Theological Quandaries 101

[scully1]

Great going, y'all! I suppose I ought to put in my $.02...

@Rail -- "Man takes the reins where God once drove"...I like that, I think it's very accurate. I think we've unfortunately replaced God's will with human tradition masquerading as God's will. For example, in the Catholic church, which forbids the ordination of women and insists upon the celibacy of the priesthood [and then people complain about the priest shortage ]. Those things are based in human tradition, not in biblical theology or the teachings of Christ; yet they are taught as the undebatable will of God. The two are not necessarily the same thing, since human beings can err and God cannot.

@Xandax -- you have a good point about poverty; however I would disagree to some extent. I believe (at least in the case of Christianity, with which I'm most familiar) that the teaching of poverty as a blessed condition originated in social conditions of the time. (I'm talking early church, pre-middle ages, between approximately 33-400AD). The vast majority of people had nothing to look forward to in this life; it was not a world in which one had opportunities to better him/herself through personal effort, like today. If people were encouraged to believe they would recieve in the afterlife what they lacked in this life, yes, they would probably be less likely to organize a "peasant revolt". But remember that it was not the political leaders who controlled religion (at least, not during the early time frame I'm speaking of). I think it was simply a way to avoid incredibly destructive social upheaval which was seen as only leading to chaos. Besides, at that time it was expected that Christ would return in the very near future, and do away with all forms of government and their injustices and tyranny. Because the order of the world was already passing away, there was no need to try to overthrow it. But this came from working-class preachers (such as St. Paul, who really makes a big deal of this), not from political rulers.

I do think that we've placed way too much emphasis on the "afterlife." Focusing on Heaven all the time shifts the emphasis away from THIS world and its problems; saying "Oh, God will show up and fix everything" takes the responsibility off of US to clean up our own messes. There's a danger of becoming complacent about injustice in our world. Not to say there ISN'T a Heaven; I just don't think we should focus on it so much. I'm sure even the religions that teach the existence of Heaven never intended that...

@Flagg -- I think the term for you is agnistic.

@fable -- are you talking about syncretism?...I don't believe we exist within God but that God is a seperate Being who created the universe, and infused all life with the divine breath, what we'd call "spirit." In this way we partake of God's divine nature. And I believe in the wisdom of differing traditions, but that they are languages for communicating with one Being. I don't think they create anything on their own; I just think they're "tapping in" -- and that the deity is tapping in to them -- in different ways that each can understand according to their cultural/historical/social circumstances...

So...just a thought for discussion...do y'all believe in sin?...

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]

[fable]

Antares wrote:

'Stranger in a Strange Land'. Have you ever read this? Robert Heinlen. Sounds very close to your core belief. I don't intend by that to cast aspersions on your beliefs.

No offense taken. I read it long ago, and honestly didn't like it very much, at least at the time. I find Heinlein a very ideologically rigid writer who toyed with interesting themes (just my POV)--the main theme of assuming another's character and becoming it in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," for instance, was better treated in nearly anything Vonnegut wrote. But thanks for the recommendation, I'll reread it again.

Another good set of books are Joseph Cambell's 'The Masks of God'. Wherein he explores cultural myth in conjunction with different cultures' core religious beliefs.

Been quite a while, again, but yeah. I liked 'em quite a bit, though they were a bit bloodless. Of course, so was my last post , but that's because I was trying to explain in words a few basic concepts, and couldn't get across the sense of awe and reverence, and commitment I bring to my religious beliefs. I fervently worship these gods who are God. Nature in particular has many gods that mean a great deal to me, and in its dualities, I find One.

You are now all permitted to say OHMMMM, and then razz me.

[Anatres]

@fable; play mainly Rangers and Druids do we?


EDIT: Opppssss, for got the OHHHMMMMM.....


[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[Anatres]

@fable; I also agree with you about Heinlen. I think his last great book was 'Glory Road', and his writing started taking a downhill slide with 'Stranger' (could be attributed to the influx of good drugs about that time too ). And Vonnegut, well what can one say about the master.....

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Anatres ]

[fable]

@Anatres: play mainly Rangers and Druids do we?

Nah. Mainly mages and thieves. Perfect for those of us who are power-crazed and sneaky.

[Flagg]

@All, Can someone tell me what an agnistic is exactly? I have never heard of this term...

[Anatres]

@Flagg; I think you mean agnostic - 1. somebody denying God's existence is provable: somebody who believes that it is impossible to know whether or not God exists.

(In the context for this thread).

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Flagg:
<STRONG>@All, Can someone tell me what an agnistic is exactly? I have never heard of this term... </STRONG>

I would suspect it is: Agnositc you are looking for.
"a person who is not sure whether or not God exists, or who belives we cannot know whether God exsits or not"

[Minerva]

What is the difference between Agnostic and Atheist (sp?) ? I mean, is the atheist = someone who is agnostic?

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Minerva ]

[Xandax]

Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG><snip>
But remember that it was not the political leaders who controlled religion (at least, not during the early time frame I'm speaking of). I think it was simply a way to avoid incredibly destructive social upheaval which was seen as only leading to chaos. Besides, at that time it was expected that Christ would return in the very near future, and do away with all forms of government and their injustices and tyranny. Because the order of the world was already passing away, there was no need to try to overthrow it. But this came from working-class preachers (such as St. Paul, who really makes a big deal of this), not from political rulers.
<snip>
</STRONG>

Hmm - I feel that this is also a part of what I tried to say, I just used Kings and Nobles contra poverty as an exampel. IMO the religious "leaders" is also a ruleing class.
And as far as I know, religious leaders has always worked together with the political leaders to keep a kind of status quo. Maybe not in the very ealiy stages of religion when the common view was the the world soon would end, but they did so up through the ages.

[Flagg]

Thanks for that definition... At least you two agree with each other..

I don't even think that I fall into this category. Currently it is a fact that we can prove (scientifically) that god exists. If God does exist, than it is should be possible to proof. The main question that I have about god or an almighty power is: How did he/she/that come into existence? Is he/she/it all alone or are there more?

The major problem that I have with certain religions is that they require you to pay respect to God. If god does exist than he probably is all powerful, then why would he want us to go pray multiple times a day?

I mean no disrespect to people and their beliefs. This is just my opinion.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by Minerva:
<STRONG>What is the difference between Agnostic and Atheist (sp?) ? I mean, is the atheist = someone who is agnostic?

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Minerva ]</STRONG>

As far as I understand it an agnostic is someone who can't prove/reason whether or not there is a God, whereas an atheist is someone whom dosen't belive there is a God.


So it is like:
agnostic = maybe, we don't know
atheist = No


[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

[Xandax]

I really feal my signature comming into play in this thread


@Flagg: I didn't know the word either, so I looked it up (Advanced Learner's Dictionary )

[ 05-15-2001: Message edited by: Xandax ]

[Flagg]

An off-topic question: Why do we humans always feel compelled to put a label on everything?

[Minerva]

Thank you, Xandax.

[scully1]

@Xandax -- the religious/political association you mention came into existence just before the fall of the Roman Empire, and after the fall (during the middle ages) the church did assume a political leadership role, primarily because everything had fallen to pieces and there was no stable government left. This was a good idea at the time, but unfortunately it continued till it wore out its usefulness...

@Flagg: IMO, regular prayer (as you say, paying respect to God) is just a natural expression of gratitude toward the Creator for having been created. There are many kinds of prayer...I don't consider words repeated by rote to be good prayer; one can turn anything into a prayer, and prayer does not have to be submissive either. For example, Job giving God the third degree over his messed-up life. You can play a Beethoven sonata and make it a prayer...

[Anatres]

Online dictionaries are really great!

@Flagg; your question isn't really off topic (aren't we trying to label God here?). In an attempt to answer your question as to why we label things I think it has to do with the facts that we have language and are cognitive beings (or at least some of us are ).

[scully1]

Labels are easy. When we put a label on something we don't have to spend any time thinking about it or trying to really understand it. Thinking is hard so people tend to do all kinds of things to avoid it...

[fable]

Xandax writes:
And as far as I know, religious leaders has always worked together with the political leaders to keep a kind of status quo. Maybe not in the very ealiy stages of religion when the common view was the the world soon would end, but they did so up through the ages.

Surprisingly, no. Certainly, many low level members of religious orders have preached the "virtue" of patriotism to their flock, and the US is perhaps the most blatant example of this. (Contrary to popular belief over here, religion in the US has always been mixed up with politics.) But the religious leadership through history has been veered in all sorts of directions when it came to supporting the regime in power.

Consider the following examples:

During our so-called Civil War in the 1860's, some religious synods unrelated to geographical boundary backed the North because of the slavery issue, while others backed the South because of the secession issue.

During the British revolution that resulted in the beheading of Charles I, the religious leaders sided with the rebels.

The religious leaders of the Serbian Orthodox Church have swung back and forth on supporting Milosevic when he was in power, largely depending less upon the man than upon their perception of historically valid actions and human rights.

The Roman Catholic Church during the late Middle Ages almost invariably backed powerful rulers for complex reasons. True, they wanted to be the power behind the throne, but they also wanted peace instead of Robberknight rule, and the misery of the lower class. They also viewed the aristocracy as a secular arm of the Trimphant Church.

During the Renaissance, the RCC became the Church Militant, and actively coherced, or occasion, toppled governments, installing puppets or actually taking control directly.

In Islam, there is supposedly no division between church and state. The only law is The Law, Allah's Law, and the governing class are duty bound to enforce it as is everyone else. The current Shi'a government of Iran is only an extreme application of this, in which the priests have formed a theocracy. Israel, too, is a theocracy--I wonder how many people know that, according to Israeli law, a couple isn't considered legally married unless they were married by an Orthodox Jewish (the most conservative of the religion's branches) rabbi?

Buddhist factions have traditionally tried to influence national policy when they had considerable power in the past, but they never lined up behind a particular government as such. Taoism scorns the concept of government.

And so it goes. Kinda confusing, isn't it? At least, I find it so.

[fable]

@Loner72: "IMO, regular prayer (as you say, paying respect to God) is just a natural expression of gratitude toward the Creator for having been created. There are many kinds of prayer...I don't consider words repeated by rote to be good prayer; one can turn anything into a prayer, and prayer does not have to be submissive either. For example, Job giving God the third degree over his messed-up life. You can play a Beethoven sonata and make it a prayer..."

This is deep stuff, folks. True, too.