Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI was a little surprised the other day to find a picture of Mother Teresa adorning The Nation's website, illustrating an interview in which Richard Rodriguez rehearses the very canards about the left and religion I discuss in my column this week. Christopher Hitchens may have gone overboard in his attack on Mother T (as Alexander Cockburn put it in the New Yorker's starstruck profile of Hitchens, "Between the two of them, my sympathies were with Mother Teresa. If you were sitting in rags in a gutter in Calcutta, who would be more likely to give you a bowl of soup?'"). But Rodriguez' view is simple hagiography: he doesn't even raise in a parenthesis Mother Teresa's deep political and theological conservatism, her hob-nobbing with dictators , her opposition not just to abortion rights but to birth control and to condoms for disease prevention, her lack of interest in getting rid of poverty or bringing modern medical care to the poor.
It's fascinating that, according to recently released letters , Mother Teresa almost never felt the presence of God and suffered terribly over this. In a way that made me like her more: this was one tough nun. But when Rodriguez says the revelation of her spiritual aridity will deepen "our sense of her mystery and possibly her sainthood" who is the "we" he has in mind? If you're not a Catholic, you probably don't believe in Catholic saints. He argues that public knowledge of her religious doubts may mitigate what he correctly identifies as a worldwide excess of murderous faith, but this seems most unlikely. Mother Teresa herself didn't let her lifelong dark night of the soul get in the way of her extreme religious orthodoxy. I think her example goes the other way: it says, if you have doubts, keep quiet, don't use them to question dogma, challenge authority, open yourself up to new ways of thinking. Just keep kissing the rod. If Mother Teresa wasn't such a big humanitarian icon, we might think there was something a bit masochistic in her devotion to a God who made her so miserable.
Rodriguez writes "The left, like spoiled children, having been accused of being sinful by the Church, they decide the Church is really sinful. That's not useful. More useful is to spend a life of service to a Church that is not easily yours." Tell it to Voltaire! Was he a spoiled child? Was his life not useful? Anyway, the people most ardently convinced of the "sinfulness" of the church these days aren't leftists but Catholics appalled by molesting priests and the failure of the hierarchy to deal with this scandal in an honest and open way-- Boston's Cardinal Law did more to hurt the church than all the atheists and anticlericals who ever set pen to paper. And why is it more "useful" for, say, a homosexual like Rodriguez to "serve" the Church than to leave it and join a denomination that respects his sexuality ? He could still believe in Jesus if he was an Episcopalian -- he could even be a priest.
So what is all this about serving and being useful? If gay men and women walked out of denominations that regard homosexuality as evil, sinful, "inherently disordered" (current official Catholic view) and the like, they would be making quite a powerful statement. So too if women , the backbone of most faiths, quit denominations that regard them as subordinate to men, bar them from ministry, and enforce medieval views of sexual and reproductive morality. If change is the aim, it is at least arguable that voting with your feet achieves more than staying and continuing to put your money in the collection plate every week.
I wish Rodriguez had discussed these issues in a more reflective way. I don't understand why a person remains loyal to a denomination that tells them they are inferior, ill, born wrong, when they could worship next door in a church that welcomes them as they are. As with Mother Teresa, masochism comes to mind: God is punishing you because he loves you, suffering is good, someday it will all make sense. Maybe, like Log Cabin Republicans, they think they can work from within;I suppose that is what Rodriguez is getting at. Maybe, though, perhaps also like Log Cabin Republicans, they've internalized the negative stereotype. Whatever, I don't think Rodriguez is in such a good position to deride more critical or impatient folk as "spoiled children." It's better to be a spoiled child than a child who thinks abuse is love.
NB: I realize that by the rules of engagement that govern debates between religious and secular, the religious are allowed to say whatever they like about the secular, but if the seculars respond equally frankly they're bigots. So before you write that e mail, just remember who started this.
Dept. of Shameless Self-Promotion: My collection of personal essays, Learning to Drive and Other Life Stories" is just out from Random House. These are not Nation pieces, but memoiristic (is that a word?) essays about love, sex, betrayal, and, um, so on, only two of which have appeared in print (in The New Yorker). Don't like the Amazon clickthrough? Ask for it at your local independent bookstore.
Share this article
Katha Pollitt
Strongly held opinions on politics, feminism, culture, books and daily life.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
As an agnostic, I see little use for religion, Christianity, or Catholicism (in reverse order). The major religions are based on a premise that is inately flawed, that of "Men, flawed and imperfect, are somehow 'perfect' when they relate or WRITE about God in a book."....from the Hebrew chroniclers to the Apostles to Muhammed to Joseph Smith.
Politically, the Catholic Church is THE "mixed bag" of issue advocacy. The Right love their stance on abortion, euthenasia, birth control, homosexuality....the Left love their stance on war, the death penalty, and helping the poor. Both sides IGNORE the "other parts" they don't like.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 08:49am
I have a question as a liberal Christian: Why was Mother Teresa able to doubt God, but never for one moment the teachings of the Catholic Church?
R. Rodriguez argued that doubt is a virtue which too many people, both secular and religious, lack. I can agree with this generally. But doubt can also be a niggling emotional thing that has no rational basis. Doubt, like any other emotion, really functions as a virtue only if there is a well-founded reason for it.
Another problem US-Americans have in addition to their lack of doubt is their anti-intellectualism, which regards ethics as all a matter of the heart rather than of the mind. From the point of view of an emotionalist, Mother Teresa was unquestionably a saint, because she was always driven by such awesome emotions, from humanitarian passion to dark doubts and back. But from the point of view of a rationalist, her commitments to patriarchal pronatalism undermined everything she tried to do to help the poor.
I have often asked these two questions: What kind of God OUGHT I to believe in? and: What kind of God would truly be worthy of our obedience? And I believe the answers to these questions must be sought by reason.
I find the idea that I should obey God because he is jealous and wrathful -- and will punish me with eternal hellfire if I refuse -- morally repugnant. I have no more sympathy for the orthodox notion of "atonement" -- namely the assumption that the same God who in Abraham's heart spared the life of Isaac would later demand that Jesus be slaughtered as payment for everybody else's wrongdoing.
My reason argues: Would it be moral for me to obey a human being who behaved like such a bloodthirsty tyrant? No -- it would be cowardly. And what is bad behavior in a human being cannot be considered good behavior in a god.
"A God who can do everything, but does nothing, is not worthy of belief" argued the contemporary Catholic heretic Eugen Drewermann. God bless the Catholic heretics!
Drewermann's brave statement leads me to seek the God that the late Reverend W. S. Coffin sought (peace be upon him!) -- the God who is not omnipotent, but who suffers, like Jesus, unjustly from injustice, and who cries to us in the voices of the poor and oppressed.
And who is not exactly immortal, but dies with every innocent victim of calamity or murder. And who is reborn whenever another person stands up again to face and to fight all that is wrong with the world with courage and generosity, but without malice -- for those who do wrong know not what they do.
This God, I believe, can be sought and found, but you have to free yourself of a lot of orthodox dogma first. In this regard I can say, with Voltaire, "Ecrasez l'infame!"
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2007 @ 09:01am
Nice piece, Pollitt! I agree with you. Walking the talk is the truer witness to a more fundamentally legitimate spirituality/religiosity.
As the prophet James Taylor wrote "you can play the game, act out the part, but you know it wasn't written for you, so how ya gonna stand there with your broken heart, ashamed of being the fool? Once you tell somebody the way that you feel you can feel it beginning to ease. I think it's true what they say about the squeaky wheel, always getting the grease. Better to shower the people you love with love, tell them the way that you feel. Things are gonna be much better if you only will."
Notice the emphasis on "feelings" versus the aridity of disassociated thought/fantasy/belief/superstition, dare I say faith? Here's the prophet Stevie Wonder: "when you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer; superstition ain't the way."
Posted by lewwelge at 09/07/2007 @ 09:13am
i agree with ms. politt--if you don't like YOUR religion, well leave (if you can).
if someone's faith does not tread on me (or my brothers and sisters), i don't really care if they worship penguins. however, proselytizing does no one any good. sending missionaries (of whatever faith) around the world to convert "heathens" (listen to us, our book is better!) is insulting.
and what many forget is that "free-marketeers" are seen by many cultures around the world as just another religion, albeit a godless one. their attempts at conversion are just as insulting.
if one thinks their way is better, lead by example and not by imposition.
i love democracy (which, of course, does not necessarily equate with capitalism), and thus, if a people want a theocracy, so be it, providing the rights of minorities are also respected.
on a personal note: my church is the forest, ocean, and meadow. my god is all things that humans will never understand. my faith lies in the good will i believe is inherent in everyone's heart.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 09:15am
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007
thanks for finding many of the words my own brain and heart could only feel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 09:19am
The fundamental truth of religion is that there is something greater than ourselves. How do you live that truth when you accept no higher authority than your own intellect?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD
This "something greater than ourselves" is beyond human comprehension.
"Higher authority"? Why would you use the word authority?
Posted by mtspence05 at 09/07/2007 @ 09:40am
how do you know the knowledge is devinely insprired rather than mere egotism.----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 09:26am
MBB, why is the reverse not true? "how do you know the knowledge isn't mere egotism rather than devinely insprired?
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 09:49am
cool! excellent questions!!
When you are alone with nature, how do you distinguish God's voice from your own?
i don't even try. to me god is that which we can never understand. with each discovery about the universe, we realize there are 37 things we don't understand. i will never understand life in 2 (or 29) dimensions because i can never go there. it may exist.
when i rescue a stranded butterfly from the lake, to me that is a small act of kindness. but to the butterfly, having a giant creature appear and save it is a life-changing event. who am i to say that cognizant beings (¿gods?) have not appeared to rescue humans from our own lake? i have never seen them nor felt their presence, yet i don't negate the possibility.
When you ponder the essential truths of how people ought to treat each other, how do you know the knowledge is devinely insprired rather than mere egotism[?]
whether it be egotism or divine inspiration is irrelevant to me. i am not one to believe in the metaphysical, yet (through many personal misadventures) i have come to believe in the awesome power of karma (don't ask why i feel it could be true--why are we alive?). this has become my guide as to how to treat others. pay forward is working out quite well for me.
The fundamental truth of religion is that there is something greater than ourselves. How do you live that truth when you accept no higher authority than your own intellect?
truth is a strong word for the (yet) unprovable. i prefer to think that all life is equal (sorry plants, i gotta eat!). a higher authority may exist, yet i see no evidence. if i were god, i'd reach down to the lake right about now and rescue the butterflies before they blow themselves up.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 09:59am
I believe "Marybretbrad" has posed a valuable question, though I would phrase it a little differently. If we want to revere something that is beyond our own intellect, then how can our intellect discern this thing that is worthy of our reverence?
Some suggestions can be ruled out immediately. The statement "credo quia absurdum," which I believe comes from Tertullian (one of the early "Church Fathers") is surely bad advice, but there are many who seem to lend more credence to statements that appear more absurd. These include not only religious dogmatists but also the po-mo literary dogmatists who pour their passion into obscurantist criticism.
No, Stevie Wonder gives better advice -- thanks for the tip, "Lewwelge"! -- "when you believe in things that you don't understand then you suffer; superstition ain't the way."
It is always difficult for those of us with fair-to-middling intelligence -- myself included -- to distinguish genius from madness, that is, that which we should revere from that which we should shun. But I believe that with honest intellectual struggle (and some helpful popularizers of science, like Carl Sagan, Stephen Jay Gould, Jared Diamond etc.), we can all manage this to some degree. In the age of the atom bomb, the pacifism of Jesus, which through the ages has been so difficult to understand that most once regarded it as "absurd," now seems to my mind much easier to grasp -- and thoroughly rational.
My advice is always to try to understand all that we can. We need not concern ourselves that in so doing we will somehow empty the world of all its mystery. Never fear, this task is beyond us! But we should also not be concerned that scientific explanations of such things as evolution leave less for God to do. As the philosopher Hoimar von Ditfurth argued (a German popularizer of science much like dear old Sagan and Gould), the cosmos must not seem less miraculous to us simply because we have begun to understand how it works. The notion that "science is opposed to miracles" rests upon a faulty definition of the miraculous -- that it should always be a thing that utterly confounds us, rather than something that is simply, awe-inspiringly, wonderful -- even if we have begun to understand it. Accordingly, Ditfurth calls himself "a person who has not unlearned how to be astonished." Science does not take away our capacity to wonder. On the contrary, it gives our sense of wonderment much more to feast upon!
We will of course never understand everything perfectly, and sometimes we must even act in advance of perfect understanding of what all the consequences of our acting will be. But it is always right to do one's homework to the degree that one can, to consider as many facts and arguments as possible before making a decision. And we ought to listen carefully to those who obviously have the greatest understanding of how particular things work -- like the atmospheric scientists who warn us that the earth is heating up.
Everybody knows that we cannot, simply by praying, make God do physical work for us, like mowing the lawn. Do it yourself, and pray that God gives you pleasure in the doing!
But I am dismayed at how many people imagine that they can make God do their own MENTAL work for them. Rather than listening to researchers or doing any research themselves, they simply pray to God for "guidance" and imagine that their work is done. Not surprisingly, the result is that their "prayer" only confirms their own unexamined and unchallenged prejudices.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2007 @ 10:30am
As one who wrestled with my own angels, future/better/god consciousness, and conscienceness, self/identity/personhood/awareness/being and/or "child of God," I came to some very comforting realizations: 1) everybody is doing what they think/feel is best for themselves in each given gift of present moments (regardless of rationales); 2) God/Gott/Allah is the sum total of Life Force in the universe/cosmos; and 3) it's through "open, equal, and separate" relationships that we "know" the Abrahmic and otherwise God-head or Deity whom, although we guard against personification/idolotry, IS "omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent."
Feliz Viernes, hermanos y hermanas!
Posted by lewwelge at 09/07/2007 @ 10:34am
Feliz Viernes, hermanos y hermanas!
Posted by LEWWELGE 09/07/2007
no solo los viernes, sino ¡feliz existensia!
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:42am
Boy, I can't wait until LVLIBERTY gets here and explains to us how Jesus was "Curtis LeMay"!
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 10:49am
Boy, I can't wait until LVLIBERTY gets here and explains to us how Jesus was "Curtis, nuke 'em till they're happy, LeMay"!
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 10:49am
¿curtis mayfield?
wait, this will get him going:
el che guevara* (pbuh) was the 20th century incarnation of jesus (pbuh) (my apologies, TRUE christians)
i think both were revolutionaries and that's where i'll stop speaking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 10:58am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 10:58am
(more gas on the fire).....IF Jesus even existed!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 11:02am
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 11:02am
careful, jesus rocks.
son of god, well that's a different question.
if someone appeared today with a similar claim, he'd been on the "ignore" list mighty quick.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 11:08am
Dear "Mask,"
Whether Jesus existed or not, there are some amazing sayings attributed to him, which so fascinated dear old Tertullian that he accepted them even though he could not understand them -- and this is the positive sense of dogma, and its virtue: the notion that we should not throw something away simply because we do not understand it.
And it turns out now, many centuries later, that many of those sayings attributed to Jesus (did they really come from Mary Magdalene?) are in fact genius rather than madness. And we have Tertullian to thank (among others) for preserving the texts of the Bible -- so that we could one day discover this genius for ourselves. And, yes, so that we could distinguish this genius from all the other stuff that really is madness.
So after my long-winded pro-rationality screed, I don't want to make the impression that the creative intuition is always wrong. Indeed, I recommend Karen Armstrong's wonderful books, like "A History of God" -- which breathtakingly traces thousands of years of Abrahamic theology. This "free-lance monotheist" (as Armstrong calls herself) admires mysticism and suspects reason more strongly than I do -- and indeed, I cannot agree with everything she says. But God knows that she surely has done her homework!
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/07/2007 @ 11:47am
Who has the greater dilemma:
A gay Catholic
or
a gay anti-homosexual republican evangelist?
Posted by crabwalk at 09/07/2007 @ 12:04pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007 @ 11:47am
Well, Jake, from Paul to Tertullian to Joseph Smith...the fatal flaw is we are required, as a first proposition, to accept that Men (flawed and imperfect) can write about or explain God....before we even get to "What did Jesus mean by that?"
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 12:25pm
More surprising to see Rodriguez in The Nation than Mother Theresa. I suppose in his contrarian way he'd delight in the "you'd think a homosexual would" turn of this blog. He seems to enjoy confounding group expectations.
It's hard to change denominations. Your denomination is your upbringing, your family, your culture, your habits, your values and your social world all rolled into one. People don't make the change lightly. The mainline Protestant denominations are tolerant but I don't think any one of them has a real official policy totally embracing homosexuality. Maybe the Protestants aren't offering enough to make it worthwhile for a Catholic to give up the saints "that brung him."
Posted by RLawrence at 09/07/2007 @ 12:53pm
Because no human can ever understand God, fully, but we can understand the teachings of men.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 09:16am | ignore this person
the idea of god is one of the teachings of man.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 1:18pm
Yes, reason gave us democracy (eventually) and open heart surgery and i-phones. But reason also caused us to believe the world was flat for 90% of recorded history.
the greeks "gave" us democracy thousands of years ago, as they did with heliocentrism and a spherical earth.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 1:20pm
And we have Tertullian to thank (among others) for preserving the texts of the Bible -
Jake, what are you talking about?
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 1:22pm
sending missionaries (of whatever faith) around the world to convert "heathens" (listen to us, our book is better!) is insulting.
this was america's policy during her expansionist phase, and to some extent still is. note the crusades rhetoric accompanying the murderous Iraq invasion and occupation.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 1:24pm
Hoimar von Ditfurth? a new one to me. according to Wiki, he supported the Greens.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 1:28pm
But reason also caused us to believe the world was flat for 90% of recorded history. Reason gave us the Salem witch trials. Reason gave us slavery. Reason gave us China's great leap forward that caused the starvation of 50 million people. And of course, reason gave us the atom bomb.-----Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 1:01pm
Actually, no "reason" didn't.
1. Pythagoras determined the Earth was a sphere in 600 BCE, and Eratosthenes determined its circumference fairly accurately by 250 BCE. Hardly "90% of recorded history". Most folks simply didn't care, but the ones using REASON, knew the truth.
2. Reason did NOT give us the Salem witch trials.....HYSTERIA did. Brought about by a religious fervor (in a fundamentalist enclave) and a posssibly racially motivated attack on a black slave-woman named Tituba for some girls who had epilepsy or a similar brain disorder. The Puritans were not "men of reason".
3. Reason did NOT give us slavery. Labor economics did and greed. It was supported philosophically by people using the BIBLE, not reason.
4. Not sure how "reason" played in the "Great Leap Forward", as it was not based on any "reasoned" policies but on a drive to industrialize China in the late 40s. Additionally there was no "reason" employed by local commisars to exaggerate the grain harvests, thus leading to over-sale of Chinese agriculture by the State. Nor, for that matter, any "reason" involved in the fact that there were years of drought then flood.
5. Reason MAY have given us the atomic bomb, since it was considered a reasoned argument at the time that the Germans were developing one and so FDR approved the "Manhatten Project". Reason too may have been employed in its use...either noble (an attempt to end the war in the Pacific quickly) or devious (an attempt to threaten Stalin).
Few conservatives argued with the "reason" to build up a nuclear arsenal though.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
Been taking a break from the back-and-forth here for a while, but I comb the pages now and again if only to read and not play along. that said, I want to send a virtual tip of the cap to Frosty Z. I think you are a welcome addition to these pages and I enjoy your posts.
Posted by Hman23 at 09/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007
i quote the bible frequently (and to a lesser extent the qu'ran)
lots of good advice (and some strange stuff to)
thou shalt not kill" sounds good to me
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 2:48pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 1:32pm
Once again, MBB, you're offering a false choice and a BIZARRE contempt for "reason" over...what? "Wisdom"? Okay, how do you arrive at "wisdom" without reason?
Did you know there are REASONED arguments for the existance of God? Mortimer Adler in "How To Think About God" offered some. Not the "sacred theology" of religion, but for the "natural theology" of some basic form of Deism.
But to argue against "reason"...with no substitution for how to rationally examine the Universe or the condition of Man is just odd.
Unless you are somehow confusing "reason" with "materialism" (the philosophy, not the pejorative socio-economic term) and saying that by being a "materialist" (i.e. no acceptance of that which cannot be scientifically measured) one is engaging in a "pure reason" state of mind.
But "reason" and "materialism thinking" are NOT the same thing.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 2:59pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
I'll second that...once again great Canadian talent enriching our American life.
First Shatner, not FROSTY ZOOM!
(just kidding, pal...heheh)
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 3:01pm
Blew my own joke....should be
First Shatner, NOW... FROSTY ZOOM!
(just kidding, pal...heheh)
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 3:01pm
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 3:01pm
Sorry if I seem a little cynical on this subject but organized religion has given our world nothing but problems. How many wars have been fought over religion? How many families have been destroyed in the name of religion? People should do right because it is the right, humanist thing to do, not for some afterlife reward or to avoid an afterlife of punishment. Believe in God--fine. It's reasonable to consider that there is some order to the universe. But the bible, the koran, the book of mormon...I'm sorry but it's all a bunch of shite to me!
Posted by MATTMAN at 09/07/2007 @ 3:25pm
When you are alone with nature, how do you distinguish God's voice from your own? When you ponder the essential truths of how people ought to treat each other, how do you know the knowledge is devinely insprired rather than mere egotism. The fundamental truth of religion is that there is something greater than ourselves. How do you live that truth when you accept no higher authority than your own intellect?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 09:26am | ignore this person
Dear MBB-- Good. Bush (and anyone else who claims to have talks with God) needs to ask himself these very questions. Thanks.
Posted by MacNichol at 09/07/2007 @ 3:26pm
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 4:19pm
MBB, you seem to be all over the place. First you blame "reason" for witch trials, false astronomy, famines, and nuclear warfare...then you say you "value reason as much as anyone here"?!?!?
You mention "wisdom", but offer no means to achieving it. (excluding reason)
You discuss "liberals" and "smarter than"....is this supposed to be a hit against atheists and agnostics?!?!? If so, say so. Not all "liberals" are atheists or agnostics. Not all conservatives or libertarians are theiests. (i.e. me) And I also assume (correct if wrong) that you're positing the old conservative Christian argument that "liberals hate Christianity" because they oppose YOUR brand of it.
Again, a false choice.
My advice, pick one topic, one target group, and work from that from now on.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 4:27pm
reason:
reason is the reason for this sentence.
did god give us reason?
was this a reasonable thing for god to do?
and if so, for what reason?
i think at this point it's reasonable to see what reason means, and therefore, i have sought the advice of "The New Oxford American Dikshunare-ee". to whit (me thinks that beit the correctith):
reason |?r?z?n| noun 1 a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event : Doubt, like any other emotion, really functions as a virtue only if there is a well-founded reason for it. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007 @ 09:01am
• good or obvious cause to do something : we have reason to celebrate hah!., maybe in '08
• Logic: a premise of an argument in support of a belief, esp. a minor premise when given after the conclusion: Jake, what are you talking about? Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/07/2007 @ 1:22pm
2 the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic : And I believe the answers to these questions must be sought by reason. Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007 @ 09:01am
• what is right, practical, or possible; common sense : And perhaps the most important thing I've come to understand in my life is the importance of tempering reason with humility. Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007 @ 1:01pm
• ( one's reason) one's sanity : Actually, no "reason" didn't. Posted by MASK* 09/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
verb [ intrans. ] think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic : humans do not reason entirely from facts | [as n. ] ( reasoning) the present chapter will outline the reasoning behind the review.
• [ trans. ] ( reason something out) find an answer to a problem by considering various possible solutions.
• ( reason with) persuade (someone) with rational argument : I tried to reason with her, but without success.
DERIVATIVES reasoner |?r?z(?)n?r| noun reasonless adjective ( archaic).
ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French reisun (noun), raisoner (verb), from a variant of Latin ratio(n-), from the verb reri ‘consider.'
USAGE 1 The construction the reason why … has been objected to on the grounds that the subordinate clause should express a statement, using a that-clause, not imply a question with a why-clause:: the reason that I decided not to phone rather than | the reason why I decided not to phone. | The reason why has been called a redundancy to be avoided, but it is a mild one, and idiomatic. 2 An objection is also made to the construction the reason … is because, as in: the reason I didn't phone is because my mother has been ill. The objection is made on the grounds that either "because" or "the reason" is redundant; it is better to use the word that instead ( | the reason I didn't phone is that …) or rephrase altogether ( | I didn't phone because …).
FRIGGIN' MATTMAN** goes and makes me look up "reasonable". to whitter:
reasonable |?r?z(?)n?b?l| adjective 1 (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible : no reasonable person could have objected.
• based on good sense : it seems a reasonable enough request | the guilt of a person on trial must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• archaic (of a person or animal) able to think, understand, or form judgments by a logical process : It's reasonable to consider that there is some order to the universe. Posted by MATTMAN 09/07/2007 @ 3:25pm
2 as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate : a police officer may use reasonable force to gain entry. • fairly good; average : the carpet is in reasonable condition.
• (of a price or product) not too expensive : MATTMAN used a reasonable amount of electricity for his 09/07/2007 @ 3:25pm post. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM right now
DERIVATIVES reasonableness noun ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French raisonable, suggested by Latin rationabilis ‘rational,' from ratio (see reason ).
and mask has to, too:
reasoned |?r?z?nd| adjective underpinned by logic or good sense : Did you know there are REASONED arguments for the existance of God? Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 2:59pm
*mask, i haven't read your post yet (too busy searching for reason). but excellent writing. that's the most i've ever "seen" you write.
**mattmoon, i get your point. i've seen "the day the earth stood still". but the qu'ran says "don't eat pork"--well, that's great advice, now. but it was super-duper, thank you very much sir advice when mohammed told people to stay away. 1400 years ago sanitary conditions weren't to good in the desert. to whittest:
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which hath been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: Yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islám as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
thanks god.
NB can we please change font to one that supports more characters, pretty please with aspartame
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 5:16pm
hey folks
in my quest for a reason to reason this way i've found a few compliments that i haven't really read yet.
i will
thanks
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 5:17pm
the folks who wrote the bible and the Koran too were nomadic shepherds. pigs are not nomadic. they need to stay put. hence the prohibition against pork.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 5:35pm
There might also have been health reasons, i.e. the possibility of diseases (though knowing little biology, this is literally just speculation).
Honestly, I don't think that MBB is really getting a fair shake at all. He seems to be setting up a very reasonable balance. He's arguing that reason is certainly important and certainly valuable, but not the be-all and end-all that we sometimes regard it as. His point isn't that reason is bad; his point is that our reason can lead us to bad conclusions just as it can lead us to good ones, which means that we should approach our rational arguments with enough humility to recognize how much of the universe has and always will elude our confident grasp.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/07/2007 @ 6:31pm
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/07/2007 @ 10:30am
Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus
57-flowers turtle--don't speak latin, just guessing
dude was either arab or berber. (tunisian)
cool
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:14pm
1. Pythagoras determined the Earth was a sphere in 600 BCE, and Eratosthenes determined its circumference fairly accurately by 250 BCE.
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 1:29pm
.....bet the mayans beat them to it.....but mixed up faith burned all that stuff
guess they had their reasons
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:22pm
He wasn't born with the talents that make it easy for other people to provide for themselves.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 09/07/2007
or maybe he was born to alcoholic parents
or maybe he was born in haiti
..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:26pm
Posted by HMAN23 09/07/2007 @ 2:31pm
thanks
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:28pm
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 3:01pm |
thanks dude
(¿where's "v"?)
classic shatner can be found here [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:36pm
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 4:27pm
mbb's previous post had been a little unfocused.
but i agree about tempering reason with humility.
we've got maybe 9 senses (about 6 we're thus far conscious about).
with infra-red, x-ray, amplification, monosodium glutamate, etc., we can perceive some more.
that leaves a lot of stuff we're just not getting.
science is great. love my computer. but there's a whole lot more that we will just never know about.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:46pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/07/2007
that makes sense.
thanks
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/07/2007 @ 7:47pm
the folks who wrote the bible and the Koran too were nomadic shepherds. pigs are not nomadic. they need to stay put. hence the prohibition against pork.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/07/2007 @ 5:35pm
Whilst we all seem to be sharing our ignorances JR, in my ignorance, let me also share. I think you will find that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles were *authored by a trained physician called Luke. He may well have had a sheep stud as a hobby but we all have hobbies. Then the most famous "shepherd" amongst the NT writers was a real intellectual Jewish Rabbi named Saul from Tarsus in what is now called Turkey. Changed his name to **Paul when he "found" God. That interestingly enough was not by any intellectual process but by the exclusive method of finding God that Jesus spoke about, when in effect he said: "no one knows the Father (God) except the Son (me) and (further) that person (alone), to whom Jesus chooses to reveal the Father, knows God".
Then of course the famous shepherd of the OT was a bit of a muso or lyricist aka " the sweet singer in Israel". One of his songs had a line something like: …the fool says in his heart there is no God… but what would a muso know?
* Paul and probably Luke used an amanuensis. Then of course the main stream historic Christian confession is that these writers were telling us what God wanted us to know. That "us" of course covers a wide range of professions and trades including sheep herding
** Paul's influence on Christian thinking has, arguably, been more significant than any other single New Testament author.[2] His influence on the main strands of Christian thought has been massive: from St. Augustine of Hippo to the controversies between Gottschalk and Hincmar of Reims; between Thomism and Molinism; Martin Luther, John Calvin and the Arminians; to Jansenism and the Jesuit theologians, and even to the German church of the twentieth century through the writings of the scholar Karl Barth, whose commentary on the Letter to the Romans had a political as well as theological impact.. Wikepedia "Saul of Tarsus"
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/07/2007 @ 9:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/07/2007 @ 7:22pm
No hit against the Mayans....hell, they came up with "zero" (not the lame-ass blog poster, the numeral...heheh) before us Euro-types.
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 9:56pm
Posted by LRJONES4 09/07/2007 @ 9:46pm
LR, question I always like to ask about "St." Paul....
aside from those who have faith in HIM and what he said and claimed...
is there any difference between him and ....Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, given neither man actually knew Jesus, but both claim to be post facto speakers for the Big Guy?
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 9:58pm
Any differences between Paul and Joseph Smith? Actually, there at least three big ones: 1) He lived around the same time that Jesus verifiably did.
2) He was in contact with people who verifiably knew Jesus, and who were in a position to (as they did) confirm or deny his historical claims about Jesus.
3) He had, and knew he had, absolutely everything to lose.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/07/2007 @ 10:09pm
Posted by THRAWN 09/07/2007 @ 10:09pm
1. So what? Did he ever meet Jesus in person?
2. So he was a party to HEARSAY...."friend of a friend" as the old urban legend term FOAF goes.
3. I'm sorry, have you NEVER read the persecution and death threats that the early Mormans faced? Why do you think they moved ot Utah....for the natural spring waters?
Posted by Mask at 09/07/2007 @ 11:07pm
Actually Katha,
You got it wrong when you said: "I realize that by the rules of engagement that govern debates between religious and secular, the religious are allowed to say whatever they like about the secular, but if the seculars respond equally frankly they're bigots"
It's the other way around.....secularists are the ones allowed to say what ever they want about Christians such as Serrano and his infamous Piss Christ "Art" [en.wikipedia.org] yet expect Christians to be tolerant of all other groups that don't share the same beliefs as Christians...because when WE respond equally frankly WE are the ones labeled as bigots.
Hypocrisy is the word that comes to mind.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/07/2007 @ 11:11pm
Posted by LRJONES4 09/07/2007 @ 9:46pm | ignore this person
you're an ass. I am talking about the hebrew bible, where the prohibition against pork originated.
Posted by johannesrolf at 09/07/2007 @ 11:54pm
LR, question I always like to ask about "St." Paul....
aside from those who have faith in HIM and what he said and claimed...
is there any difference between him and ....Joseph Smith, founder of the LDS, given neither man actually knew Jesus, but both claim to be post facto speakers for the Big Guy?
Posted by MASK 09/07/2007 @ 9:58pm
Well he did have a different name. He was Jewish. He lived in the ME and he "is" sort of mainstream in the Christian scheme of things. If you like to do a bit more googling you will find that Paul has been the catalyst for much of serious Christian thought over two millennia.
Now I'm not all that familiar with your Joe Smith but he seems to me to be the Rese or Plunger of religion and I doubt that religious intellectuals even give him or his followers a passing thought. A cursory reading of Paul will quickly show you that he is a promoter of Jesus as the fulfilment of all the OT messianic writings and so Christians see Paul not as an object of faith, as you seem to be saying, but rather as a signpost pointing to the person and redemptive work of Jesus. You really need to read the NT for yourself to see that all the NT writers are interpreting Jesus in that context. There is a striking consistency in that respect between the gospels and the rest of the NT.
I notice Thrawn has picked up this point but after Paul had that experience on the way to Damascus he got such a shock about who Jesus really was (he'd been doing God's work trying to kill off his followers) he took time off for about 3 years to get his "theology" sorted out. After that he went up to Jerusalem for a chat with the leaders of the "new religion" Peter and James and others who'd personally been with Jesus for the three years of Jesus ministry to check out whether he (Paul) had got it right. That I guess is about the next best thing to an immediate personal friendship with Jesus during those remarkable years.
I notice some here call themselves liberal Christians. I don't know what they mean or if there is some nuance I have missed but I see no difference between them and atheists or agnostics. Some atheists think Jesus said some good things; others don't. That admission hardly makes the former into "liberal" Christians does it? Christian faith has two elements viz belief and trust and it is unlikely any rational being will trust someone whose testimony about themselves that person finds incredible.
I say that because Christians are not deists and they do believe that God orders and controls his world and sometimes interacts with it in ways that are extraordinary, as he did supremely in the person of Jesus and believe that indeed Paul had an interview with a somewhat different (and in fact more relevant in terms of Paul's future endeavours) Jesus from the one the disciples knew, that day on the way to Damascus.
That sort of gets back to Ms Pollitt's article and her suggestion that seems to suggest that you should make up your own religion as a synthesis of agreeable ideas and personal behavioural patterns some of which appear to be anti-Christian or at least non-Christian and call yourself a Christian. Why bother and what's the point?
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/07/2007 @ 11:57pm
Posted by LRJONES4 09/07/2007 @ 11:57pm
how's human for a moniker. can't go wrong.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 01:16am
how's human for a moniker. can't go wrong.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/08/2007 @ 01:16am
No Zoomer I guess one can't unless one is in the presence of a hu woperson. We all know that to err is human so why boast about that defect? But why get so intellectual about it? A primordial grunt may be all that is required.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/08/2007 @ 02:54am
Posted by LRJONES4 09/07/2007 @ 11:57pm
LR, WHO said that "Peter and James agreed that Paul had it right"?
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 08:31am
Posted by LRJONES4 09/08/2007 @ 02:54am
"hu woperson"
what's that? all i could find is some cheesy looking honk kong detective movie
"We all know that to err is human so why boast about that defect?"
excellent. won't forget that one.
"A primordial grunt may be all that is required."
well, they help when makin' whoopee.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 08:48am
Dear "Johannesrolf,"
What did I mean by praising Tertullian (of all people) for giving us the Bible? You are entitled to an explanation.
Tertullian was one of the Church Fathers, the men who sifted through the writings attributed to Jesus and made decisions about which was authentic and which was not. I believe the "virtue of dogmatism" is inclusiveness. (This concept comes from the Catholic philosopher Robert Farrar Capon -- the good thing about dogma, he says, is that it tries to make sense of as much as possible.) Tertullian, who famously said "credo quia absurdum" included in his canon many things that he could not understand -- greatly to our benefit. If Tertullian and his contemporaries had included only what they could understand, then the Bible would be much poorer -- the New Testament would perhaps be missing some of its best writings, probably including the parables of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount.
But of course, every dogmatism also has a vice -- and this is its tendency to exclude. Neither Tertullian nor the other Church Fathers accepted many writings about Jesus, and these were left out of the Bible, and it is much to our loss that they were.
Only recently have some of these writings been re-discovered. I recommend the books of Elaine Pagels: "The Gnostic Gospels" and "Beyond Belief." Pagels praises the Gospel of Thomas and the Teachings of the Apostles as writings that should not have been left out of the Bible, because, as Pagels argues, they make possible a more flexible faith. Perhaps the Teachings of the Apostles especially would have been of help to Mother Theresa, since it advises: "If you cannot be perfect, then do the best you can."
Indeed, I appreciate and recommend the books of both Karen Armstrong and Elaine Pagels. Clearly, we need some Church Mothers to correct the mistakes of the Church Fathers.
But I do not want to make the impression that no book qualifies as Scripture unless it is in the Bible. I merely wanted to make the point that the Bible can be expanded. I could also say, as Novalis (Friedrich von Hardenberg) did, that the Bible is not finished.
But there are other books besides the Bible that also qualify as Scripture: the Quran, the Vedas and the Bhagavad-Gita, the Pali sermons of the Buddha, the writings of Zen, the oral traditions of innumerable underappreciated religions. We would all do well to emulate the religious pluralism of "Frosty Zoom."
And, last but not least, you are right, "Johannesrolf," that missionaries have damaged the reputation of Christianity in particular by allowing it to become a both a pretense for conquest and a tool of imperialism.
Posted by JakobFabian at 09/08/2007 @ 09:21am
I think that Jones has effectively dealt with most of the stuff about Paul; the bottom line is that Paul was in a very good position to ascertain whether the claims he was making were true, so I think his position is reliable on that front. Since he also had no incentive to fabricate a position, he gains reliability there as well. What the key difference between Paul and Joseph Smith boils down to (besides one of them positing an angel whose name quite literally translated to "Moron") is that we have no reason whatsoever to not only trust Joseph Smith, but to believe that what he saw really was genuine. He was the only one who ever saw these mysterious tablets or the writing upon said tablets. That's a far cry from multiple levels of eyewitness testimony
Posted by Thrawn at 09/08/2007 @ 11:43am
On the selection of books...I think you're right that the Church Fathers were fairly selective in what they admitted, but I think there's still another question to be asked: why? I don't think we can simply say that their motives were purely political without some warrant to believe as such, especially considering the reliability that the mainstream Gospels have in relating both to one another and to earlier sources. Though there are some ares of possible tension (though no areas that are all that significant), the fundamental image they provide of Jesus is virtually identical. Due in large part to that, I think it's reasonable to subject books to scrutiny by, for one thing, seeing whether they match up against that image. That's not to say that this criterion can't be overcome, of course; if a book is very well-documented, and clashes directly with the Gospels, that could present a problem for them. But if a book clashes directly with the Gospels, and we don't have good reason to think that it isn't pseudepigraphic (as many texts back then were), I think it's reasonable to reject it. That's a huge part of the reason why many of the texts you allude to weren't included in the Bible.
As a sideline, I don't think you need any of those books to communicate that God doesn't demand perfection. Honestly, I think you need only look at all of those that the Bible casts definitively as heroes. They weren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination; every single one of them had some significant flaw or weakness, and they weren't loved any less for being so.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/08/2007 @ 11:54am
the bottom line is that Paul was in a very good position to ascertain whether the claims he was making were true,----Posted by THRAWN 09/08/2007 @ 11:43am
So "Paul proves that Paul was telling the truth"?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 2:10pm
Look, here's the deal....even with the Apostles, but more so with Paul (and the same with Joseph Smith)...
it all comes down to one FIRST principle that must be accepted before ANY other article of faith of Judeo-Christianity, Islam, or Mormanism can be.
That is....that MEN, flawed, imperfect, even "sinful" men wrote down what SUPPOSEDLY Moses....Jesus of Nazareth....Allah....or the Angel MoronI (Thrawn, not "moron") said.
So before you believe in anything else...you are putting your faith in men, not "God".
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 2:13pm
that the Bible is not finished.
Posted by JAKOBFABIAN 09/08/2007 @ 09:21am
nor will it ever be.
(don't know if that's true, but it sure sounds cool)
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 4:57pm
something just occurred to me:
every not so often a science dude* like newton or einstein comes along.
every not so often an art dude like picasso or rembrandt comes along.
every not so often a word dude like chaucer or gene roddenberry comes along.
every not so often a music dude like bach or bird comes along.
so why can't a spirit dude come along every not so often?
*imagine were gonna get some dudettes soon, good work ladies--we try to listen.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 5:04pm
the religious pluralism of "Frosty Zoom."
oye, frosty ¿te gusta la comida mexicana?
depends who cooks it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 5:06pm
"pseudepigraphic"
"bibles, get yer' bibles! ten shekels a bible! bibles you want 'em, we got 'em!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/08/2007 @ 5:09pm
according to the wisdom given to him----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/08/2007 @ 6:49pm
"according to the wisdeom given to HIM", doesn't exactly say it's "total wisdom" or "corresponding wisdom".
"In Galatians 2:9 Paul cites his acceptance as one of them by James, Peter and John"---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/08/2007 @ 6:49pm
Again, that's Paul saying that the others agree with him. If HSUBFOOLS said Al Gore agreed with HSUB that he was running for President....would you buy that HSUB is right, because HSUB said so???
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 10:06pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/08/2007 @ 6:49pm
BTW, LVLIB as I said earlier....who cares?
It's STILL accepting that James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....were flawless individuals INCAPABLE of exaggeration or distortion.
Your FIRST faith is in them....not God, not Jesus.
Posted by Mask at 09/08/2007 @ 10:08pm
Posted by MASK 09/08/2007 @ 10:06pm
Mask
Pity about the earth going around the sun as it does make it a little hard to be immediately relevant to each point made in the New World, especially for those who dwell in the Antipodes.
I learned about religion in Sunday School (Welsh Calvinistic Methodist where children digested the Institutes with their porridge) and then Methodist in Australia. That latter church was mostly liberal, having been influenced by the 19th century Higher Critical movement that originated in Germany, it had been theologically that way inclined long before I arrived in Australia as a child. Thus there was little genuine Christian theology ever learned, in the early days, of this taffy's life in Australia. The last class in SS was called the Bible Class and the teacher had a PhD in economics from Melbourne University and was a senior lecturer there in the economics department. He was also, at that time, a member of the Maoist Communist Party of Australia, having left the Communist Party of Australia when many "Reds" realised that Stalin wasn't such a good role model. I learned later that was about par for the course in much of the Methodist Church of Australia. He was however a mine of information on much the same ideas that you and others promote about the supposed unreliability of the NT documents. So it was as an early teenager (13-14 yo) that I discovered not only the Gnostic gospels, "the historical Jesus", "Jesus the revolutionary" but new names like Hegel and ideas like "thesis" and "antithesis" and how they drive history. (You can imagine then how the Nation is a little passé for this part product of the Methodist Church of Australia). Just a few years after that (1977) the Meths, Congregationalists and Presbyterians formed the Uniting Church which has been in steady numerical decline ever since.
I think it is the Jesuits who claim that a well indoctrinated seven year old is immune to heresy ever after. Probably true in my case so when I went to Melbourne Uni to learn a bit of Mech Eng and Mathematics I joined the Evangelical Union rather than the Students Christian Movement aka the "social gospellers".
It was through contact with some clued up committed Christian intellectuals, from a range of disciplines, that led me to see that a lively intellect is no barrier to a lively Christian faith that is also orthodox in terms (broadly) of historic Christian confessions of faith.
I came at that time to the conclusion that there are no valid objections to the claim that the authenticity of the NT documents is beyond argument on generally accepted rules of literary criticism. I've found no evidence to change that opinion. I don't think that you can argue your position well until you are more familiar with the NT text and the scientific methods experts use to attest or reject the authenticity of documents of that order of antiquity or of any historical period for that matter.
Arguments about plenary and verbal inspiration are not germane to this discussion, except that they are claims the documents can be shown to make. The latter claim is a matter of faith; the present discussion is not. It is about whether or not the NT documents in existence can be shown, by scientific methods, to be authentic witnesses to the life and death of Jesus from Nazareth in an insignificant backwater of the Roman Empire during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius in Rome.
Posted by lrjones4 at 09/09/2007 @ 12:12am
Posted by LRJONES4 09/09/2007 @ 12:12am
hey, are you welsh?
i spent a lot of my childhood visiting my grandparents in "colwyn bay"
beauty.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/09/2007 @ 01:55am
That is....that MEN, flawed, imperfect, even "sinful" men wrote down what SUPPOSEDLY Moses....Jesus of Nazareth....Allah....or the Angel MoronI (Thrawn, not "moron") said.
So before you believe in anything else...you are putting your faith in men, not "God".
Posted by MASK 09/08/2007 @ 2:13pm
First, on the Moroni thing. You're correct; the angel's name was Moroni, but unless I'm mistaken, the translation of Moroni is actually moron. It's not really a relevant theological point, just something I chose to stick in there.
You're also correct that human beings are imperfect; I've never denied that. However, we never infer from this that human testimony is automatically unreliable unless proven otherwise. Generally, we presume precisely the opposite. Since we also trust people to faithfully record historical events, especially ones that they have a strong desire to record as accurately as possible, it's unclear why this point is hugely significant.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/09/2007 @ 02:02am
how interesting it was to read that Mother T suffered from the most common of afflictions...doubting the existence of God (god or even gOd)....I appreciated the work that she did, but I cannot say that I found her anymore "holy" than the next person engaged in the support and care of folks who are struggling...
Posted by gentryfunk at 09/09/2007 @ 04:04am
However, we never infer from this that human testimony is automatically unreliable unless proven otherwise. Generally, we presume precisely the opposite. ---Posted by THRAWN 09/09/2007 @ 02:02
Well, no...we don't. "Eyewitness testimony" is actually the WORST form of evidence used in a criminal trial...ask a lawyer. 10 people interviewed about a suspect's appearance quite varied, though somewhat related answers.. Add TIME to that (weeks, months, years, or in the case of the chronicling of the life of Jesus....decades, as the Apostles' writings came late in their lifes).
and second, "Moroni" is "moron" translated from....WHAT language?
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2007 @ 09:39am
Posted by LRJONES4 09/09/2007 @ 12:12am
LR, it doesn't matter if the documents are "authentic" (in the sense of dating from the time of, or accurately attributed to the Apostles).....
my point is before ANY of that, it STILL involves having FAITH that Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, et al....wrote down "the Truth" and didn't "fudge it" a bit in order to sell their new religion.
One point, note that ONLY the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (of those who actually met Jesus and likely Mary) mention Mary being a "virgin". This is interesting for several reasons...1. You'd THINK that the Other Guys would mention such an astounding event surround the birth of Jesus when relating the Nativity...they didn't.
2. Luke, being a Greek, was emershed in the mythology of the Greeks...which included "Dionysus" the god of wine who was said to have been born from a virgin mother, a mortal woman, but fathered by the king of heaven (Zeus) and who also was claimed to have returned from the dead and turned water into wine. (familiar?)
3. Even in Matthew, a great deal of time is spent on Joseph's geneology. Why? If Jesus was no "blood relation" to Joseph. A theory? It was an oversight and the addition of Joseph's geneology was supposed to show Jesus' "noble lineage" and the "virgin birth to fulfill Isiah" was added later.
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2007 @ 09:53am
Katha Pollitt suggests that women should resign their membership in any church that considers them subordinate to men. To my knowledge, there is only one religion, Wicca, that does not hold this belief.
Posted by jlcaplan at 09/09/2007 @ 5:01pm
Posted by JLCAPLAN 09/09/2007 @ 5:01pm
Unitarians? Buddhists? Sikhs? Jainists?
Posted by Mask at 09/09/2007 @ 7:36pm
Well, no...we don't. "Eyewitness testimony" is actually the WORST form of evidence used in a criminal trial...ask a lawyer. 10 people interviewed about a suspect's appearance quite varied, though somewhat related answers.. Add TIME to that (weeks, months, years, or in the case of the chronicling of the life of Jesus....decades, as the Apostles' writings came late in their lifes).
and second, "Moroni" is "moron" translated from....WHAT language?
Posted by MASK 09/09/2007 @ 09:39am
I'll deal with the "Moroni" thing later (by which I mean, tomorrow). For now, I want to engage the analysis on human testimony, because the position you articulate seems decidedly contrary to the way that we do, and indeed, must, treat human testimony. We don't hold it as dubious until we can decisively prove it to be true, otherwise we would never accept testimony of historical events based on a solitary source. Nor would we accept the day-to-day information that people relay to us without vigorously confirming every single claim. We don't do that, nor should we.
Part of the problem here comes from two confused meanings of "eyewitness testimony." It's one thing to say that a person's precise memory of another's features may be distorted by extraordinarily traumatic events. It's another, however, to suggest that a person's overarching memory of events is, or should be, treated as suspect until proven otherwise. Though I'll agree that Gospel accounts should be held to a higher burden of proof by virtue of claiming miracles, they should not be held to an additional burden merely by virtue of being human testimony.
LR, it doesn't matter if the documents are "authentic" (in the sense of dating from the time of, or accurately attributed to the Apostles).....
my point is before ANY of that, it STILL involves having FAITH that Paul, James, Peter, Matthew, Mark, et al....wrote down "the Truth" and didn't "fudge it" a bit in order to sell their new religion.
One point, note that ONLY the Gospel of Matthew and Luke (of those who actually met Jesus and likely Mary) mention Mary being a "virgin". This is interesting for several reasons...1. You'd THINK that the Other Guys would mention such an astounding event surround the birth of Jesus when relating the Nativity...they didn't.
2. Luke, being a Greek, was emershed in the mythology of the Greeks...which included "Dionysus" the god of wine who was said to have been born from a virgin mother, a mortal woman, but fathered by the king of heaven (Zeus) and who also was claimed to have returned from the dead and turned water into wine. (familiar?)
3. Even in Matthew, a great deal of time is spent on Joseph's geneology. Why? If Jesus was no "blood relation" to Joseph. A theory? It was an oversight and the addition of Joseph's geneology was supposed to show Jesus' "noble lineage" and the "virgin birth to fulfill Isiah" was added later.
Posted by MASK 09/09/2007 @ 09:53am
Why didn't some Gospels include the idea of the Virgin Birth? I don't know; maybe they weren't as concerned about it; its omission hardly constitutes a denial on their parts. Maybe they were more interested in his teachings and in the culmination of his ministry than they were in his birth.
Nor are alleged "parallels" all that legitimate, for multiple reasons. First, claims about Jesus were often made by people not acquainted with Greek culture in any way (see, for example, the creeds that Paul references). Second, the parallels themselves aren't all that compelling; Greek tales tend to speak of a metaphorical or cyclic resurrection rather than a one-time event for a particular person in the physical world (to the best of my knowledge). Also, was Luke a Greek?
Finally for tonight, I want to address JCaplan. I am dreadfully sorry if you have received the impression that Christianity as a holistic entity views women as inferior. From my experience, though there are some particular churches that feel this way, there are significant numbers that rightfully do not. Christians should never embrace such an attitude, for in doing so, they run contrary to the all-embracing message of love that Jesus sought to communicate.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/10/2007 @ 01:12am
Christians should never embrace such an attitude, for in doing so, they run contrary to the all-embracing message of love that Jesus sought to communicate.
Posted by THRAWN 09/10/2007 @ 01:12am
nobody should.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 01:56am
THRAWN, several points....
1. I will wait with baited breath for your research into "'Moroni' being translated from 'moron'".
2. "It's one thing to say that a person's precise memory of another's features may be distorted by extraordinarily traumatic events."
Problem. This testimony (i.e. The New Testament) is SUPPOSED to be the "unerring and true Word of God" as related by the Apostles. NOW you're saying that "features may be distorted by extraordinarily traumatic events"?!??!?! How do you reconcile the claim to Bible inerrancy and that?
3. "Why didn't some Gospels include the idea of the Virgin Birth? I don't know; maybe they weren't as concerned about it; its omission hardly constitutes a denial on their parts. Maybe they were more interested in his teachings and in the culmination of his ministry than they were in his birth."
So they "cared" about the other MIRACLES that Jesus performed ("walking on water", "feeding the multitude", etc.) but "didn't care" that he was born of a virgin?!?!?!
4. "First, claims about Jesus were often made by people not acquainted with Greek culture in any way (see, for example, the creeds that Paul references)."
Sorry if you were confused. I was speaking of Greek mythology. The SAME mythology that the Romans used...the same that a Roman citizen of Hellanistic Tarsus, like Paul or Antioch, like Luke....would be familiar with. In Roman mythos, "Dionysus" was "Bacchus".
5. "Second, the parallels themselves aren't all that compelling; Greek tales tend to speak of a metaphorical or cyclic resurrection rather than a one-time event for a particular person in the physical world (to the best of my knowledge)."
So how do you know that "metaphorical or cyclic resurrection" wasn't what the the NT guys meant?
6. "Also, was Luke a Greek?" Again, my bad. Should have said "of Hellanistic cultural ancestry". Both Antioch and Tarsus part of what is now Turkey were founded by the Greeks and part of the Hellanistic Empire. Meaning the inhabitents were worshippers of Zeus, Apollo, Hera, etc....or their Roman equivalents Jupiter, etc.
Posted by Mask at 09/10/2007 @ 09:30am
hey there ms. katha
give us more juicy, juicy like this one.
not more dried up supermarket fruit (don't worry about sheehan for a while--her time's a-comin')
yours respectfully,
fz
btw muchly appreciated the break from political round-and-rounding
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/10/2007 @ 4:31pm
Interesting that the comments range the gamut from thoughtful analysis to anti-Catholic bigotry. Gay and Catholic here, I know liberal Catholics who think the Pope's latest pronouncements about the "superiority" of Catholicism are full of bull and ignore statements from Rome they find foolish. A lot of us want the church that was promised by Vatican 2.
Posted by krf at 09/10/2007 @ 6:23pm
Posted by MASK 09/10/2007 @ 09:30am
Unfortunately, I don't yet have the "Moroni analysis" for you, though I'll get it as soon as possible. If it turns out that I'm wrong (and as much as I don't think it's the case, I'll admit that I'm obviously fallible), I'll admit it. However, I want to move on to more significant issues first.
Your response on testimony was basically a giant strawman, to be quite frank, because I was never talking about the kind of eyewitness testimony that comes up at something like a murder trial. They didn't just see him once out of the corner of their eye, or something of that nature. They lived with him, ate with him, followed him for years. Your analysis on eyewitnesses to a crime has no bearing whatsoever because the cases simply aren't analogous in the least.
Next, on the virgin birth thing. Did they care that he was born of a virgin? It would constitute a miracle, certainly, but maybe some of them didn't feel like it was absolutely essential; maybe they felt that it mattered even more to see what Jesus taught and to understand his death and resurrection. That's far more important than the virgin birth, and it not being mentioned in every Gospel is hardly evidence against it.
Nor are the supposed parallels with Greek mythology. One, many of the people who followed Jesus had never heard the myths in question because much of the culture, in Jerusalem especially, was fairly insular. Far more importantly, though, the comparison falls apart when you look at what the Gospels actually maintained. They weren't talking about a "symbolic" resurrection or a "cyclic pattern." Their entire narrative was about a real person that they spent years with, and telling the detailed narrative of that person's life, teachings, death, and resurrection. At every level, their story was tied to a real person, and the creeds that Paul references (like in 1 Corinthians) make it clear that he was doing the same.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/10/2007 @ 10:52pm
good morning to all:
a sad day in mexico, a few years ago
the secretary told me,
and so i ran to the t.v. (the one with the good reception)
and i saw and didn't believe
and i changed the channel
but it wouldn't go away
a crash? the chaos. the bystander standing by,
hoping as i was, as you were (where were you?)
dust, screaming, bewilderment, "MOVE, NOW!"
as if one could put order to the insanity
and yet time was frozen
so much confusion
yet time was frozen
now the radio, too
i called my wife
"oye, no vas a creer lo que pasó"
"i know" i said, "i'm watching CNN en español"
and then, the rumours, the hope stopped.
and the icy grip on time was shattered
as the second testament to,
what shall i call it?
hate, malice, ignorance,
nothing will suffice
insufficient words suffer when faced with
such a daunting task
and people leapt one last time
praying to land in the arms of those who wanted them back
and time raced forward and backward--but with what aim?
one cannot feel empathy for the dead,
for death is theirs alone.
but to those trapped, trapped
because they forgot their lunch box
or wanted to get a good start that day
i felt their pain and fear and why? why? why?
if only for a moment
and then i could not share their pain
now, no one could.
we could only run
my condolences to all
fz
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/11/2007 @ 02:48am
Just saw the 2006 movie "Happy Feet" for the first time. As with most good art, it moved me, and therefore induced a greater connection with "THE Almighty," in my humble opinion.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/11/2007 @ 10:12am
Yes, fz, and I believe our best opportunities to honor the victims is to continue to question the "authorities" on whose watch this, I believe, "false flag" attack occurred.
Posted by lewwelge at 09/11/2007 @ 10:16am
Posted by THRAWN 09/10/2007 @ 10:52pm
More points...
1. You won't find that "Moroni" translates as "moron". That was just a bit of anti-Mormon bigotry you probably picked up from John Ankerberg or something. Drop it, the point is made.
2. YOU were the one who originally said "However, we never infer from this that human testimony is automatically unreliable unless proven otherwise. Generally, we presume precisely the opposite." WE do not. We do NOT "automatically infer that human testimony is reliable". That's the OPPOSITE of the scientific method. We infer that a claim or hypothesis must be proven true and is neither true nor false until proven so.
3. Again, they (the Apostles) mention other miracles by Jesus, but somehow "don't think it's important" when it comes to him being born of a virgin, impregnated by "the Spirit of God"?!??!? Water to wine is peanuts compared to that, but ..."oddly"...it's left to Matthew (who seems contradictory given his long recitement of Joseph's lineage....why? If Jesus is no relation to Joe?)...and Luke and Paul, the two who influenced by Hellanistic mythology, are the most apt to accrue "virgin birth" (as was Eros and Dionysus) to the "new god"?
Plus as you noted in your last paragraph, you claim that the NT is a "detailed account" of a real person. "Detailed", but missing the fact that he was born of a virgin?!?!?!?
Given that, logically OTHER parts might have been excluded or even INCLUDED, depending on which writer was involved....no?
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 10:31am
First off, if the Moroni claim is nothing more than anti-Mormon bigotry, and has no factual support, I reject it at once and apologize for including it.
Moreover, I continue to be struck by your view of human testimony. If your framework is truly the one that we should and do use, why is it that we accept historical accounts for which we have only one source writing some time after the fact? Additionally, you never responded to the distinction I drew between witnesses in a standard criminal case and the kind of eyewitness testimony I'm arguing for.
Your broader methodology in this regard is even more bizarre. Is your position actually that EVERY claim is or should be treated as suspect until it can be decisively proven? What about our most properly basic beliefs, such as the belief that we inhabit an external world that exists independently of ourselves? Since there can be little to no definitive proof of such beliefs, your position would require us to reject them. I think it's fair to say that in asking someone to adopt BELIEFS or IDEAS contrary to those that they have held, I have the burden to prove my claims, but I don't see any reason to therefore treat basic TESTIMONY differently.
Finally, on the virgin birth question, your basic response is that it's really really important. For those that put a great deal of focus on his having descended from David (people like, say, Matthew), it could be fairly important. For someone more concerned with the way he lived, died, and returned, however, it might not be critical at all (comparatively). Since the miracles that he performed played an important role in identifying him as God, I would think those much more important. Here's a worthwhile test: how many different churches really put stress on him being born of a virgin, as opposed to having done miracles and been resurrected? From my experience, it seems as though not many have, and I think that's yet another indication that its absence from some narratives should not be all that suspect. Nor is there reason to infer from this that they just made up content; we never have a policy of distrusting authors until they can justify themselves.
Oh, also...Paul, influenced by Hellenistic mythology?? Heard of it, perhaps, but influenced by it? I find that very hard to believe since he was a Pharisee. Moreover, remember that he was also passing on creeds from the early church that didn't come from him.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/11/2007 @ 1:33pm
Posted by THRAWN 09/11/2007 @ 1:33pm
Points...
1. "Is your position actually that EVERY claim is or should be treated as suspect until it can be decisively proven?"
For EXTRAORDINARY claims...yes, that is my view, THRAWN. If some ancient claimed that they had seen "the Sun blotted out by the Moon and darkness fall at high noon"...pretty good chance it was a solar eclipse and reliably reported.
A SMALL group of men, religious zealots (not pejorative, just indicating their INTENSITY) claim that their leader/teacher was "the Son of God, born of a virgin (some claim that anyway), who walked on water and rose from the dead after 3 days"....yep, I want some more confirmation that oddly "edited" accounts that leave in some important parts and leave out some important parts.
or a few disinterested Romans who "saw the one they called Christ walking around, when it was witnessed him dying 3 days before". (NOTE: not Roman accounts that Jesus existed, but that they saw him do some things they could not explain.)
Again, as far as "testimony" goes...even today, if five or six people swear they saw Elvis land in a deserted woods in a flying saucer....do we accept that just because there were "five or six" of them? Especially if they are doing it while trying to convince people that Elvis was the Messiah?
So why would we accept it, if it was texts written 2000 years ago?
2. Your lack of curiosity on why only Matthew and Luke (of those who hung out with Jesus) mention "virgin birth" is interesting, if not un-expected. To me, it puts a major chink in the armor of the "They were ALL 'detailing' the life of the Son of God"...that most of them felt it was of an insignificant nature that he was conceived like no other human being had EVER been.
3. As far as Paul, WHO was Paul trying to "sell" Christianity to...and what did they believe as far as "gods"? Much easier sell to people who ALREADY believe in a "god of wine" or "god of love" who was "born of a virgin", "supplied wine by magic", and "died but rose from the dead" (As did Osiris...so throw in the Egyptian mythology too!)
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 3:28pm
BTW, THRAWN, on a personal note, I realize I'm not going to convince you....and you should realize you're not going to convince me that even a popular, but very old single book contains "all Truth" or even "the Truth".
God or Christ or whoever wants me to believe in them...let them give me the same opportunity that they gave those "Apostles"...
show up and let me talk with them in person. Plus produce a nice Pinot Noir from some Dasani and then walk out to my ski boat with it!
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 3:32pm
ms. pollitt
you rock. great piece. nothing to add to it. kudos.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/11/2007 @ 6:28pm
Posted by MASK 09/11/2007 @ 3:28pm
First, I should note that your position sounds oddly Humean.... :D
I think this is actually a really interesting line of argument. What I would argue, though, is that it's not quite as extraordinary as you think, assuming that an additional premise is granted. If we accept that the existence of God is at least reasonably possible (I know we'll disagree on that as well), I don't really think that the claims the apostles make are really as extraordinary as someone claiming an actual violation of the laws of nature as we understand them. The reason for this is that while naturalistic events like those run directly contrary to our experience, supernaturally-caused events don't, particularly not those caused by an omnipotent God. There is a significant burden of proof nonetheless, though, but I think the extensive, mutually-reinforcing literature definitely meets that.
But are they trustworthy, if they neglect things that we would think are important or put in things that seem similar to other religions? Two things are key here. First, remember that some of the Gospel authors had no connection to Greek or Egyptian or any other mythology, meaning that they could not have been influenced by them in their narrative. Second, and this is really important, remember that much of Paul's material doesn't originally come from him. Much of it originates from creeds affirmed by the early church within barely a couple of years of Jesus' crucifixion.
I still don't think the omission is key. You're right that Jesus' form of birth was unique, though actually (I just realized this), the omission in every text would have been even more suspect because it could (maybe) have indicated a desire to compete with other religions' own claims. The fact that Paul didn't stress the very things you talk about (turning water into wine, etc.) undercuts your argument here. Also, the fact that Jesus was said to have been a real person that rose from the dead, not metaphysically but concretely means that Paul is clearly differentiating Christianity from narratives about Osiris or any other figure.
Finally, maybe you're right. It's probably true that neither of us is going to convince the other. That said, though, I'm glad for the opportunity to carry on a real, meaningful discussion about these kinds of issues, and see where our own positions might be weak or strong. I'd love a good, old-fashioned miracle, but I don't think one's forthcoming, and though that certainly is a sticking point, I don't think it's a critical blow.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/11/2007 @ 8:16pm
Posted by THRAWN 09/11/2007 @ 8:16pm
1. You made a false leap. Believing in the existance of a "God", does not automatically lead to the Judeo-Christian one. This is bad assumption, quite common to many Christians (mostly fundamentalist). As I noted to someone else, Mortimer Adler made a compelling argument for "natural theology" (the existance of a "supreme, creative intelligence")....but that does NOT mean "Jehovah/Jesus" anymore than it means "Vishnu" or "Odin".
2. Again the basic premise....that Paul and the Apostles are perfect (in their writing). This actually flies in the face of the Bible itself. It's a paradox.
The Bible says that NO man (ex Jesus) is or was perfect and without sin. Yet to accept the Bible's inerrancy, we MUST accept that (atleast at the timing of them putting quill to parchment) the men who wrote the ible were perfect....no lapse of memory, no pride!
Posted by Mask at 09/11/2007 @ 9:39pm
You are correct; religions that accept the notion of a God but don't accept Jesus don't inherently contradict themselves. That's not the argument, though. What I'm challenging is the idea of giving miracles an astoundingly high burden of proof based on the notion that they're just extraordinarily improbable. My argument is this: they're not improbable in the way that someone, say, rising from the dead naturalistically would be. If you begin with the premise that a personal God is at least reasonably possible, it's far from out of the question for miracles to happen. At that point, I would argue that in order to justify a miracle claim, you don't need phenomenal evidence, just pretty solid evidence. That's all I'm arguing.
I'm confused by your claim about perfection. I've never maintained that any of the men who wrote the Bible were perfect, nor have I maintained that the Bible is absolutely, positively inerrant in every respect. That's never been the position I've taken. What I have argued is that the people who described Jesus' life and teachings easily meet basic reliability standards for historical claims. They don't have to be perfect to do that; if they did, no historian of any kind (especially one who was the sole source for a claim) could ever be relied upon. They just have to be reliable, and I've seen absolutely no reason why they fail that test.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/12/2007 @ 12:43am
well, in one sense, that which cannot be duplicated is perfect, in that it cannot be duplicated. therefore everything is perfect for no thing can be duplicated exactly.
perfection is therefore an abstract ideal (mathematic results can be duplicated, but these are abstracts also).
my experience with life and my study of history, philisophy, science and religion leads me to this conclusion...
the human mind is capable of massive deceit, especially self deceit, especially self deceit in terms of those things one cherishes most powerfully, like self, mate, progeny, ancestry, and religious belief, which is intricately related to all the above.
prior to the elucidation and widespread application of the scientific method, very intelligent folks as well as idiots tended to believe all sorts of crazy crap.
since the widespread application of the scientific method...very intelligent folks as well as idiots still tend to believe all sorts of crazy crap. the fantastic and ridiculous claims of one pre-scientific tome of wisdom proclaiming exclusivity of truth based on nothing but proclamations of insight or purported miracles fly in the face of what another says.
one thing has remained constant...most people, spiritually speaking, search for truth and demand easy, self serving, assured answers...and there's always some charismatic, clever, bullshitting wacko or mountebank ready to give the people exactly what they want - "everything's gonna be alright if you just trust me".
in my opinion the vast majority of great religious thinkers knew no more about "god" than does a dog, and although i appreciate their intellect and effort, find there advice/proclamations no more comforting nor enlightening than the babblings of a lunatic.
in silence and contemplation i have indeed touched the face of "god", but cannot describe it in any way, nor would i if i could. how arrogant are we shaved apes to assume we can tame the universe, that we can understand everything in a rational sense.
within every major belief system one finds the version for the uninitiated worldlings and semi self concious idiots, and then a version for those few who remain.
but ultimately the debate about that which cannot be proven nor even rationally expressed, although a shitload of fun, is pointless, and therefore i am at the end of what i had to say.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/12/2007 @ 01:27am
Posted by THRAWN 09/12/2007 @ 12:43am
Well, first I didn't maintain the men who wrote the Bible had to be perfect ALL THE TIME...just perfect when they were writing the Bible (though as I said, that has inherent flaws theologically).
Second, if you DON'T believe the Bible to be inerrant....you run into a WORSE problem. Namely....what parts do you think ARE inaccurate? Garden of Eden? The Flood? Jesus walking upon the waters?
And once you grant ONE thing is inaccurate...why not others?
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 09:01am
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 09:01am
one day jesus and moses are sitting in a rowboat, fishing.
no bites. nada.
jesus says to moses "hey, do you ever think back to the days of miracles, the good old days? i don't think i've got it in me anymore."
moses says, "whaddaya mean? watch this, old man."
moses lifts up his hands, parts the waters of the lake, they grab a few of the poor flopping fishies from the bottom, closes his hands and returns the lake to its previous state.
"your turn", says moses
"o.k." says jesus, "i'll try"
so jesus stands up, gets out of the boat and proceeds to walk on the water.
"cool". says moses.
suddenly, jesus sinks into the water and swims back up to the surface, gasping for air.
moses asks, "dude, what happened? you were doing great."
"ya, i know", says jesus.
"but i forgot about these damn holes in my feet"
[trombone] wah, wah, wah, waaaaaaaaaah
*sorry to interrupt
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:04am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 10:04am |
Ya want some real "one way ticket to Hell" humor....check out Sam Kinison's bit on "Why Jesus couldn't have been married!"....
"Sorry, honey...would have called to let you know where I was for three days, but...I WAS DEAD! I'm in Hell, fighting demons, redeeming lost souls, then ascending back to Earth in a monumental feat of God's power....BUT NO, I GOTTA CALL HOME AND LET YOU KNOW WHERE THE FUCK I WAS....SORRY, BABE!"
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:28am
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:28am
the scary part is that doesn't sound like jesus.
it sounds like george w bush.
no wonder cheney keeps him around.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 10:32am
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 09:01am
Again, I don't think the authors of the Bible necessarily had to be perfect, even when they were writing what they were writing. All I'm saying is that they far and beyond met the basic standard for reliable witnesses of an extraordinary life.
I've also been curious for some time about this critique of anything short of Biblical inerrancy (which plays right into the hands of Biblical fundamentalists). Why is it that somehow, when I allow one little imperfection into the Bible, that the whole thing is somehow liable to collapse?
Posted by Thrawn at 09/12/2007 @ 8:43pm
Posted by THRAWN 09/12/2007 @ 8:43pm
The loose thread in the tapestry theory, THRAWN.
How much of the Bible do we "throw out" as flawed? After all the Flood was a MAJOR intervention of God in the affairs of Man. If it was NOT "world-wide" and ol' Noah did NOT pack every genera or sub-phyla (the newest idea from the creationists, Noah only took "generic" lions which became tigers, panthers, cougars, pumas, etc.)....then why not the walking on the water...or the raising of Lazurus?
And if those are knocked out, why not the Resurrection? Which is the last card in the house.
So the fundies have a point...and a FEAR. Without TOTAL Biblical inerrancy...you just have random opinion as to "where to stop" with saying "Well, obviously THAT part is myth...or metaphor!"
Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:14pm
Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:14pm
I have never understood the apparent human attraction to certainty. If the only certanties are death and taxes, with those models, why would we want any more of them?
Uncertainty provides much more fertile soil for growth with an admittedly unsettling corresponding risk. Nonetheless, I have never been more wrong or more destructive as when I have been certain of a truth.
Posted by canaar at 09/13/2007 @ 12:19am
I think there's something to what Canaar says; certainty does sometimes have a tendency to breed great dangers, and has done so historically. That doesn't mean, however, that we should not be certain about anything; indeed, such a position would have the slight problem of making us uncertain of whether we should even be uncertain.
Even if we can never be certain, though, why can't we still have confidence in things? Why can't I still evaluate beliefs and ideas individually based on their appeal, some of it (though not all) based upon rational argument? Given that, I still fail to see why I can't evaluate beliefs based on their coherence, etc. without demanding an all-or-nothing approach. I think it's telling that, despite the rhetoric, you've never been able to provide a real reason why my position is incoherent, and I think you have a burden to do so.
Posted by Thrawn at 09/13/2007 @ 12:45am
a gay anti-homosexual republican evangelist?
Posted by CRABWALK 09/07/2007 @ 12:04pm
Crabster, That one is easy. The gay priest can always switch over (no pun intended) to a protestant church that allows gay ministers. The gay republican, no matter if he/she is a person of the cloth or not, is pretty much screwed from the get go.
How can a gay republican exist in the first place? Since republicans don't sin, then they can't be gay right?! It's just a conspiracy of left wingers trying to infiltrate the holy Godly, goodly, perfect ranks of the right wing. Just ask Rio or liverlips. They'll tell you.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/13/2007 @ 07:28am
Posted by CANAAR 09/13/2007 @ 12:19am Posted by THRAWN 09/13/2007 @ 12:45am
Uncertainty breeds fear...in those who cannot accept a fairly strong undercurrent of randomness to the Universe and their lives.
That's why fundamentalism is so strong in these days. I think (out on a limb) that it's a result of the technological and scientific leaps of the last 150 years. Before Darwin, people had a linear and defined view of the creation and continuation of the Universe and their place in it. Afterwards, when it was discovered that we were merely the "end product" of a natural process of selection and not "divinely created"...we became a "part in the machine".
Then there was "total war" (World War-I) and the atomic bomb. Many forget the existentialist crises that occured (mostly in Europe) from WW-I, in which MILLIONS died in a bloody conflict over basically nothing. Followed by a second total war and the creation of weapons which could grant us a power, once only ceded to "God", that of world-wide destruction.
We lacked the creative power, but we had achieved a "divine" power of destruction. Essentially making Sodom and Gomorrah and The Flood look like kid's play. When we could destroy God's creation, we showed that "He" wasn't all that powerful...and thus it left "just us" scrambling across this small, insignificant marble.
Which also played into it....astronomy and physics. We're just one planet, around one star, in one galaxy, surrounded by a dozens, in a Universe of billions. Quantum mechanics showed us that, despite Einstein's pleadings, there was a lot of "dice shooting" and nothing is as it seems.
So...in a COSMOS of uncertainty...people turn to literalist views of an ancient book in search of comfort. Ignoring the illogic, contradictions, or just plain historical inaccuracies of it.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 10:11am
That's why fundamentalism is so strong in these days
by mask
not the only reason.
if i'm a goat farmer in yemen or a corn farmer in kansas (like my father and grandpa and great grandpa etc.) and see my daughter suddenly wanting to where a thong hanging out her jeans and my son wants a sex-change, i'm going to react.
i'll react in a very reactionary way. time to clamp down kinda thinking.
Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 10:55am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 10:55am
Really isolated examples, FZ. "Immoral" behavior has existed for millenia.
The drive for fundamentalism is at its root a fear of uncertainty. Our modern age exascerbates that. And throw in all the other rationales...economics...social isolation with urban- and suburbanization....chaotic world.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:09pm
Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 10:11am
A pretty insightful analysis IMO. That "fear driven" retreat into the comfort of acting on faith-based certainties explains for me, the entirely irrational rush to abandon our national founding principles in our post 9/11 world.
Explaining away our evaporation of national character with such rationales as "they're out to kill us" (substituting the feared group of the moment for "they") follows that certainty thread from certainty of WMDs all the way back to an epileptic visionary's dreams of a literal Armegeddon and release from the burden of death for the raptured righteous.
When in human history has there been harmony between the haves, the haves less and the haves not and what has been our historical track record of successfully eliminating that tension through eliminating those with less by force?
Unfortunately, our track record of being able to fix stupid hasn't been very good either.
Posted by canaar at 09/13/2007 @ 12:57pm
Posted by CANAAR 09/13/2007 @ 12:57pm
Well, you don't have to read a left-wing psychohistory into it, CANAAR. ("haves, have-lesses, have-nots", etc.)
In point of fact, that same uncertainty gave rise to Communism and Nazism. Fortunately, classic liberalism mitigated that here in the US and later in Europe and some of Asia.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 1:07pm
Posted by CANAAR 09/13/2007 @ 12:57pm
I don't think that I read a left wing psycho-history into it at all. Rather, it comes from my experiences living a much simpler and slower paced lifestyle more thinly laden with the accumulation of 5,000 years of what we like to characterize as civilizing infrastructure.
In that environment, almost every disturbance of the peace could be readily identified either as fundamentally arising from that tension or from feud. These disputes were played out over access to food, access to reproductive success and preservation of dignity. Nonetheless, the seeming standard of balance was sufficiency.
I take as my point of departure the type of response in protection of property that seems to be a fundamental necessity for mercantilism as typified by JM's attitude toward international relations.
I agree that the "isms" of left and right derive from response to uncertainty and that they are heavily laden with a reliance on faith based absolutes.
Posted by canaar at 09/13/2007 @ 1:54pm
I agree that the "isms" of left and right derive from response to uncertainty and that they are heavily laden with a reliance on faith based absolutes. ----Posted by CANAAR 09/13/2007 @ 1:54pm
I agree. It's the reason that despite the monumental failurs of the present "faith-based government" (not just fundamental Christianity, but neo-con'ism)...that I don't accept that the ONLY alternative is the mirror image of a LEFT-wing "faith-based government with ITS promise of "Utopia" and its claim to "angelic" leadership and/or adherents.
Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 4:32pm