentiments of observant Catholics (or Protestants either).
If you want me to break it out for you in terms of the correspondence of each element of the Order of Worship with the pagan conjuring rite that predates it, I will.
But I don't think this will change your or anybody's mind, and will only contribute to bad feelings.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In whose interests would it have been to lard the scriptures with innumerable made-up references to eating the body and blood of the Lord, something which you admit sounds on the surface so off-putting and barbaric?
When the practice is seen for what it is: a holdover from a ritual of an earlier time that was not, or could not be, abandoned, then the question answers itself.
AFF
[ 24. March 2016, 10:13: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Mmm. But there is no indication that early Christianity was influenced by Buddhism - well other than by fruitloops peddling way-out-there unprovable historical conspiracy stories.
Sorry—I think I was confused. I merely wanted to point to the chronology; I was not claiming anything about dissemination of ideas. Did Susan Doris argue that Jesus took a cue from Budda? (I'm trying to pay attention!)
quote:
I'd be interested to hear your biblical evidence for Jesus Christ being in favour of capital punishment for adultery. Maybe you could lay it out for me in Kerg?
Revelation 2:22–23: (NIV) 'So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead.'
I was wrong about 'bed of fire', instead its merely a 'bed of suffering'. It seems that the Aramaic versions use 'coffin' instead of 'bed'. It isn't clear that Jesus intends to kill the adulteresses or how long he intends for them to be tortured and/or suffer. The children, however, he kills.
Best,
K.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Sorry—I think I was confused. I merely wanted to point to the chronology; I was not claiming anything about dissemination of ideas. Did Susan Doris argue that Jesus took a cue from Budda? (I'm trying to pay attention!)
Not directly no; she was saying that Scandinavian Christianity got the ideas from pre-existing beliefs and you were talking about Buddhism.
quote:
Revelation 2:22–23: (NIV) 'So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead.'
I was wrong about 'bed of fire', instead its merely a 'bed of suffering'. It seems that the Aramaic versions use 'coffin' instead of 'bed'. It isn't clear that Jesus intends to kill the adulteresses or how long he intends for them to be tortured and/or suffer. The children, however, he kills.
Best,
K.
OK, you are aware that this is poetry and not a manifesto for action against adulterous women, right?
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
I don’t think it matters what the (honourable) driver is behind the good work, the important thing is that it gets done.
That said, there are some things we take for granted that wouldn’t have happened without the religious convictions of those who campaigned for them. The temptation is to gloss over that, but for them, it was the key driver. For example – Lord Shaftbury’s work for children and the poor. Josephine Butler’s work for women.
Some forms of social care – food banks, soup kitchens – are more easily done by Christians or other religious groups because they have access to premises and people that make setting these things up and running them easier. Other people might want to do the same thing, but they would need to go through extra steps to make them happen – finding a large enough group of like-minded people, suitable premises etc.
Thinking about the local food banks, the church run one was up and running before the non-church based one had found premises or volunteers. The church based one serves anyone in need who asks for as long as they need it as its grace based. The non-church one requires referrals and you can only come a few times.
As for the central question - does religion waste valuable time and resources? How other people spend their time and resources is their business not yours. The only valuable time and resources being wasted is by people trying to insert themselves into something that's none of their business anyway. (Well, you asked me!)
Tubbs
[ 24. March 2016, 11:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
OK, you are aware that this is poetry and not a manifesto for action against adulterous women, right?
That interpretation certainly fits with some of the more moderate post-Elightenment readings of the Bible (and Revelation in particular). Even if you are right (and the prophetic writing in Revelation seems to me to be canonical Christian orthodoxy), what kind of poetry employs torture and murder as poetic devices which conceal love?
Jesus' words here are completely in keeping with OT law (which he regularly upholds and demands be enforced); and the punishment of children is high on that list.
Best,
K.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That interpretation certainly fits with some of the more moderate post-Elightenment readings of the Bible (and Revelation in particular). Even if you are right (and the prophetic writing in Revelation seems to me to be canonical Christian orthodoxy), what kind of poetry employs torture and murder as poetic devices which conceal love?
Quite a lot of religious poetry, I think. Off the top of my head, the Bhagavad Gita is considered by some (including Gandhi) to be the basis of non-violent Hinduism, but is a section in the middle of a poem about war.
quote:
Jesus' words here are completely in keeping with OT law (which he regularly upholds and demands be enforced); and the punishment of children is high on that list.
Best,
K.
Riiight, ok then.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That interpretation certainly fits with some of the more moderate post-Elightenment readings of the Bible (and Revelation in particular). Even if you are right (and the prophetic writing in Revelation seems to me to be canonical Christian orthodoxy), what kind of poetry employs torture and murder as poetic devices which conceal love?
Quite a lot of religious poetry, I think. Off the top of my head, the Bhagavad Gita is considered by some (including Gandhi) to be the basis of non-violent Hinduism, but is a section in the middle of a poem about war.
quote:
Jesus' words here are completely in keeping with OT law (which he regularly upholds and demands be enforced); and the punishment of children is high on that list.
Best,
K.
Riiight, ok then.
Mr Cheesy, of course he says wonderful things about children too—but any detached historian must read the whole, rather than only the nice bits.
K.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Mr Cheesy, of course he says wonderful things about children too—but any detached historian must read the whole, rather than only the nice bits.
K.
No historian reads poetry as history. And there is no such thing as "detached" history; it is all subjective.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Mr Cheesy, of course he says wonderful things about children too—but any detached historian must read the whole, rather than only the nice bits.
K.
No historian reads poetry as history. And there is no such thing as "detached" history; it is all subjective.
We can take this to Kerg if you'd like (I'd rather not). You are projecting onto my writing. All history is subjective—I agree with that—but that wasn't the 'detachment' of which I wrote. If you are right that 'no historian' reads poetry as history, you need to rethink how Greek histories, for example, were written. Even De rerum natura was written in verse.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Some histories are poetic, but not all poems are history. That's pretty obvious, if you ask me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In terms of radical morality, love your enemy, and so on, I would think that Jainism is one of the most radical religions that have existed. Not only does it ask for respect for all living things, in its radical forms, it asks for the renunciation of possessions.
Also, I think it has no creator God .
However, I think there is a watered-down version for the 'householder', which must be useful!
'The function of souls is to help one another' seems to be a key Jain idea.
I'm not suggesting that Jainism influenced Christianity, just that radical moral precepts had been around long before Jesus.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some histories are poetic, but not all poems are history. That's pretty obvious, if you ask me. [/QUOTE I did not claim otherwise. ]You wrote; 'No historian reads poetry as history'. Is that true or false? It is patently false. Why do you insist on a picking a fight? You need better definitions. If you want to claim that everything written in verse is mere Symbolism, go for it.
K.
[ 24. March 2016, 12:04: Message edited by: Komensky ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I did not claim otherwise.
You clearly did when you started reading a poem as history that has never ever by anyone been seen as even attempting to be history.
quote:
You wrote; 'No historian reads poetry as history'. Is that true or false? It is patently false. Why do you insist on a picking a fight? You need better definitions. If you want to claim that everything written in verse is mere Symbolism, go for it.
K.
Because you're talking bollocks. Historians do not go around picking up bits of poetry and then point to the things they say in them and say "ah ha!, this obviously means this is individual had this view about x."
Because that'd be stupid. And would totally misrepresent the purpose of different kinds of writing and conflate them all into the kind of writing that can only be examined as historical fact.
Some histories are poetic, not all poetry is history. So you can't just pick up a bit of poetry, as you have, and read history into it. It wasn't written as a history, is has never been read as a history.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
If you keep your definitions vague enough, you'll always win. I don't blame you; I wouldn't want to own the violent language of the Bible either.
Adieu.
K.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
From which pre-existing ethical code did Christianity appropriate:
It matters not whether the behaviours were set down in a code or law, since they were behaviours which evolved with our species survival. Without co-operative behaviour, we could well have become extinct.
Boogie and Komensky
Super posts!
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It can be argued that the Scandinavian countries are examples of where the majority of people kept the ethic of Christianity,...
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think.
Oh really. So which values and moral principles did the Scandinavian Christians appropriate from pre-existing pagan religions in Northern Europe - y'know the ones famous for rape, pillage, human sacrifice, public execution and so on.
So where in my post did I refer to Sweden in particular or the Scandinavian countries in general?!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
Surely the second chapter of Revelations only tells us what John of Patmos thought, not what Jesus thought?
(Yes, you can say something similar about the Gospels but I don't think many people doubt that at least some of the logia are genuine, whereas nobody believes Jesus really spoke to John in a vision unless they're already convinced of the truth of Christianity.)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It can be argued that the Scandinavian countries are examples of where the majority of people kept the ethic of Christianity,...
The ethics of behaviour, the moral principles, did not suddenly appear with Christianity; it's more a case of Christianity appropriating them, I think.
Oh really. So which values and moral principles did the Scandinavian Christians appropriate from pre-existing pagan religions in Northern Europe - y'know the ones famous for rape, pillage, human sacrifice, public execution and so on.
So where in my post did I refer to Sweden in particular or the Scandinavian countries in general?!
Well, I didn't think that the argument was that Swedish Christians got their ideas from local pagans, was it? Rather, that Christian moral precepts are not unique.
Well, these things are difficult to talk about, as the history of ideas is very speculative, but surely religions such as Buddhism and Jainism contain ideas such as self-renunciation, taking care of others, and so on. In fact, they go further, extending these rights to animals, and in the case of Jains, even insects.
Interestingly, both reject a creator God, as far as I can see.
Sorry to repeat stuff that Komensky has already outlined.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I didn't think that the argument was that Swedish Christians got their ideas from local pagans, was it? Rather, that Christian moral precepts are not unique.
Presumably. But who knows what Susan meant?
Anyway, she went rather further than saying the ideas were not unique and into the territory of Christianity nicking ("appropriating") ideas from others. Who? Which others? What evidence is there for that claim?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I didn't think that the argument was that Swedish Christians got their ideas from local pagans, was it? Rather, that Christian moral precepts are not unique.
Presumably. But who knows what Susan meant?
Anyway, she went rather further than saying the ideas were not unique and into the territory of Christianity nicking ("appropriating") ideas from others. Who? Which others? What evidence is there for that claim?
I thought that her point that moral precepts did not originate with Christianity is obviously correct.
The notion of appropriation certainly needs some infilling, but again, it's often said that the Golden Rule exists in many cultures. As I said earlier, my knowledge of ancient moral systems is not all that extensive, so I don't know to what extent the Golden Rule has been amplified in different religions, although it appears that Buddhism and Jainism began to treat all living creatures with reverence.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The notion of appropriation certainly needs some infilling, but again, it's often said that the Golden Rule exists in many cultures. As I said earlier, my knowledge of ancient moral systems is not all that extensive, so I don't know to what extent the Golden Rule has been amplified in different religions, although it appears that Buddhism and Jainism began to treat all living creatures with reverence.
Not sure that's telling us anything very much. And is quite a tangent from what Susan said anyway.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
SD said two things. One, that Christianity did not originate moral principles - obviously correct.
Two, that Christianity appropriated them. This is very vague, but the idea of treating other people well is presumably common to many religions, and is partly to do with cooperation and altruism.
Also the idea of self-renunciation is widespread.
As far as 'love your enemy', I don't know if that has been talked about in other moral systems, that is, before Christianity.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
SD said two things. One, that Christianity did not originate moral principles - obviously correct.
Two, that Christianity appropriated them. This is very vague, but the idea of treating other people well is presumably common to many religions, and is partly to do with cooperation and altruism.
Also the idea of self-renunciation is widespread.
As far as 'love your enemy', I don't know if that has been talked about in other moral systems, that is, before Christianity.
Buddha was specific about loving your enemy. I think we covered that above.
K.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Taoist Laozi says: "To those who are good to me, I am good; and to those who are not good to me, I am also good; and thus all get to receive good."
(Tao Te Ching 49)
Also 500 BC ish.
I'm sure the idea is as old as human life itself.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As far as 'love your enemy', I don't know if that has been talked about in other moral systems, that is, before Christianity.
Buddha was specific about loving your enemy. I think we covered that above.
Well, we "covered" it here, here, and here, but there was nothing that established that Buddha was "specific about loving your enemy".
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Taoist Laozi says: "To those who are good to me, I am good; and to those who are not good to me, I am also good; and thus all get to receive good."
(Tao Te Ching 49)
Also 500 BC ish.
I'm sure the idea is as old as human life itself.
Probably correct. But SD did argue that Christianity had 'appropriated' moral codes. So, it's not just a question of a preceding moral idea such as love your enemies, but did it influence Christianity? That's going to be very hard to show.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Christianity drawing on earlier teachings:
IIRC, CS Lewis said (maybe in "The Abolition Of Man"?) that yes, Jesus spoke the same good teachings that were found in many other times and places, and that was exactly what you'd expect if God came into the world--using the good things that we'd already learned. Or something like that.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
As the teachings of Jesus were drawn from the scriptures, ie what had come from the one living God and been handed down through his people by word of mouth and later in writing, it might be said that the outside world drew from the root of Christianity.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Raptor's Eye--
...or that God built those teachings into Nature for everyone--sometimes known as Natural or General Revelation.
...
For more about how certain teachings/truths play out in similar ways, across multiple religions and belief systems, check out Religious Tolerance's sections on Reciprocity (aka the Golden Rule). (Susan--Including Humanism! About 1/2 way down this page. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
Under "Satanism", the quotes from the Satanic Temple's 7 Tenets are amazing. Not what you'd expect at all.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
Golden Key
Thank you for the link - I have listened quickly through and will do so again later. Humanism is, of course, the best section!!
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Susan--
Of course it is! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Raptor's Eye--
...or that God built those teachings into Nature for everyone--sometimes known as Natural or General Revelation.
...
For more about how certain teachings/truths play out in similar ways, across multiple religions and belief systems, check out Religious Tolerance's sections on Reciprocity (aka the Golden Rule). (Susan--Including Humanism! About 1/2 way down this page. )
Under "Satanism", the quotes from the Satanic Temple's 7 Tenets are amazing. Not what you'd expect at all.
Yes, if God exists, he seems to be spreading wisdom around the world pretty evenly, among different peoples and religions. He's an equal opportunity employer!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, if God exists, he seems to be spreading wisdom around the world pretty evenly, among different peoples and religions. He's an equal opportunity employer!
We might speculate as to how it fits in with the story of 'The tree of the knowledge of good and evil', whether or not we are better off with such wisdom, which some assume is natural, and/or has evolved.
If it meant that there was no evil in the world as we are all so naturally wise, I might be convinced.
As it is, I believe that the one living God is the source of all goodness. Where religion helps us to become conscious of God's presence so that we put it into practice in the world, it will never be a waste of time or resources, quite the opposite.
And yes, God is an equal opportunity employer!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
With regard to Rev. 2:22ff, it ought to be pointed out that we don't know whether the "woman Jezebel" is an actual human person or whether she is a personification of a particular theological tendency (the Jezebel for whom she is named had been dead for centuries at the time the Revelation was written). Additionally, it should be acknowledged that the verses cited are in the context of the letter to the church at Thyatira, one of seven letters contained in the first 2 chapters of Revelation, and that it is also not clear whether these churches are the actual communities in those cities at the time the book was written or whether, again, they typify certain tendencies or dispositions in the early church. Personally, my take is that Revelation is a coded history of the early church (up to c. AD 90 or so), and that both inward stresses and outward pressures are represented in it figuratively.
But that's only one possible interpretation. It's also possible to read it literally and to conclude that there was an actual woman who was promoting heresy in Thyatira, and that Jesus intends to afflict her and her adulterous lovers with painful illnesses and all the rest of it. With apocalyptic literature, though, the obvious meaning is often not the intended meaning.
The assertion that Christianity appropriated Buddhism can be accepted once manuscripts of the Dhammapada (translated into Greek or Aramaic) are found in Palestine. Which will be any day now, I'm sure.
And if Christianity merely appropriated moral principles (from where isn't mentioned, of course), then why did Christians differ with Roman culture about the morality of exposing unwanted infants? About gladiatorial games? About divorce? Pederasty?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0