Theological Quandaries 101

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Flagg:
<STRONG>I belief that human beings are by their nature selfish individuals.
</STRONG>

The nature of mankind is indeed a selfish one. Sometimes it can drive us to excel, others to sin. We do what must to gratify ourselves, sometimes at the expense of others. We don’t necessarily need the devil to torment the earth when we have people give into their own lower natures. The choice, as always, lies within the individual himself.

Originally posted by loner72:
Indeed; however Satan has no power over the human will. He can't really "bring" anyone anywhere. The individual person sends him/herself to Hell due to choices they've made, the way they've lived their life, attitudes, etc. etc....

Absolutely. I totally agree with you Loner. Sometimes I think many Christians, Catholics, etc, seem to forget the inherent choice man has over his own ultimate destiny. Which brings us back to Pascal’s Wager.

Originally posted by Yanlee:
<STRONG>Also, if one were to believe in god simply because of the potential benefits, could they really be said to have faith? </STRONG>

For truly I tell you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you."
-Matthew 17:20

You gotta start somewhere. Just having a little faith is enough. Pascal’s Wager can be argued with but it presents a very thought-provoking way of looking at spiritual matters regardless.

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

[cheesemage]

Gods a topic that needs sme explaining
I think the topic of god is most summirized from the book the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy
" If there is proof of od there is no need for faith, if there is no faith god does not exsist"
another thing in other cultures there were gods for reasons like there was Mars the god of wars, back then there could have been a god sickliness, and a god of hangovers (thats rom the hogfather from the disc world books)
But on another reason it apears that the age old question of how the universe was created
the big bang, but where did the dense ball of mass that exploded?
If god reveals himself and is there belief would die and he wouldnt exsist since he depends on faith if he does or doesnt exsist
i mean when you are a child you think so many things are real the tooth fairy, santa claus, the easter bunny( dont know how this fits in with the holiday a kleptomaniac bunny that gives the stolen goods to the kids?)
Dont you pray to santa by making a wish list?
And if your naughty or nice=good worshipper , or sinner , the people who do good get rewarded , and the sinners gert punished by reciveing nothing,
so maybe thats what heaven and hell are
if you do good you get the ultimate reward
and if you do bad
a. you rot in your corpse
b. neither exsists
c. you wander the earth till it ends.
just my $.25 ( yes 25)

[jennabard]

good or evil, its all part of god.
but we all tend to think of god differently. we see god as a force for good and the devil the force of evil. but in essence god is above dualities. god is perfect, whole; above good and evil. unfortunatly perfection is a concept we cannot comprehend so we divide god into two and claim that the light is god. i really think that the indians with their study of the minds, the 'brahmavidya' (supreme science) has a closer idea of god and godhood than most. i'd difinitly recommend reading the bhagavad gita. it was very poetic and enlightening.

is it just me or do anyone of you see, feel, or become enlighten, inspired of god through any medium of art and literature. for me these are the truest expressions of god or our seach for god?

[The Outsider]

<cracks knuckles>


1. Conceptions of the Divine.
I've come to believe that the Divinity we call upon is, essentially, a metaphor for our moral goals. An anthropomorphic (loosely: human-shaped) deity gives us a sort of big sibling to look up to, one that will shelter and inspire us. This may seem like a weak attempt to displace one's morality onto the shoulders of something else, not believing that we can be capable of these things ourselves, BUT this is to be expected. We know that, currently, we are (probably) less than we wish for, So, we create a better-self, and try to fill its shape. The fact that the shape we are trying to fill is ourselves is a nice little deception that keeps the process going.

2. Creation of the universe.
It doesn't really matter, folks. It's here, we're here. There are things that we can do now that are more important than contemplating the origin of the Navel Nebula.

3. Religion as a means of social control.
Yes. Any shared system that attempts to keep and impose its shape is a force for social order. This, like the personal conception of divinity, be a good thing, but is fundamentally flawed. It is a blasphemy of a lot easier to tell someone else how to behave than to do it yourself; those that spend a great deal of time instructing others neglect, to varying extents, their own instruction. From this come flaws in the social order (the religion, which is a social projection of the personal projection of moral / behavioural ideals. <gasp> )- these imperfection increase and become entrenched, and the traditional shape of the religion becomes flawed. This is especially true in the cop-out philosophy of dogmatism, where some isolationist hermit X years ago is supposedly a good source of advice for the problems of Y today- a structure / approach is kept for far longer than its useful lifespan. An example of this would be the laws on celibacy and kosher foods; both of these reflect problems of their age of origin (un-cared for families and food poisoning) which have been partially ameliorated (taken care of) by historical and technical developments.

That'll do for now. Incidentally, if anyone's got any questions on Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sufism, Wicca, or New Age practices, feel free to ask. I'm going into my senior year in a degree in this stuff, and it's a good idea to try to keep a polish up over the summer.

[Kayless]

Originally posted by jennabard:
[QB]i'd difinitly recommend reading the bhagavad gita. it was very poetic and enlightening.QB]

I am familiar with the Bhagavad-Gita and did find it fascinating (though admittedly it’s been awhile since I last read it). In fact my sig (the bottom part ) Is a quote from it. “I am become death, destroyer of worlds”.

[cheesemage]

someone did their homework

[fable]

Outsider writes:
That'll do for now. Incidentally, if anyone's got any questions on Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Sufism, Wicca, or New Age practices, feel free to ask. I'm going into my senior year in a degree in this stuff, and it's a good idea to try to keep a polish up over the summer.

Ah, that explains your Colin Wilson handle. But an orthodox definition of a given religion all too often doesn't express the real beliefs of its followers, or at least the remarkable diversity of these beliefs, over time and in many places. To give an instance: a 4th century Orthodox Christian from Byzantia would have a very different belief system in surprisingly many respects from a 13th century clerk in Lieges, who in turn would look bemusedly at a 20th century Roman Catholic priest in Caracas, Venezuela, or a 17th century bishop in Mantua. One could say "they all partake in the substance of Christ," but this would be dodging the fact that, to each, Christ would be something very different, and the religion mean something very different; even if some of the forms were the same, the content would be extremely different.

And that's not taking into account modern religions, like Wicca, which, within the limitations of a few acknowledged branches, still manage to cover a fairly extensive and sometimes contradictory group of doctrines--some Wiccans believe in only a female deity, for example; others belief just as firmly in a duality.

Still, it's good to have someone around who can explain in a sentence the difference between Sunni and Shi'a, and who started up the B'hai faith, and why Anabaptists are not the same as Southern Baptists.

[fable]

Kayless writes:
You’re forgetting that God has an adversary (at least in the Judeo/Christian religion) who runs hell and is the one responsible for bringing people down below.

Leaving aside the issue of "are demons real or imaginary?", I'm inclined to think most monotheists, at most times, have used some objectified devil to simply transfer responsibility for their own selfish and/or incredibly short-sighted actions. It's a convenient scapegoat. More subtly, it's a way of claiming one is "free" of taint if you simply follow a socially accepted pattern of appropriate conduct. Similarly, if Exhibit A, here, would to do something socially unacceptable in a religiously homogeneous community, saying it was due to a devil's influence is a good way to avoid serious discussion about the value of the action: if the Evil One is to blame, it is automatically a bad action, and we don't need to discuss it any further.

IMO, evil is a problem of skewed perceptions--not *at* evil, but rather, in developing a sense of what is *good.* If I am taught that bullying people is good, that taking what you want is good, then I will make that evil my good (to near-quote Milton).

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

[Kayless]

I see the world as being in three primary colors: white (God), black (Devil), and gray (humanity). You have good on the one side, evil on the other, and Homo sapiens trapped in the middle. Between these forces of absolute evil and pure good you’ll find the populace torn between the two, as well as their own innate impulses and desires. I agree that the devil is a convenient scapegoat utilized too often by certain ministries in avoidance of human responsibility. Personal accountability is an essential component of freedom, and something that cannot be shirked to assuage guilt or liability. But most people at one time or another in their lives have blamed someone or something else for their own misdeeds; that’s not unique to religious folk. Having a mythical boogieman can be a handy thing when one doesn’t want to own up to their own sins, but ultimately it’s a hollow excuse for all involved. I think certain human values transcend culture and upbringing and persevere despite differences. If not, there would be no such thing as human rights, merely an anarchic rabble with a Nazi agenda of amorality.

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

[Anatres]

Wow! This has gotten really good!!

I'm here but choose to observe for a bit.

@Kayless; great dissertation.

[The Outsider]

@fable: I'll only tackle one of your requests at the moment, sm*rt*ss.

Sunni (traditionalists) and Shi'a (partisans) are the two major branches of Islam (the majority is Sunni, but the Shi'a minority is very very vocal). The divergence occurred after the death of Mohammed (pbuh)*, and is a consequence of the caliphate succession. After the death of Mohammed (pbuh), there were four universally recognized caliphs, or secular/military leaders that controlled the empire that the Prophet had established during his life. Two of these four caliphs were assassinated; it is the successor to the fourth that marks the schism. One group of the faithful wanted the assassination of the fourth caliph avenged, one group was more concerned with installing a new leader. Two factions arose, each with leaders, and the division was made. (this glosses over it very briefly, but I've decided not to use any reference material)

* pbuh - peace be upon him.

Okay, okay, in one sentence: Sunni succession is centered around the caliphate 'dynasty', whereas Shi'a is centered around the figure of Ali Bak'r.

[fable]

@Outsider: I'll only tackle one of your requests at the moment, sm*rt*ss.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not I am a smarta!s (and, to no one's great surprise, I am), I wasn't asking about those religions--I know about 'em, too, though I doubt, in many cases, as much as you do. I was only suggesting that if people have questions, it's nice to have someone in the group who can provide quick definitions, or in-depth, not-so-quick definitions.

And I can help out on a few.

[The Outsider]

@fable: You are quite correct in pointing out the dichotomy between textual belief and lived practice. Textual religion attempts, through a variety of means, to remain static to one worldview. The lived tradition is always changing.

That explanation is too simplistic. Another factor that plays a strong role here is the extent to which the textual version of the religion is disseminated. This is crucial for any time before the end of the fifteenth century in Europe, when the printing press enabled the mass publication of the Bible and religious pamphlets. Protestant denominations are the product of action on the part of those who felt that the textual tradition (the use of scripture, delivered in a language the congregation did not speak) was at odds with the needs of the lived tradition.

Many groups have tried to remain true to the textual doctrine, at the expense of fitting in with the lived metatradition around them. Example include the Amish, the Chasidism, and other fundamentalist groups, who practice life in the style that it was captured by the text.

This is, according to the modern tradition, a problem. The fundamentalists (for some reason, I feel like using the term 'anachronists', but it doesn't quite hold the meaning I need) have invested their lives in the textual practices that their textual (and a certain form of lived) tradition espouses.

So, why study the textual tradition? D*mn good question; one that I ask myself every time that essay season starts. Unfortunately, it is necessary to study the mythology of a religion in as <ahem> catholic a form as possible; written texts are generally considered to be universal. This is, upon further scholarship, not the case. (anyone tried studying the composition of the Christian bible? it's a mess)

Essentially, it's a copout. Textual studies attempt to access the lowest common denominator. Also, teaching the practice of religion in a university setting would be problematic under the auspices of modern secularism. What is possible, and indeed recommended by many of the more responsible professors, is a certain amount of field exposure. Tourism of this nature is shallow, but it is an invitation to make a genuine, human, lived connection to the religion under the glass.

------------

Incidentally, fable: would you care to get a ball rolling, on the subject of exactly how much of the New Age movement is a load of dingo's kidneys?

[Anatres]

Jeeeezzee, even though I did like Kayless' response my comment relating to 'great dissertation' should have been addressed to Outsider!!

Once again mea culpa

Hummm, I was thinking earlier about the existance of the Universe and God (strange how this forum can stick with you at times! ). Why can't that initial bundle of proto-matter have been God? The Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Always being ever expanding the make up of everything.

I also believe that everything must have an opposite. Physics, at least under current theory and with the evidence of empherical tests, shows that 'every action has an opposite and equal reaction'. That there is no light without dark no cold without heat. Why can't this also be applied to the God/Devil equation? All of Nature has balance. Man is constantly striving for a sense of balance. Yes, it's easy to 'use' the concept of evil to excuse bad behavior and morality to support 'good' behavior. This also allows some to justify a lack of responsibility for one's actions ('The devil made me do it!' as Flip Wilson would always say).

I think I'll stop as I seem to be rambling....

[The Outsider]

This post'll be really quick. Honest.

My favorite view of the creation of the universe occurs in one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld books (btw- read them all; they kick b**t*):

"In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded."

[jennabard]

your doing fine anatres, we tend to ramble when musing the aspect of god.

frankly i think we all have valid points and ideas. after all the idea of god is ever elusive in nature. something just beyond us yet so close that we could feel the heat.

[Kayless]

Originally posted by Anatres:
[QB]Wow! This has gotten really good!! [QB]

I completely agree with you, Anatres. This topic has generated some really powerful discussion from everyone involved. One thing I especially like is the fact that no one has claimed that one particular religion is the best/true one. It’s merely atheism versus belief in some kind of greater divine power. (You must first convince people there is a God before you start worrying about which religion to follow )

[scully1]

Originally posted by Anatres:
<STRONG>I also believe that everything must have an opposite. Physics, at least under current theory and with the evidence of empherical tests, shows that 'every action has an opposite and equal reaction'. That there is no light without dark no cold without heat. Why can't this also be applied to the God/Devil equation?</STRONG>

Matters above and beyond science, I think...the sculpture is made of marble, but the artist is not...the creation and the creator are not the same thing. The "law of opposites" you mention exists in our cosmos as a creation of the divine wisdom for the order of the material universe -- for the maintenance of balance, as you say, in that universe. But the creator himself is above such distinctions. Logically speaking, the "devil" cannot possibly be equal to God, because there can only be one creator. Wouldn't it be fair to say that the creator must be all-powerful in order to create all life? So logically, anything, any force, other than the creator is inferior.

Counter-argument: There may be two equal forces that created together, thus making the world as a reflection of their relationship.

Answer: Many ancient creation traditions hold similar to this idea. As far as I see it however, if we're talking about God and the devil (good Being/evil Being), the contention between the two would be negative, not creative. The two forces resist one another. This leads nowhere. The universe would still be engaged in this static struggle if that were the case...

Quantum physics (I'm no scientist, but this is what I've been led to understand) also shows that there are no fixed universal laws; that all is changeable and bendable and there are all kinds of windows through what we consider fixed invariables. The cosmos is more than we can explain with our finite minds.

[Anatres]

@Kayless, yes it is good to see this discussion keep going without it deteriorating into a 'spam fest'. The Political-alignment thread has become quite good too even though it started out on the 'light' side (sort of ).

EDIT: Although EMINEM hasn't showed up yet either. I've read enough of him to know that he'd jump right into this with a
very strong dose of 'New Testament Fundamentalism' that would probably be the death of the thread, although he is entitled to his beliefs.

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

[scully1]

Yes, I'm also very proud of everyone here for being so mature, intelligent, and respectful