Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: And yet, all over the world, we see old interpretations of faiths giving way to new ones to deal with changing circumstances. Let me ask you: why do you hate this so much? Even Christopher Hitchens did not believe religion would just vanish, because the "God gene" is almost certainly a thing. The modern West has turned its religious impulse to the cults of various Hollywood celebrities or the atomistic cult of the self. As Anton LaVey said, "[LaVeyan/Randian] Satanism is how most Americans live their lives most of time." I don't think the worship of celebrities or "frag you, I've got mine" hyper-individualism can be described as anything but decadence born out of late-capitalist atomization. Meanwhile, the developing world is only strengthening its devotion. And even in the West, that decadence is largely a disease of financially-stable white people. Every black person I know is shockingly religious in a sense other than rank narcissism or "I spend all day following every single thing Taylor Swift does ever because omg she's a goddess." God calls out to the oppressed. Quote: Because Americans are the only Christians? The Catholic Church is literally as we speak canonizing a patron saint of anti-imperialism, Oscar Romero, a Salvadoran liberation theology anti-poverty Archbishop murdered by right-wing death squads. The Lutherans and Anglicans have already canonized him, you can mostly thank South African liberation theology Anglicans for that last one. And yet you're acting like Christianity is just some conservative American thing. Quote: Paul's so-called "misogyny" is a myth that belies not having actually read the Pauline epistles or paid attention in sunday school. Women were the majority of early Christians and had a key role in the church, up to and including the bishopric. It was Luke, Paul's protege, who emphasizes the egalitarianism of the Sermon on the Mount the most. Paul's own comments are advice for survival, for women in a specific time and place. Women's equality was exactly one reason why Christianity was seen as so strange by the Romans. Unless we wanted to die, yes, adopting Roman ways of life publicly were for the best. And this is what Paul said, he would have rejected any sort of eternal law. He was an ex-Pharisee who argued first and foremost Christ's death rendered neuter any claim to salvation by following this law or that law. He was, in fact, homophobic as was any man of his time. But again, commenting on this belies a total lack of understanding of Paul. It was Paul, more than anyone, who said that Christianity is defined by faith in Christ's death and resurrection. That faith will be evidenced in good works, in compassion, in helping your fellow man. If you truly believe in Christ's message, that is the result. "Salvation by works," the ritual law, was rendered invalid because the Temple now lives in man's hearts. Paul's own views thus have no bearing on the nonexistent law, even fundies read his words for theological insight rather than law. Note that they still portray Jesus with long hair, though Paul also opposed carrying that Essene tradition into Christianity as something that would impede Roman conversion and acceptance. Rejection of Paul is half-assed Christianity, considering the rock on which Christ built his church (Peter) accepted that the ritual law was dead and Christ was also messenger to the gentiles. Over and above James, brother of Christ's, "but this is like Judaism right lol" objections.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
All right, I get that for you, religion comes down to two basic principles (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) Moral initiative. Christ's message makes everyone brothers and sisters, encourages equality, and the stamping out of sexism, racism, greed, pride, war, and class conflict. 2) The essential aesthetic beauty of religion. _____________________________________ I think that this is the major disconnect between us, because for me, religion comes down to this principle: 1) Proof of a God/Goddess or pantheon of deities that, once believed in, will actually do stuff for you. See, this is important for me: If I sacrifice some incense or the odd bit of frankincense, a grateful God/Goddess will smile down on me and bestow upon me some important favor, such as $1000 to pay bills, or the remission of a cancer. THIS would be a practical result for me. The whole bit about my soul being salvaged after my death and sent to some great Paradise, while a nice bonus, is a bit of an afterthought while I'm still here on Earth. And this is where every religion so far fails: Not one of them actually achieves what it sets out to do, i.e., offer concrete proof that there's an Eye in the Sky that's looking out for you and, furthermore, will actually intervene once in a while to give you a bit of help. Why is it when I stub my toe or cut myself shaving that I can't quickly push the panic button and get a remission for the pain? Hell, even a hug now and then would be great. SOMETHING to let me know that I've got a Guardian Angel/Daemon/Snuffaluppagus that is inclined to offer me a bit of assistance. Sorry, but without 1)practical proof of the existence of God/Goddess/Gods, and 2)without there being any positive personal benefit to being religious, I just don't see any reason to believe. I don't know how to state my objection to the whole charade any more strongly. Now, beyond that, yes, I understand that religion has traditionally been a strong political and social motivator. The history of Constantine and the subsequent Roman Papacy certainly proves this. The Crusades and the Reformation were epochal events. However, this all comes under the heading of political history, not religious history. The fact that millions of people died under the banner of the Cross, or opposing it, does nothing to prove the truth of any of it. Bottom line? I need $1000. I pray for it. No result? No one listening? No point in continuing. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: Basically, excepting "class conflict" there depending on your definition. Inner emotions stirred by story and communal ritual, and even more fundamentally their relationship to relational ethics are at the heart of religion for me. Historical or experiential evidence is helpful, and I have some of each, but not necessary for faith. You are looking for concrete, empirical proof. But that has only been equated with "truth" for about 3 centuries, and only in the Western world. It's like asking for concrete proof of a work of art's beauty. It's an experiential, emotional thing. Quote: What kind of test would that be, where you go through life on god-mode? It's up to us, as a species, to develop that means ourselves. All we do is choose. Sometimes those decisions are careless and we get cut. If we didn't have freedom of choice, including the freedom to fail, that is not a loving relationship with God nor would we then truly be made in God's image. That said, again, I do have firsthand experiential proof that there is something beyond the sensory. It's the simplest explanation for various convenient happenstances. What, I have no certain knowledge of whatsoever. So, I believe what makes the most sense, but more importantly what's the most rising to the spirit. And even without those experiences, it still would be.
Religion is a well-tilled field,
Planted and watered by desire Of one who longed for Paradise, Or one who dreaded Hell and Fire. Aye, were it but for reckoning At Resurrection, they had not Worshipped God, nor did repent, Except to gain a better lot-- As though religion were a phase Of commerce in their daily trade; Should they neglect it they would lose-- Or persevering would be paid. If you two want to bridge the gap between each other's misunderstandings, then I humbly suggest ya'll read up on the philosophies advocated by Kahlil Gibran. Among other things, Gibranism fervently encompasses feminist, socialist, anti-imperialist, internationalist, anti-conservative/traditional values, socially liberal and anti-theist ideas (specifically against organised/institutionalised religion characterized by an official doctrine (or dogma) and a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure with a codified set of rules and practices); yet at the same time Gibran vehemently and passionately espouses the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene. @MissStrangelove Which Church do you attend specifically? Which denomination? ![]() The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
I always thought Gibran was some sort of Sufi Muslim a la Rumi. It seems I was mistaken.
As for the whole ecstatic love thing...dude, I'm fundamentally Western in outlook, with a heavy dose of Slavic melancholy to boot. Ecstacy is alien to me. I can't base a philosophy or a set of life choices around a concept I fundamentally can't understand. As for religious anarchism, fine. That's exactly why we have a million little Protestant sects floating around. The mountains are filled with little shacks catering to self styled preachers and the odd snake handler. That's what Martin Luther gave us (unintentionally) - the freedom to worship as, when, where, and how we choose. The Constitution of the United States guarantees it. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Comrade Gulper wrote:He was baptised and raised Maronite-Catholic until he was excommunicated by the Church for his anti-theistic writings, although he himself always cherished a personal spiritual belief. By the way the two poems I posted in italics here and in the other thread are actually Gibran's. Half of his works were originally written in English, not Arabic. Quote:You live in vegas right? I'm sure you can find some right around the corner. I was literally talking about MDMA in the other thread. World peace, I have a vision, Cannot be obtained through religion, But can be resolved chemically, There is a God called Ecstasy! ![]() The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Yeqon wrote: Even though I'd characterize my beliefs as closer in-line with Methodism, I attend an Episcopalian service. I find the music and ceremony more beautiful and uplifting; as someone who was raised Catholic, Christianity without chanting is hard to fathom. Methodist services can unfortunately be very staid and dry, the usual exception I've seen is Afro-American Methodism where I don't really fit in for obvious reasons. Theologically, I still can uphold that decision on the following grounds: 1) The United Methodists have issues related to stuffy conservatism on homosexuality, which the Episcopalians got over a few decades ago. Though I, like John Wesley, think the world Anglican Communion needs serious reform and could not care less about the Queen or her above-the-law family including the ephebophile second son, the Episcopal Church is more in the vein of Desmond Tutu's South African Anglicanism. The Anglican Communion is thankfully very autonomous within its national branches. 2) Plus, I would ultimately like to see the Reformation's schism healed. I think the strong degree of papal authority was a usurpation not found in the early church and Christ's words to Peter, where Rome does appear to have been "first amongst equals." Thus, I believe the Reformation to be a necessity, but it's still a division within the Church (of believers). Once Rome accepts our terms, reunion is a good in and of itself.. Episcopalians make active efforts towards reunion with Rome. Note that despite taking the same view on the Reformation as the Orthodox, I literally could not be Orthodox because I disagree with their conception of the Trinity on a fundamental level. It's interpreted as three persons mystically united, where Western Christians opt for interpreting it as one figure who is divided into three for our understanding. The Orthodox version, the Muslims are right, is pseudo-polytheistic; and easily gives way to fully-polytheistic beliefs like those of the Mormons.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
The other thing that fundamentally irritates me is that, granted I do possess some sort of after-life, I'm apparently not going to have any more control over it than I do in my current life. This deity of yours gives me nothing but a stark choice between Heaven or Hell, where the future is laid out for me for all eternity in either scenario.
Apart from a few billion degrees of heat, what's the difference? Why can't I make my own rules and do whatever I feel like doing? Does he seriously think me so much of a threat that I have to be neatly contained in either a nice cloudy Heaven or a volcanic flame filled Hell? Why can't I say, "Thanks, dude", and strike out on my own? What does he care? I'd rather be alone for a while. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: As a universalist, I believe the idea of an eternal Hell contradicts an all-loving God. If all do not eventually go to Heaven, if there is such a thing as an irredeemable soul (which I doubt), the destruction of those souls would have to be true. Eternal torment cannot be, logically; it's a monstrosity. So, I believe you have choice through your actions and beliefs over going to Heaven (being a saint; literally a saint is someone who has confirmably reached Heaven) or being like most people and experiencing Purgation, a way of coming to grips with your sins. I do not believe Purgatory is permanent. I believe even the Devil will one day be redeemed, even Hitler will eventually reach Heaven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism
Sounds like you're more pissed off at Him rather than not believing in Him Gulper. That's OK. My chosen name is also that of the first angel who rebelled against Father's will for not letting his children have it their own way.
@MissStrangelove I agree with your sentiment regarding the existence of a literal hell. The very concept is an abomination to humanity. Gibran said: "Hell is not in torture but in an empty heart." As for the afterlife, Gibran believed in human reincarnation. Admitedly to me the reincarnation of an individual consciousness is by far the most reasonable to believe in logically speaking, based on the fact that given enough time, what existed once may again come into being ad nauseam times; and because no matter what, it gives us an unlimited amount of chances to forget and start over anew. It seems like the only theoretically sound version of an afterlife from a purely materialistic and scientific point of view. Last edited by Yeqon on 23 May 2016, 01:41, edited 5 times in total.
![]() The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member
I'm agnostic on whether reincarnation is or is not a thing. I really don't know. Nietzsche's argument for it was actually pretty sound, but only "reincarnation" in a very loose sense and it only dealt with the fact that eventually, given enough time, the same set of circumstances will eventually arise. It didn't deal with individual human consciousness, which would not transfer from life to life.
But a hypothetical afterlife would be beyond the bounds of the material world, something science is not really made to comment on. I suppose you could interpret it as another dimension of reality, but it'd likely be extra-sensory by our understanding if its physical laws are not the same as our own. So, it's relegated to theological/philosophical discussion more than scientific.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
Origen was thrown out of the Founding Fathers Hall of Fame, and Erigena was condemned out the wazoo, for their Universalist beliefs. Why? Because the idea conflicted with the "all or nothing", "for us or against us" power concentration of the emerging Imperial Orthodox Church under Constantine. You can't go around saying, "Everyone gets saved in the end whether they like it or not" when you're trying to eradicate heresy and build a totalitarian power structure.
And this is also why there will never be, and never can be, an ultimate reconciliation of the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches. Tower of Babel, guys. Of course, here and there, huge monolithic structures are built, usually by irresistible force in the same manner that Alexander unified the Greek world and Rome then swallowed up most of Alexander's gains. Politics and religion are motivated by tectonics in the same manner as the Earth itself. Push and pull, attraction and repulsion. In the meantime, tax all churches. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: Constantine's conversion, on the one hand, made Christianity far more acceptable and led to a flowering of belief worldwide. On the other hand, watered it down beyond recognition as power-seekers converted to it just to be closer to the Emperor. The fruits of that belief were weakened. It's the most tremendous mixed blessing in Christendom's history. You're seeing a strong reappraisal of Origen among Mainline Protestants today though. Most Presbyterians would outright agree with him, although to me that seems like trying to worm Calvinism around in such a way that it's not utterly horrific and ceases to be Calvinism. "An elect are the only ones called to redemption, even though Jesus totally says exactly the opposite in the Sermon on the Mount... but the elect is everyone, so, actually it doesn't contradict him!" A significant minoriy of Episcopalians/Anglicans, Lutherans, Dutch and Swiss Reform are universalist too. From personal experience I can say it's about half of all Episcopalians, with the other half being split between annihilationists and (usually very stuffy WASP types who are Episcopalian only because their great-granddaddy Nigel Winthrop Worthington-Russell VIII was) damnationists. Frankly, under Vatican II even the Roman Catholics have adopted some of Origen's beliefs. A sincere believer in effectively anything beyond "self" goes to purgatory, not hell, under the modern doctrine. Logically this is not-fully-thought-out near-universalism, confining Hell to just sociopaths. Quote: There have been strong overtures on the part of the Anglicans and Lutherans, as well as Eastern Orthodoxy, towards Rome. Meanwhile, you're seeing increased unity between the Church of Scotland (Presbyterians) and Church of England. I think ultimately you will in fact see the Reformation schism ended, and the East-West one, on Protestantism/Orthodoxy's terms. There is no feasible way to end it without ending papal supremacy, because Orthodoxy and high-church/tradition-based Protestantism will never accept it. Meanwhile, a Pope who wants "St. Whatshisface the Great" appended would probably be perfectly willing to push for unity at the expense of his own supremacy, in favor of the traditional "first amongst equals" understanding. Comrade Gulper wrote: Quote: "We are brothers!" ![]() Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill wrote: Last edited by Yeqon on 23 May 2016, 14:50, edited 2 times in total.
![]() The great art of life is sensation, to feel that you exist, even in pain.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
I'm just not interested in a bunch of ancient salvation salesmen joining forces to form a giant spiritual Walmart.
The only conception of Jesus that resonates with me is the Gnostic version of the trickster fox who came down from Heaven, stuck it to the man, and then cheated the Devil (who was really Jehovah in a Darth Vader mask, anyhow) by pretending to croak it on the cross. For that matter, the cross is the biggest red herring in all of religion. Shouldn't putting Jesus' body on it and emphasizing his sufferings in excruciating detail be regarded as blasphemy? It's not like he stayed there...or did he? Are we keeping him there somehow by going all Mel Gibson on the poor guy? Aren't we missing the point? He tricked the Devil or whomever by pretending to die on that pop stand, then split the tomb and ascended up to the Right Side of the Tracks where he abides in comfortable Old Money eternity. Shouldn't that be enough? Except it never is. Jesus bleeds real raw blood every time someone sins against the faith, the Church, the Pope, Pat Robertson, or Ronald Reagan. My heart bleeds for him whose heart bleeds for me - on cue - every time I screw up. Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: It's about how God became an example to humanity by truly becoming human, in every sense. Including the ability to suffer, even to die. In traditional Christianity, he did in fact die. And then rose, as we rise after death. He went Obi-Wan on the Devil, in a sense he did in fact trick the Devil. And it's more than that, that's the signal of the end of Adam's fall. That's the death of the Last Adam, birth of the New Man. That's the signal of the way to get out of Adam's mess, out of the mess we've created for ourselves. That's God's way of pulling us out from under the foot of his lesser, the Devil; a foot we willingly crawled under. And now we must work towards the New Jerusalem. We should also emphasize what he suffered for, what caused the Passion in the first place. Many Christians worldwide, especially in the third world, do. But his suffering is a tremendous part of the Christian faith, his bleeding as a man.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized
I just can't help but question the entire point of it. It just seems so lacking in logic. Why let all of this happen in the first place? It's just ridiculous. Textbook bad parenting.
Meanwhile, Yeqon apparently wants to sell me Ecstacy. Thanks, but one Syd Barrett is enough. "Wouldn't you miss me??? Wouldn't you miss me at alllllllllllllllll?" Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: Textbook good parenting. Give your children, made in your image, a choice. If they screw it up, provide them the means to help themselves out. Adam's fall has been traditionally interpreted (back to Augustine) as symbolic of our failings, Christ's example is the means out. What you're asking for is a parent who gives you whatever you want, whenever you want. This is a good way to produce spoiled brats, who are unable to cope with life on their own as they grow dependent.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44 Ideology: None Philosophized MissStrangelove wrote: Why couldn't he just give us the power to create and control our own circumstances? If none of us could exactly do better, I don't see how any of us could screw it up any worse. I don't need to co-depend on anyone, much less the grand creator. Just let him give me what I need to function on my own -which is the power to determine my own surroundings and make my own destiny on an appropriate scale, not the pittance he currently mocks us with - and I'll do just fine. Instead, when a son of his asks for something more than a dollar for school lunch, we get this big shuck and jive story about the fall of Lucifer and the creation of Hell, etc. It reminds me of Oliver Twist: "Please, Sir, may I have some more?" Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08 Ideology: Trotskyism Party Member Comrade Gulper wrote: So, you're asking as an individual to have all of his powers. You are asking to be able to make whatever you want, whenever you want. It's up to us as a species to get there, and even then I'd be shocked if any one individual man has all that power. We also have far more power than you seem to think. We already have the power to destroy all life on Earth's surface, the whole nuke thing is a good example of Revelations-level stuff. The consequences of climate change likewise. "And I am become death, the destroyer of worlds." The Bhagavad Gita, or J. Robert Oppenheimer? |
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
|
||||||