| Author |
|
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 7:01pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Rick Shepherd wrote:
| And by the same token, doesn't it also make sense that blind faith is probably the best way to accept something as massively, inherently contradictory as your average holy book? Don't bother reading all those troubling bits that can't be reconciled via logic - just skim the famous bits and buy into the whole 'God is good' bit without giving it too much thought. |
|
|
My faith is based on the idea that there is something greater than us, that there is a source of everything -- in the western religious tradition in which I was raised, and in which I choose to place my spiritual center as an adult, that "something" is called "God." My "faith" in the Bible -- the tome which attempts to explain the history and origins of the peoples from whom the western religious tradition that I follow -- consists of a certainty that this specific tome is the work of mortal men from generations long past.
The central figure of the religious tradition that I choose to follow is shown in that tome to have spoken in parables that seem intended to provoke intelligent thought and reflection, rather than specifically establishing and laying-out a well-defined set of direct chapter-and-verse rules and regulations to follow. That same central figure also said very little about organized religion, establishing organized religions, or of the need to worship HIM specifically, yet the tradition that sprung up is all about establishing organized religion (yeah, yeah, "no one comes to the Father except through me" doesn't mean you have to WORSHIP him specifically unless you want to read it that way -- it speaks more to following his teachings, and "I am the way" seems a lot like something picked-up from Lao-Tzu and the Tao Te Ching if you bother to try to play connect-the-dots).
The only true "fact" here, though, is that the Bible and the words therein are all the work of man, and relatively "ancient" man by modern technological standards. The organized religion itself and its teaching are also the work of man -- granted, the goal is partially to gather like-minded people and to provide some framework for their shared beliefs, but there is also a governance aspect to the organized religion, too.
When it comes to my own spirituality and my own peace of mind, and when it comes to finding clues to help provide some direction for my moral compass, my needs often intersect with the organized religious framework that I ascribe to. Ditto when it comes to providing community service, good-hearted outreach to those in need, and loving support to those who have none.
The words in the Bible give all of us who ascribe to the same faith a set of common elements to reflect upon in order to try to discern what we feel called to do in this world at any given point in time, in both the near-term and in the long-term. Beyond that, memorizing verses or getting tied-up in knots over the fact that there most certainly are two distinct creation stories, or engaging in secular or non-secular disagreements about whether "the fall" (when Eve supposedly ate the apple) was a good or bad thing (was it a downward fall from grace that separated mankind from the higher power, or was it an upward "fall" to a more god-like state of sentience and self-awareness that actually brought mankind closer to the higher power?) is all semantic, and not really very important at the end of the day.
So, yeah, camels through eyes of needles, burning bushes, water into wine and walking on water and all that -- neat stories, to be sure, with some nuanced lessons to be learned if people are willing to try to discern the intent rather than getting hung-up on the words and the literalness, but it certainly doesn't seem to me like that was the point of the teachings found in the Bible (particularly the New Testament).
So, you'll have to forgive me for just skim the famous bits and buy into the whole 'God is good' bit without giving it too much thought, but that's just how I roll.
It makes heads explode on the rigid fundamentalist side of the fence, and it also seems to make heads explode on the rabid non-believer side of the fence.
Definitely more bang for your buck than simply asserting that you DO have all the answers -- and a lot less constipating, too.
:-)
Edited by John Bodin on 16 September 2013 at 7:01pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rick Shepherd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1095
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 7:47pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
See, I know a few folk who share the same view - that their religious-book-of-choice is essentially a big collection of ancient myths and fables, many of which are rooted in the mores of antiquity, but with core messages delivered from On High that are still applicable today, provided you adapt them to suit present-day society.
And honestly, if that works for them, more power to 'em - they've thought it through, come to a conclusion that works for them, and they go living moral, decent lives, driven by a personal spiritual sense. I don't share it at all, because by the same token, I don't believe in anything of the sort, but if my rigid non-belief and my friends personal, private spiritual beliefs are what allow us collectively to sleep better at night and "be excellent to each other" (name that film!), then who are any of us to say what the others should think in our own minds?
That's why I have no real beef with personal, private spirituality (provided it doesn't get in the way of rational thought and general morality - if I have an axe to grind, it's with organised religion, and the apparent need to root society in ancient, unchanging dogma, and 'morality' that belongs in the Dark Ages. That, and proselytising - again, back to my previous point, we have a right to freedom of thought. And it's fair to say that so many religious organisations over the centuries have made it a mission to effectively stamp that out, either through brainwashing/forced ignorance, or persecution.
To paraphrase Michael Spector in the following (fantastic) lecture, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, and even their own beliefs. But they're not entitled to their own FACTS". And it's just not on at all to lump your own beliefs on someone else, thus stopping them from forming their OWN opinions and beliefs - and in the case of such idiocy as 'intelligent design', limit them from access to FACTS, because one shackles them with the ignorance of people who didn't know better at the time. We do - or rather, we should.
Michael Specter: The danger of science denial
Edited by Rick Shepherd on 16 September 2013 at 7:51pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:03pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Rick Shepherd wrote:
| That's why I have no real beef with personal, private spirituality (provided it doesn't get in the way of rational thought and general morality - if I have an axe to grind, it's with organised religion, and the apparent need to root society in ancient, unchanging dogma, and 'morality' that belongs in the Dark Ages. That, and proselytising - again, back to my previous point, we have a right to freedom of thought. And it's fair to say that so many religious organisations over the centuries have made it a mission to effectively stamp that out, either through brainwashing/forced ignorance, or persecution. |
|
|
See, I think this is how we're both awfully close to sharing almost the exact same perspective on things -- after all, there are hundreds of deities that neither of us believe in, so I'm really only one "behind" where you are (or perhaps three, depending on your view of "the Holy Trinity").
;-)
FWIW, I also agree the Michael Spector quote -- and along those lines, I'm also a firm believer in evolution, and I greatly enjoyed exchanging the Peace on Sunday with the lesbian couple who sat behind us in church with their small son. If you give us a chance, many "believers" will surprise you in positive ways (and obviously you're someone who IS open-minded enough to be cool with my beliefs, just as I'm open-minded enough to be cool with yours).
THAT is my definition of "fellowship," and that's why I think the rigidity of the scripture is less important to being a true Christian than the way you choose to live. Lots of "truth" to be found in that now-chiched saying, "What Would Jesus Do," I think -- and a lot of that truth is pretty painful and impossible to swallow for the truly rigid "believers," unfortunately.
[EDITED FOR TYPO]
Edited by John Bodin on 16 September 2013 at 8:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:04pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Brian Hague wrote:
| John, Amazing Spider-Man Annual #16 put him in the Medium-weight category... |
|
|
AWESOME! As an Aquarian myself, I gotta say I love that classification!
:-)
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
John Bodin
Byrne Robotics Member
Purveyor of Rare Items
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3911
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:08pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
BTW, Rick -- your link doesn't work.
:-(
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Rick Shepherd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1095
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:11pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
AAAAARRGGH!! Blasted forum formatting - I'm giving up on editing the original post, because it'll just muck up all the spacing and whatnot. Here's the link again, hopefully working this time.
'Michael Specter: The danger of science denial':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OMLSs8t1ng
(edited THIS post, because having a text hyperlink isn't working for me, for some inexplicable reason...)
Edited by Rick Shepherd on 16 September 2013 at 8:15pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:18pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
John wrote: "Only in John is Jesus portrayed as bearing
the cross himself. In the other three Gospels, it is a
man named Simon whom the Romans compel to do the heavy
lifting. All four versions agree it was the entire cross
that was carried. The notion that it was the cross beam
alone is a much later invention, brought in when some
folk took the time to calculate just how much the typical
portrayal of the cross would weigh.
Another of so many instances, here, where people
believing themselves "devout" rewrite Holy Scripture to
suit their modern perceptions -- which, of course,
undermines the very basis of the Faith."
I disagree, but I assume you mean the word cross must
mean the whole cross. Possibly, but I don't think it has
to, without re-writing anything.
Edited by Ted Pugliese on 16 September 2013 at 8:19pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Ted Pugliese
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 December 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7985
|
| Posted: 16 September 2013 at 8:25pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
And didn't you suggest earlier, with staurus or stauros,
that it didn't mean the whole cross? Didn't you?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 35941
|
| Posted: 17 September 2013 at 12:16am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Ted Pugliese wrote:
I disagree, but I assume you mean the word cross must
mean the whole cross. Possibly, but I don't think it has
to, without re-writing anything. |
|
|
You certainly can't think that it's metaphorical...right? I mean, the whole "a cross to bear" ties directly into the thought that Jesus had a literal cross he bore on the way to his crucifiction. It's not said that I have "a post to bear".
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Krawchuk
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 June 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 5819
|
| Posted: 17 September 2013 at 1:09am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
You know who has post to bear? Mail carriers.
That pun is twice as funny (what's two times zero again?) if you know I work at a postal facility.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14857
|
| Posted: 17 September 2013 at 1:36am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
As an aside, this gets stuck in my head every time I see this thread topic:
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 133318
|
| Posted: 17 September 2013 at 5:39am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I disagree, but I assume you mean the word cross must mean the whole cross. Possibly, but I don't think it has to, without re-writing anything..... And didn't you suggest earlier, with staurus or stauros, that it didn't mean the whole cross? Didn't you? •• Two different points.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
