|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is religion wasting valuable time and resources?
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
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
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitebait
Shipmate
# 7740
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
small fry on a journey
Posts: 151 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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"
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Feminine Force
Ship's Onager
# 7812
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
C2C - The Cure for What Ails Ya?
Posts: 2115 | From: Kingdom of Heaven | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Some histories are poetic, but not all poems are history. That's pretty obvious, if you ask me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
[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 ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
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?!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
