Toadfish Monastery

I've noticed a lot of us seem to have been raised catholic, whether you are or not now. I've been sort of wondering since before we moved over here from the Other Place.

I've done the whole enchilada, from baptism to marriage to sunday school for the first communion of my kid, buuut....
[rant]
I no longer go to mass, and when I go I don't do communion. The last time I went  (this past sunday because of my wife) I had the 'pleasure' to listen to the intolerant speech about the destruction of the family and society by gay marriage, abortion and contraception. >:( :( ??? ::)

Nope, I may go to the place from time to time, I may try to be neutral with my kid about it, but I no longer believe in the stuff. I think that the whole "love thy neighbor" has become conditional (as if!  ::)) and that it is just been used for political purposes.

I know that there are good christians -catholics included- because I know them, and there are a lot, but if the institution(s) don't seem to follow the old advice from the prophet, why should I follow their advice?
[/rant]
Sorry, I just had it fresh... :(

Grewup/raised as Assembly of God (a "charismatic" fundie protestant group, who's "claim to fame" is "speaking in tongues").

AoG is pretty intolerant of other Christian groups, as a denomination. Individual group-members' results will vary ::) .

Haven't been to an AoG church since I was a senior in High School, back in the late 70's.

My parents changed over to Methodist along about then, and from HS senior on, I went to the Methodist church.  Up until I quit going altogether.

As for Methodists-- they are even wider spread from right-wing-uber-intolerant-WE-are-the-ONLY-ONES through the middle-road all the way out to 'progressive Christians' that would be right at home in a Unitarian or Secular Humanist service. ;D

The Methodist's official position on gays is (paraphrased by me) "gay folk are okay. gay behavior is not okay.  No actively gay people may be ordained."  The degree to which this is strictly followed varies from church to church, and sometimes with individual churches. It's a big deal every national conference, which meets every 4 years. So far, the more liberal bunch has added "gay folk are okay" wording and kept out "gays are bad people" wording the last 3 national meets.

lapsed at 12 (apparently the catholics think Goats are going to hell)

Brought up Church of England (Protestant) in a very half-hearted way. My parents are not religious at all, but schools had assemblies with hymns and little kids were taught Religious Education, and made Christmas cards and Easter bunny stuff as part of lessons (no separation of Church and State in England).
By the time I was in secondary school multiculturalism was more established and R.E. taught all major world religions, but mainly by teachers who believed none of them (except possibly Goat's fundamentalist socialism).

As a non-Catholic I admire the way Catholicism often has people (usually nuns) dishing out care in the worst places, and the way it doesn't change its principles for reasons of popularity. Unfortunately they're not principles I agree with.
The wishy-washy "humanism with old buildings" of the C of E would be more tempting if I traded in atheism, though I suspect Christ would raise an eyebrow at the wealth amassed by either Church.

I was brought up Catholic.  My mother is Catholic, my father was nominally C of E, although he usually described himself as a "wheel barrow" (went wherever he was pushed).  He has subsequently converted to Catholicism.

I went through the whole thing, right up to and including confirmation.  Went through the usual period of questioning everything.  I vividly rememeber one day when I was 14 sitting up a jacarandah tree in my maternal grandparents' front yard and ruminating on life the universe and everything and suddenly realising that I just didn't believe.  Have never since found any evidence of or argument for any sort of divine being that even slightly convinces me, or even raises a serious question.

Sibling Bluenose

I'd call myself a Lutheran agnostic by now.
Having lost faith (gradually, no specific event responsible), I still have and respect a lot of values from the Lutheran upbringing (and have not shed my prejudices against the idolatric aspects of Roman Catholicism).

I was raised mainly non-religious, though my grandmother would take me to her Baptist church on occasion growing up.  Since what little religion I got was Protestant, I voted for that one.

For the most part, religion was just something that was part of the family history.  My Mom's side is made up of Baptists and Quakers, and there were a few family stories that had to do with religion.*  My Dad's side is Irish Protestant, but I never got any sort of anti-Catholicism from them... the general feeling was that there are twits on both sides, and everything in Northern Ireland would be better if people could learn to live with their differences.

I've been experiencing Catholicism first-hand for the better part of three years: she's Catholic, so I sometimes go with her to church, and of course we were married in a Catholic church, so I had to go through the interviews with the priest and the marriage preparation classes.  Apparently, I got extra attention because I'm unbaptised.  The priest told me that he had to go to the bishop with a "Petition for Difference of Cult" (no joke - that's what they call it!).

Nowadays, I still go with my wife occasionally, but I've also started attending the local Unitarian Universalist service.




*Like this one:

My Mom's family originally came from St. Thomas, a town in rural Ontario where they had an allied Air Force training centre during World War 2.  One day, my great uncle, a fervent tee-totaling Baptist, was approached by a couple of airmen on leave who asked him, "excuse me, do you know where we can get a drink?"

My great uncle roared back at them, "IN HELL!"

The airmen walked off, confused.

I was raised Unitarian, but a weirdly high percentage of my real-life friends were raised Catholic.

I think that many born-Catholics and Unitarians share an almost irreverant(!?) love of discussing spirituality.

I was raised nonreligious, my mom is functionally agnostic. My neighborhood was UU and Jewish.
(I chose atheist, it was closest of them)

Raised Southern Baptist.

Offered ordination by a different Baptist group, by the United Methodint Church and by the Christian Church.

Refused all ordination, based on a sincere belief that most chuches still treated women as second class members, so why be an elevated second class member? Some things have changed since then, some never will.

Raised Catholic - full boat, altar boy and everything.
Currently juggler of mental models.  ;D

Raised as an Anglicised Jew. This meant learning all the rules, obeying them when anyone was watching, breaking them when not, having all the jewish law and language beaten into me, and losing out in both worlds I existed in. All my friends who were not jews were not jews so at soem level they werent "real" friends and all my friends who were jews knew the rules and laws properly and never broke them. The anglicised part added a further complexity : 200 years in Britain had caused my family to be creative with the rules. I had to abide by my parents workarounds. Like ok to be caught by the frummers while putting shopping in the car (not allowed to drive or shop) on Shabbat, but only if wearing a skirt and not trousers. I gave up G-d as soon as I could.

Yes indeedy. Catholic schools, altar boy, novena attendance, saying the rosary, the whole bit.

The bit I really regret signing pro-life partitions, mainly due to group pressure. That's so not me these days.

It was truly revealing, finding out that many of the rituals I thought truly holy were man made and have changed over time (eg never touching the eucharist with your hands, purgatory etc).

In the end I just grew out of it. Mild atheist these days, but still looking for that definitive 'something'.

Although my family is officially Catholic (officially in the meaning of "we celebrate Christmas and Easter, but there is no religion behind it, just out of tradition, and because of all the free stuff you get"), I was born and raised atheist.

Which isn't very strange, because the Czech Republic is actually the least religious (ore on of the bottom ten, I think) countries in the world.

I was raised Catholic and went to a parochial school through eighth grade and still practice Catholicism today.  I go to church weekly and my faith helps me enormously in my profession. 

Today, I consider myself a moderate to liberal Catholic. 

When I have the time I will post my thoughts and what I agree/disagree with in regards to the teachings.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on January 06, 2007, 04:21:09 PM
Which isn't very strange, because the Czech Republic is actually the least religious (ore on of the bottom ten, I think) countries in the world.

I had a Czech school friend (his family was out of the country when the Soviets dropped in in 1968, and they decided not to go home). He was definitely one of the most atheist of my contemporaries.

Concerning atheism in the Czech Republic, I've found this thing:

Quote from: http://atheism.about.com
Atheism in the Czech Republic
As I reported here a while ago, the Czech Republic appears to be one of the most disbelieving nations in Europe. According to one poll, only 33.6% of Czechs belong to a religion and only 11.7% attend services once a month or more. That's the lowest rate for any country in Europe aside from Estonia.

(the whole article is quite interesting http://atheism.about.com/b/a/082332.htm )

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on January 06, 2007, 08:11:40 PM
(the whole article is quite interesting http://atheism.about.com/b/a/082332.htm )

Hmm. Do I detect a teensy implication from that article that religion is bad for you ;) .

Quote from: beagle on January 06, 2007, 08:43:08 PM
Hmm. Do I detect a teensy implication from that article that religion is bad for you ;) .

I would never claim that. And I don't think the author of the article is trying to say that, although it might get misinterpreted in that way.

But I though atheism was synonym with social decomposition and roasted babies (mmm... tasty!) or so the fundies claim all the time...
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I was probably brought up in a similar way as Kiyoodle. my parents werre only vaguely religious, but I went through all the 1st communion/confirmation stuff (because everybody else did it..), but since my confirmation (I think I was 14) I do not think I went to church more than once a year (at Christmas, with my relatives, who are far more religious than me; at least the French half of my family).

Religion has never played a significant role in my life; I'm still Catholic out of pure laziness and I don't back half of "my" religion's teachings. But then, (western) European Catholicism, at least the one I experienced, seems to differ a lot from the North American church. In half a century of (irregular, I admit  ;) ) church-going, I can't recall having heard particularly strict dogmatic (homophobic/"pro-life") stuff.

Wish I could say the same. I had to go to Confirmation Jesus camp last weekend, and yay for dogma! :-\

Raised Catholic by my mother, who has become increasingly religious and more dogmatic over the last few years. My father is a non-practicing Lutheran, though he occasionally attends a Southern Bap church with my step-mother.

Quote from: anon1mat0 on January 06, 2007, 11:49:53 PM
But I though atheism was synonym with social decomposition and roasted babies (mmm... tasty!) or so the fundies claim all the time...
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Feh. If we took the fundies seriously on ANYTHING, hell, if ANYBODY took the fundies seriously on anything, all our heads would explode.

And that would be ooky.

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on January 10, 2007, 04:53:58 AM

Quote from: anon1mat0 on January 06, 2007, 11:49:53 PM
But I though atheism was synonym with social decomposition and roasted babies (mmm... tasty!) or so the fundies claim all the time...
:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Feh. If we took the fundies seriously on ANYTHING, hell, if ANYBODY took the fundies seriously on anything, all our heads would explode.

And that would be ooky.

Now, if we could only somehow REVERSE the exploding head effect.

Yeah, it'd be a bit of a mess, but in MY experience, what you'd mostly get is IMplosions, which is much neater.

This is likely due to the well-known fact that fundies' heads are mostly composed of vacuum ... ::)

(Except for the "hardened" sort, like Hovind and his ilk.  It's been pretty much established that their heads contain a black hole ...)

Do I detect a smidgeon of antagonism towards Fundies? 

Tolerance for everyone please, even those less fortunate in the brain department  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Thank you, my dear NoName!

We try not to say too much against fundamentalists, but they do make themselves an easy target by insisting that they are unquestionably correct and the rest of us are going to hell.

If hell is a place without fundamentalists, then maybe it lines up with another person's idea of heaven. Ahem. but bless 'em, anyway! Why not?

An afterlife full of fundies would certainly be hell for me, that place may be heaven...  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Quote from: Griffin NoName The Watson of Sherlock on January 16, 2007, 03:51:14 PM
Do I detect a smidgeon of antagonism towards Fundies? 

Tolerance for everyone please, even those less fortunate in the brain department  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Naaah.  What you detect is derision.  ::) ::) ;D

All kidding aside, what I really feel for fanatics (and fundamentalists are almost always fanatics) is pity.

Like extremests of any stripe, their view of reality is severely hampered by their fanaticism.

(Of course, my view is crystal clear--no pre-concieved notions at all, at all......riiiiiggght. ::) :mrgreen: )

The theoretical fundies are not the real problem. Those who try to apply their theories are.

Last time I was in Prague (03) we were told it was THE least, so there ya go.

I have a fundamental dislike of the term fundamentalist. It seems to me to imply that extreme positions are in some sense fundamental to religion and that these people are essentially bigger or better believers or have some direct line to the essentials of a religion.

Quotefun·da·men·tal (fŭn'də-mĕn'tl)
adj.

Of or relating to the foundation or base; elementary: the fundamental laws of the universe.
Forming or serving as an essential component of a system or structure; central: an example that was fundamental to the argument.

in nearly all cases it appears to me that fundamentalists are people who have missed the fundamental point of the religion they have associated with and have instead decided to treat the non fundamental fringe and extremist elements of a particular creed as the important bits.

I *love* the world fundamentalist.

-alist generally is used to refer to someone with expertise or experience in the thing it follows.

Now, look up fundament in a dictionary.


;D

Quote from: Outis the Unready on January 18, 2007, 04:05:33 PM
I *love* the world fundamentalist.

-alist generally is used to refer to someone with expertise or experience in the thing it follows.

Now, look up fundament in a dictionary.


;D

Have to stop laughing.

But I can't.

;D

want to tell you off for hijacking my serious point but cant as have just fallen off my chair laughing!

Quote from: Outis the Unready on January 18, 2007, 04:05:33 PM
I *love* the world fundamentalist.

-alist generally is used to refer to someone with expertise or experience in the thing it follows.

Now, look up fundament in a dictionary.


;D

LOL!  We need a "mooning" icon... <heh>

So, by your astute logic, a fanatic is someone who is expert at blowing hot air?  LOL!

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on January 18, 2007, 06:29:53 PMLOL!  We need a "mooning" icon... <heh>

(http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/butt.gif)
(http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/spank.gif)

Quote from: Agujjim on January 18, 2007, 08:55:55 PM

Quote from: Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith on January 18, 2007, 06:29:53 PMLOL!  We need a "mooning" icon... <heh>

(http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/butt.gif)
(http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/spank.gif)

Thanks for that! Still chuckling over it... !

TEMPORARY THREAD HIJACK

If you want to do a cross-forum raid to super smilie land....
http://www.diamondring.com/forums/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=176#
Those two above are great, but there's lots of other good stuff there too...  (http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/patpat.gif)

(http://www.diamondring.com/forums/images/smilies/moresmiles/jump.gif)

WE NOW RETURN TO YOUR REGULAR PROGRAMMING

Well I voted for other, which technically is not true. I was christened under the Church of England because my grandparents wanted it, my grandmother is very big on Christianity, she almost left and became a superior nun in New Zealand. But my parents always raised me to believe in my own truths, and I have.

Welcome back, Gloria. We've missed ya!

Here you can be a monastic being without the hardships (provided you don't fall into the moat and become a squid or alligator victim  ;) )

Quote from: beagle on January 05, 2007, 11:07:06 AM
Brought up Church of England (Protestant) in a very half-hearted way. My parents are not religious at all, but schools had assemblies with hymns and little kids were taught Religious Education, and made Christmas cards and Easter bunny stuff as part of lessons (no separation of Church and State in England).
By the time I was in secondary school multiculturalism was more established and R.E. taught all major world religions, but mainly by teachers who believed none of them (except possibly Goat's fundamentalist socialism).

Same for me, but replace "England" with "Scotland".

Didn't bother when we were living abroad. (most of my life)

Got confirmed to get the long weekend away from boarding school.

Been to a couple of funerals and weddings since then, but that's it.

Mmm, other subject for the clone survey? :o

We will undergo your clone survey.

If it is multiple choice,

The answer is A. To every question. :smartass:

If it is not, all 3000 of me will be knocking on your door, demanding a multiple choice survey. :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie: :krabbie:

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 07, 2007, 07:43:44 PM
Mmm, other subject for the clone survey? :o

Nah, another triumph of the British education system. Killing religion stone dead by trying to teach it.

Born and Raised Unitarian Universalist, and I couldn't imagine it any other way.

I do know a lot of unitarians who describe themselves as "Recovering Catholics" which is a term I enjoy greatly.

~Qwerty

 :ROFL: I hadn't heard that one before!

 I attended a Baptist church from '67 thru '73 along with my sibs(5) I was the last to leave .

It was Hell back then most of the time , a horrid amount of sanctimonious hypocrisy , racism and intolerance .

Miss showing up for a week or two and the elders were condemning us little kids to Hell .

Why on Earth would we want to go to a church to defend ourselves against a good percentage of hateful kids and/or adults ?

By my mid teens I had turned agnostic (sort off) I couldn't follow Paul's God anymore , I liked Jesus God much better .

By the time I hit 21 , I looked into all the rest and decided they fell short as well , but at least were not as harmful as a fundie whatever .
Back in ' 89  I found myself giving fundie another try , but...

The pastors always evaded my questions , mainly regarding the logic and logistics of certain Old Testament writings ( and some bizarre stuff that be !)

Anyhow I did it mainly for my sis who is an angel .( the pastor had convinced her I was hell bound .

Being the character that I am I just go into any church i feel like and make myself at home ( I rarely feel like it )

Nowadays I show up at the UU at Christmas which is where I ought to be but I haven't joined .

Now I have found the HOT I needn't look any further , here is spirituality as God(s) intended , the home page says it all . :candle:

Quote from: Bruder Cuzzen on July 19, 2007, 11:36:51 PM
the pastor had convinced her I was hell bound

For some reason I have trouble admitting that they (the fundies) and us are going to the same place. For them to be in the same place with us would be the equivalent of going to hell, so I guess in a way we are going to hell. On the same token, if I end up in the same place as them, I would feel like I am in hell. Perhaps 'hell' is just a name for an uncomfortable place relative to me regardless of what the others may feel about it.

In any case I am convinced everyday more that their version of heaven is not mine. I am hell bound.  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

I like to think that if there is an afterlife, it is as infinite as it is eternal, and that a soul would have to open up to the Great Everything and accept all there in order to enter.

But that's only a supposition.

Quote from: Bruder Cuzzen on July 19, 2007, 11:36:51 PM

Now I have found the HOT I needn't look any further , here is spirituality as God(s) intended , the home page says it all . :candle:

Wow, that made my day. We've worked hard on the home page wording and we may alter it yet as we grow, but it's good to hear that someone appreciated it!

:hug:

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
Wow, that made my day. We've worked hard on the home page wording and we may alter it yet as we grow, but it's good to hear that someone appreciated it!

The work is very much appreciated.  Personally, I sometimes find it too easy to just take things as they are as being the way they are just because, and forget that lots of hard work goes into them.  Thank you (and everyone else!).

Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on July 20, 2007, 10:07:38 PM

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
Wow, that made my day. We've worked hard on the home page wording and we may alter it yet as we grow, but it's good to hear that someone appreciated it!

The work is very much appreciated.  Personally, I sometimes find it too easy to just take things as they are as being the way they are just because, and forget that lots of hard work goes into them.  Thank you (and everyone else!).

Yes , this must have taken much time and effort to put together :typing: , the site is esay on the eyes and userfriendly :thumbsup:

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
I like to think that if there is an afterlife

I love that wording  :)

Quote from: Bruder Cuzzen on July 19, 2007, 11:36:51 PM
Now I have found the HOT I needn't look any further

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
Wow, that made my day.
:hug:

What does it mean when all my thoughts can be quoted from other posts?
:D  :grouphug:

kooooombaaaayaaaaaaaa my lord.

kooooooomaaaayaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa



I'll stop.

as far as the afterlife is concerned, I don't really know what there is, nor do I know what to think, but I really hope I get to at least WATCH the rest of the world, if not mess with people as a ghost.

think about what you could do if after you died, all you did was move around as an incorpreal, intangible, invisible sensory intaking being.

~Qwerty

Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on July 21, 2007, 04:19:01 AM

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
I like to think that if there is an afterlife

I love that wording  :)

Quote from: Bruder Cuzzen on July 19, 2007, 11:36:51 PM
Now I have found the HOT I needn't look any further

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 20, 2007, 07:59:49 PM
Wow, that made my day.
:hug:

What does it mean when all my thoughts can be quoted from other posts?
:D  :grouphug:

It means you're home.
You don't need to ask how I know this.  :)

Quote from: Sibling Qwertyuiopasd on July 21, 2007, 04:45:05 AM
think about what you could do if after you died, all you did was move around as an incorpreal, intangible, invisible sensory intaking being.

Don't know if that would be wwhat I would chose for my afterlife.

Imagine you see all the people you left behind, all the people you love, see them suffer because of losing you, and you cannot really engage in a normal contact with them.

It's an afterlife full of suffering, if you ask me.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 21, 2007, 10:07:58 PM
Imagine you see all the people you left behind, all the people you love, see them suffer because of losing you, and you cannot really engage in a normal contact with them.

Imagine you see all the people you left behind, all the people you love, see them not noticing you had gone.....

When I am gone, I just want to be gone. zip. nothing. And there's always the chance that everything I think exists will go with me, which would get around both of the above.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 21, 2007, 10:07:58 PM
Imagine you see all the people you left behind, all the people you love, see them suffer because of losing you, and you cannot really engage in a normal contact with them.

well, I would avoid them, for a while at least. I'd probably just float about in secluded nature for a while or something. avoid people in general, then come back and see how society is doing. or spy on people like the president.

~Qwerty

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 21, 2007, 10:07:58 PM

Quote from: Sibling Qwertyuiopasd on July 21, 2007, 04:45:05 AM
think about what you could do if after you died, all you did was move around as an incorpreal, intangible, invisible sensory intaking being.

Don't know if that would be wwhat I would chose for my afterlife.

Imagine you see all the people you left behind, all the people you love, see them suffer because of losing you, and you cannot really engage in a normal contact with them.

It's an afterlife full of suffering, if you ask me.

Might be a bit like the curse of Cassandra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra) (she was given the gift of prophecy but also the curse that nobody would believe it, so she knew of horrible events to come, but was powerless to stop them)... you'd just have to watch and know, but do nothing.

Quote from: Qwertywell, I would avoid them, for a while at least. I'd probably just float about in secluded nature for a while or something. avoid people in general, then come back and see how society is doing. or spy on people like the president.

The temptation to see your loved ones would probably be to strong to avoid them.

I agree with Griffin on this one, when dead, then dead... Not floating around...

I think that either of those options are okay.

If you're simply dead, then great. No more pain.

If you're a conscious spirit, then it depends where your disposition is. If you are too concerned with what people think, you may find yourself in a sort of Hell, when you notice that the word continues to revolve without you. Maybe you need to learn this before you can find peace.

If you care for those you left behind and feel distress, perhaps you can comfort yourself with the thought that your consciousness remains, so that maybe theirs will as well.You could start planning on when you will be with them again. Where will you meet? Can you help them into the other side? If you have all eternity, what's the rush?

exactly. hopefully you'd be able to meet up with other dead folks and start popping ethereal pop-corn or something. and I don't think I'd get bored of this consious spirit thing. why not take the time to travel to the core? or look for life on other planets. it might take some time traveling, but then you'd see (relatively) first hand, um, everything.

assuming you weren't bound to earth somehow.

but hey, I don't think it much matters what we speculate, as we could just as easily be going to catholic hell.

I just have fun speculatin'

~Qwerty

Heh, I hope to instill a good measure of ancestor-worship in my descendants, and then hang about using what-if-any influence I may be able to exert to help 'em out.  And maybe play the odd prank.  ;)

But I'm using the working assumption that there's nothing after.  Saves disappointment.

Quote from: Agujjim on July 23, 2007, 08:01:00 PM
Heh, I hope to instill a good measure of ancestor-worship in my descendants, and then hang about using what-if-any influence I may be able to exert to help 'em out.

"Honey, we're raising the kids Shinto!"

;D

Quote from: Sibling Qwertyuiopasd on July 23, 2007, 07:54:00 PM
but hey, I don't think it much matters what we speculate, as we could just as easily be going to catholic hell.

Can an atheist/agnostic go to Catholic Heaven or Hell, if he doesn't believe in those two?

I mean, IMO, not believing in God, directly leads to not believing in Heaven, Hell and all the other stuff connected to the belief...

Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on July 23, 2007, 08:09:04 PM

Quote from: Agujjim on July 23, 2007, 08:01:00 PM
Heh, I hope to instill a good measure of ancestor-worship in my descendants, and then hang about using what-if-any influence I may be able to exert to help 'em out.

"Honey, we're raising the kids Shinto!"

;D

Well, I wouldn't get away with Shinto, but she's a recovering Catholic (I think it was a mild case to start with ;) ) with Eastern sensibilities, so not too much of a stretch.  Ancestor-worship rites are culturally important. 

She's not sold on my notion of a burial mound quite yet, though.  :mrgreen:
I'd like one, but it's personally only an option if I manage to do some good for the living first.

Maybe we'll do some good right here.

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 23, 2007, 08:09:42 PM

Can an atheist/agnostic go to Catholic Heaven or Hell, if he doesn't believe in those two?

I mean, IMO, not believing in God, directly leads to not believing in Heaven, Hell and all the other stuff connected to the belief...

As I understand it, Catholics think only Catholics go to Heaven and everyone else goes to Hell. So you only go to Catholic Hell if you're a Cathloic who ...isn't ...Catholic?

Quote from: Agujjim on July 23, 2007, 08:16:47 PM


Well, I wouldn't get away with Shinto, but she's a recovering Catholic

Holy carp! I thought you were going to say that she was an Unitarian!  ;)

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 23, 2007, 08:46:28 PM
Holy carp! I thought you were going to say that she was an Unitarian!  ;)

Haven't hauled her in to the local UU chuch yet (or me, for that matter - but maybe in the next 6 weeks).  We keep missing the particularly interesting services....

Quote from: Agujjim on July 23, 2007, 08:01:00 PMBut I'm using the working assumption that there's nothing after.  Saves disappointment.

well, I figure if theres oblivion, then... not much disappointment. if theres some other afterlife, It'll either be just as good, or... too bad. I'm not counting on this to happen, I'm just sayin' it'd be cool.

speculation.

~Qwerty

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 23, 2007, 08:46:28 PM
As I understand it, Catholics think only Catholics go to Heaven and everyone else goes to Hell. So you only go to Catholic Hell if you're a Cathloic who ...isn't ...Catholic?

Not quite... they still say you have to be baptised, but these days, they consider the baptisms of most other denominations to be "acceptable", since a baptism doesn't have to be performed by a priest to be valid (the key items are water, specifically water in contact with the skin, and the Trinitarian formula, i.e. baptising in the name of the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit).

Beyond that, mortal sin (i.e. one that violates one of the Ten Commandments) puts a person in danger of Hell. For Catholics, this sin can be absolved through confession to a priest and penance; for non-Catholics (or for Catholics who haven't confessed), they have to hope that whatever contrition they do and remorse they feel is satisfactory to God.

I think that got it, but anyone who knows their Catechism better than I do should feel free to correct me.

Recently the Opsalette and I were in an Episcopalian church and we found the baptismal font. She asked how a baptism is done, and so I baptised her in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit ...and  the mother! Would that count?
:halo:

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 24, 2007, 09:22:15 PM
Recently the Opsalette and I were in an Episcopalian church and we found the baptismal font. She asked how a baptism is done, and so I baptised her in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit ...and  the mother! Would that count?
:halo:

Interesting... I'm not sure.  There are various discussion boards with "ask a priest" sections... if you're curious, you could check one of them.

I'd ask a priest if he thought he was pretty.

~Qwerty

Careful, he may think you're interested!  :o

(I think we need a smiley with a person being struck by lightning for remarks like these!)

Quote from: Sibling Lambicus the Toluous on July 24, 2007, 07:58:07 PM
... they still say you have to be baptised, but these days, they consider the baptisms of most other denominations to be "acceptable", since a baptism doesn't have to be performed by a priest to be valid (the key items are water, specifically water in contact with the skin, and the Trinitarian formula, i.e. baptising in the name of the Father, Son AND Holy Spirit).

Technically, one might accept that I had baptised her, but not as a Catholic. Maybe as a Toadfish?  :toadfishwink:

No, to be baptised as a Toadfish it would have to be "in the name of the Great Everything, the beer and the holy mother" and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 26, 2007, 08:07:15 PM
and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

No minors or minor scratches please. ;)  :mrgreen:

It would have to be an internal baptism, of course. With Root Beer for the minors and teetotalers.

*hic* I wanna be born again!

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 26, 2007, 08:37:22 PM
It would have to be an internal baptism, of course. With Root Beer for the minors and teetotalers.

*hic* I wanna be born again!

Yes internal---
Pass the tankard!
(if I'm born again will the flabby stuff under my arms--- My word where did it come from in the last year- I swear- anyway will it go the frick away?)

Quote from: Kiyoodle the Gambrinous on July 26, 2007, 08:07:15 PM
No, to be baptised as a Toadfish it would have to be "in the name of the Great Everything, the beer and the holy mother" and the baptism would have to take place in rum, not water...

Or maybe:
"hereby baptized in the name of the Great Everything, The Rum and the Holy Toadfish"....

I'll take that baptism to morrow if it was available! But then I'm the one that, as a teenager, when my classmates had finished their confirmation studies and started to wear little gold and sliver jewellery crosses around their necks wore a little enamelled Snoopy instead, claiming that he was a source if infinitive wisdom and inspiration to me... ;D
Not that I really believed this, it was very much a tongue in cheek reaction to the fact that most of these kids took the confirmation only because it was a family tradition or to get nice gifts, not because they actually believed in God or was interested in the Bible.

After their confirmation I was still the one with the deeper knowledge about the stories of the Bible and the life of Christ, but I guess that was mainly because I read it in the same way I read the books about Greek and Scandinavian mythology.

To this day, even if my views of things has changed in many ways, that is basically still my personal opinion about the bible. It's not more true or false than any other historical compilation of myths; first retold through verbal traditions, then written down, edited, corrected due to the time and fashion when it was written down then translated, corrected and rewritten again... then finally thanks to Gutenberg printed.

And to answer the introductory question: I was raised by parents baptized in the protestant Swedish (then) state church, and I'm baptized into that church too. I would however say that my family where and are very profane. My paternal grandparents left the church sometime in the early 80's, and my maternal grandparent whom I had a very close relation to never spoke about God, went to church (if it wasn't for a funeral or wedding or such) or listened to religious services at the radio or TV.
I learned the Paternoster prayer as a child as well as some other prayers, and I had a period when I was about 11 years old, when I really wanted to believe, but then I discovered all atrocities made in the name of God. Ever since then I have a quite complicated relationship to religion in general and churches and their followers in particular.
As I became older and hopefully a bit wiser I have reached the conclusion that I have no score to settle with God™ (Or any god for that matter) or even to a less extent with Jesus (if any of them do exist) but I definitively have a bone or two to pick with some of the Apostles, especially Paul (darn misogynist :snark: ) and with a lot of intolerant priests, bishops, popes and preachers...

/D

Quote from: Darlica on July 30, 2007, 12:41:08 AM
To this day, even if my views of things has changed in many ways, that is basically still my personal opinion about the bible. It's not more true or false than any other historical compilation of myths; first retold through verbal traditions, then written down, edited, corrected due to the time and fashion when it was written down then translated, corrected and rewritten again... then finally thanks to Gutenberg printed.

I have always seen it like that too. I decided that around the age of 5 or 6 when told, as Jewish, not to listen to New Testement readings in school. The instruction was nuts, I kept hearing bits, but treated it as if it was a fairy tale; didn't take long to decide the Old Testement was likely a fairy tale too.  Great stories !!  As my understanding of story telling and myths grew, I decided it was probably based on a distortion of historical events.

It's blindingly clear how many ways the Bibles stories could have been changed through the years.

1) people don't always take good accounts in the first place, and may change details they dislike and deem unimportant, or simply not record some things.
2) Council of Nycea. need I say more?
3) translated from arameic, to greek, to latin, to english? try doing that though babelFish or Google Translator. see what comes up.
4) also, all those monks copying texts were working solo and were probably alone for most of the time. if they disagreed with a particular point or detail, they could have easily changed it.

if christians 600-1600 years ago read the bible as much as they do now, then they probably didn't notice anything.

and they probably did read less, what with the rampant illiteracy.

~Qwerty

The real differences are surprisingly few (there are some really old copies around still). We can pinpoint ideological changes made by St.Hieronymous (of Vulgata fame) because we have several editions (both old and "improved").
The choice of texts to include in the canon was of course a hairy business (how much evil could have been avoided, if the Book of Revelations had stayed out).
But texts had not to be in the official Bible to cause trouble (e.g. the Protevangelium of Jacobus that gave us the most disgusting parts of the Holy Mary cult).
I think the most serious damage was done by some of the 4th century "Fathers of the Church" that combined "Phelpsing" with rhetorical skill and, if that was insufficient, Goon Squads.

The greatest problem with the bible is, as Swato suggested above, its interpretation.

Many people can read it, and everyone will interpret it in a different way (as far as these people aren't brainwashed by the society they're in). The bible becomes a large problem, when the interpretation of a few, become the interpretation of the many. Take a few, brainwash them, give them your ideas, and let's rule the world... :)

Of course, it's not only the bible that gets this kind of result. Take the Koran, for example. Thanks to "misinterpretations" from the side of the clergy, we have holly wars all over the world.

As a result, we have people saying Moslems are bad, Jews are bad, Christians are bad, etc.

But when you read all the "holy" books, you see, that that's not really what they all say. The main idea of those books is tolerance, that's how I interpret it.


On a side note, I don't think, children should be exposed to those texts. IMO, they should face them, when their own opinion of the world is shaped.

I mean, if the bible was a movie, it would be at least R-rated, if not NC-17, as it contains verses descriptive or advocatin suicide, incest, bestiality, sadomasochism, sexual activity in a violent context, murder, morbid violence, use of drugs and alcohol, voyeurism, revenge, undermining of authority, lawlessness and human rights violations and athrocities... (OK, I might be exagerating at this last paragraph, but it actually does include all this. But don't take me wrong, I have nothing against people reading the bible) :)

I don't see the Bible as a problem either, as you say it's in the interpretation and in it's status an an document of truth not a compilation of Myths.

I'm using the Bible as an example because it's the religious document I'm most familiar with even though I have read large parts of the Koran and have read a fair amount of with part of Hindu and Buddhism religious history and myths as well. I guess if I had another religious background I would use that religion as a main frame for my view of this (you know, the context is everything! ;) )!

I'm not saying that Christianity is worse than other religions but it's not better either. If I was a Muslim, Jewish or a Hindu I would certainly have bones to pick with the religious leaders of my kind, dead and living, much in the same manner I feel about Paul and others I mentioned above, but as it is now I leave those and pounder about the ones that play the most important part in my frame of cultural references.


:offtopic:
In a way this discussion also bleed in to another of my pet pewees; the reason that I can't find a religion/church neither a political movement that I'm able to take an active interest in.
I don't like to mix religion (or spirituality if you so prefer) with politics.
But wherever I turn I see religion becoming political and politics becoming something of an religious movement to the people involved.

I guess it's human nature, wanting to rule others in one way or another, but I don't like it. That's the reason I like to see my self as a humanistic bystander in these matters...

:irony: Hmm. maybe I should found my own church... :irony:

I do believe that the thought process of religion is very much in line with the one of politics. Not so much regarding the philosophical overlap (although there is one) but the attitude that most people (in my eyes) takes regarding those two. Most people doesn't like analysis and while confronted with it they rather do it once an be done with it no matter what the facts say about their adopted beliefs.

It is a shame.  :-\

I think that Mr. Lennon said it in the best way:

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of men,
imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one..

You know Kiyo,  when I first heard that song (I was in high school) I thought it was rather trite.  As the years have gone by I have come to think that it embodies a great truth.  The trouble is, everyone seems intent upon talking about how great a man John Lennon was (and how clever they are in recognising it), instead of listening to what he had to say.

Quote from: Swatopluk on July 30, 2007, 06:32:12 PM
The real differences are surprisingly few (there are some really old copies around still). We can pinpoint ideological changes made by St.Hieronymous (of Vulgata fame) because we have several editions (both old and "improved").

Do you know much about the sacred versus profane documentation of miraculous events ? (what a silly question to Swatopluk...)

I vaguely remember that Edward Gibbon in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire was quite sarcy about the absence of mention of some of them in the imperial records, especially given that the Romans weren't generally (J.C. - the other one, excepted), ones to overlook portents.

Unfortunately the official imperial archives didn't survive (and some Christians had a hand in that).
There were a lot of guys like Jesus running around in those days (and several of them even with the same name, not quite an uncommon one). Apart from Tacitus there are few if any independent surviving sources that I know of, and he saw Jesus as a typical Jewish troublemaker (ol' Tac was quite a Jew hater).
The question is less "Was there a real Jesus?" but "Is one of the half dozen Jesuses the one we seek?".
All of this doesn't touch the internal consistency (or potential lack thereof) of the scriptural tradition.

Btw. CIC stands for Caius Iulius Caesar, Codex Iuris Canonici and Commander in Chief. Coincidence? ;)

Quote from: Bluenose on July 31, 2007, 03:24:17 AM
The trouble is, everyone seems intent upon talking about how great a man John Lennon was (and how clever they are in recognising it), instead of listening to what he had to say.

Rumble...

I've never really considered Lennon a great man (probably because he was long dead when I was born), found out about some things he said much later in my life. I still have a lot to learn about him anyway.

I like him as a anti-war activist, don't agree with him on a few things, but all in all, he made some good statements... (and as far as I know, he had a good sence of humour) :)

He pissed a lot of people off, too. Several times. Especally with that song. But it endures as one of his best.

What it says to me is not to dwell on any imagined glory to come. Imagine here and now as a better place, and work toward that. It's more tangible.

We were talking somewhere in here (and I've lost the conversation) about whether or not some people think that believing in Jesus and believing in God are the exactly same thing. I know that orthodox Catholics (among others) think so. This is something that stumps my poor little UU-brought-up mind. When I say I don't worship Jesus they interpret that as I don't believe in God. That is not quite true. I maintain a dialogue with The Great Everything (or I guess it's more of a monologue, since TGE doesn't talk back in words) and I do believe that there was a person known as Jesus who was able to help people by communicating some very inspired ideas about TGE. So am I stilll considered an atheist in the minds of literal Christians?

Quote from: Swatopluk on July 31, 2007, 10:15:08 AM
Unfortunately the official imperial archives didn't survive (and some Christians had a hand in that).

This was the sarcy comment from TDAFOTRE I was struggling to remember:

"During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, dæmons were expelled, and the laws of Nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world. Under the reign of Tiberius, the whole earth, or at least a celebrated province of the Roman empire, was involved in a preternatural darkness of three hours. Even this miraculous event, which ought to have excited the wonder, the curiosity, and the devotion of mankind, passed without notice in an age of science and history. It happened during the lifetime of Seneca and the elder Pliny, who must have experienced the immediate effects, or received the earliest intelligence, of the prodigy. Each of these philosophers, in a laborious work, has recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors comets, and eclipses, which his indefatigable curiosity could collect. Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe."

Quote from: Opsanus Tau
...and I do believe that there was a person known as Jesus who was able to help people by communicating some very inspired ideas about TGE. So am I stilll considered an atheist in the minds of literal Christians?

You could probably still be in the Church of England up to the level of Archbishop of York, but Canterbury might be pushing it, IMHO.

Quote from: Opsanus tau on July 31, 2007, 08:42:22 PM
I maintain a dialogue with The Great Everything (or I guess it's more of a monologue, since TGE doesn't talk back in words) and I do believe that there was a person known as Jesus who was able to help people by communicating some very inspired ideas about TGE. So am I stilll considered an atheist in the minds of literal Christians?

That would make you an heretic and a blasphemer, not sure if atheist with the exception of the most fundamentalists, though.

Quote from: beagle on July 31, 2007, 08:45:43 PMBoth the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe."

That is assuming that the dogma is right and Jesus was indeed surrounded by supernatural portents. The most likely case is that he was one of many apocalyptic preachers of the time, or (what I currently believe) that what we call Jesus is a composite of those individuals.

Surely one cannot be a blasphemer AND an atheist?

As if that changed the circle of hell we are going.  :mrgreen:

Imagine there's no Hell
It's easy if you try
No threats for thinking
No future fry...

As the closest thing here to a traditional Christian...

Hell, NOT Gehenna, but Hell...is eternal separation from the Face of God. if you don't believe in God, that really shouldn't bother you much, right? How do you go to a Hell you don't believe in?

The great thing about the Great Unknown is that it's Unknown. No matter who tells you they KNOW, because Their Bible Says So...what their Bible says is a bunch of liberally mistranslated hearsay, speculation and projection.

Next person that hits you with the Hell thing, ask if they're Pre-Millenialist  Post-Millenialist or Om-Millenialist. then ask why. By the time they've dredged their brain for a few hours to answer that, you can be MILES away.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :devil2:

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 02, 2007, 05:06:19 AM

Next person that hits you with the Hell thing, ask if they're Pre-Millenialist  Post-Millenialist or Om-Millenialist. then ask why. By the time they've dredged their brain for a few hours to answer that, you can be MILES away.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :devil2:

:ROFL:

Quote from: Sibling Chatty on August 02, 2007, 05:06:19 AM
As the closest thing here to a traditional Christian...

Hell, NOT Gehenna, but Hell...is eternal separation from the Face of God. if you don't believe in God, that really shouldn't bother you much, right? How do you go to a Hell you don't believe in?

The great thing about the Great Unknown is that it's Unknown. No matter who tells you they KNOW, because Their Bible Says So...what their Bible says is a bunch of liberally mistranslated hearsay, speculation and projection.

Next person that hits you with the Hell thing, ask if they're Pre-Millenialist  Post-Millenialist or Om-Millenialist. then ask why. By the time they've dredged their brain for a few hours to answer that, you can be MILES away.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :devil2:

I think I love you... :hug:

What bugs me is that I DO believe in God, I just don't use the same terminology as some (usually the ones most likely to condemn me to eternal damnation). What seems to me to be a mere technicality, as in speaking a different language to describe the same thing, seems to some others to be an unforgivable sin. Is it a hopeless case- or is there a way I might be able to communicate this to them without offense?

I just say Chinese Rites Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Rites_controversy)

I'm sorry, I'm having a fit of the giggles here....  I'd not heard the term 'Papal bull' before... 

:-X    :-X    :-X    :-X   :)   ;D   :ROFL:


Sorry, that was most untaddy of me.

I hear the papal decree to ban bullfighting (published everywhere except in Spain) is know as The Last Bull in Britain ;D

Opsa, just say... what was it?

"When I say I don't worship Jesus they interpret that as I don't believe in God. That is not quite true. I maintain a dialogue with The Great Everything (or I guess it's more of a monologue, since TGE doesn't talk back in words) and I do believe that there was a person known as Jesus who was able to help people by communicating some very inspired ideas about TGE."

or something along those lines. maybe type something up in either paragraph or just notes format, just to organize what you'd say, if you had to/wanted to explain your beliefs.

trust me. it can be no harder than the elevator speech.

~Qwerty

Hello Peoples ! ,

Years ago I asked a number of  people about some blanks and oddities  in the editions of the Bible we had . I always wondered ," Hey! Where did they come from ?!"

I refer to Cain's wife . My version of Genesis has Mom and Dad , Cain and Abel , critters and  beasties and suddenly there are all sorts of folks running around . What gives ?

  Also , what about the mark of Cain ? I recall it as being something to ensure his survival . So no others would kill him when they saw it ? Who would these people(?) be and where did they come from ?

I can't remember all the non answers I received or hostility from some teachers or elders , it was generally change the subject or walk away quickly as I got bigger .

I have read about Lilith and some story of a awful first attempt which is likely some modern myth , but that was even longer ago . These stories could explain my questions . I have yet to hear reasonable response by a fundamentalist or anyone else and except for a Neil Gaiman story , I haven't been able to find much else .

Another question I'd like to ask fundamentalists is .... When one evades such curious above things in the Bible , that if answered with a modicum of reason , may contradict portions of Genesis et al or by exclusion  undermines their positions regarding the Book as God's word....how can they expect one to believe it verbatim ? Namely me ! I'd feel as if I'm believing all lot of lies and would have to lie or evade when some kid asks me the very same questions in Sunday school .

1. G_d is perfect.
2. The bible is the word of G_d.
3. G_d being perfect wouldn't allow lies in a book with his word.
4. If you don't understand the book it's because you lack the knowledge, nuance and understanding the only G_d provides.
5. Rinse & Repeat.
---
Assumptions No 1 & 2 make it all possible; note that it may be possible for G_d to be perfect, or, the bible to be his word, but it is a bit more difficult if the 2 are absolutely correct.

Dealing with absolutes will always be a problem (noticed the oxymoron?  :mrgreen:)

I wonder where all those other folks came from ?...  :hmmm: :halo:

The "official" answer is that the wife of Cain was one of his sisters and that the marriage took place much later than his fratricide. Adam and Eve are said to have had many more children (but only the third, Seth, is named). So, incest is involved in any case (and I do not know about Eve's DNA, since she has been cloned from Adam's). That Cain's brothers and sisters would be angry at him is to be expected (while foreigners might not have known about his past).

Perhaps it is why "Editors" were invented evolved?  A good editor would have sorted all that out.

Perhaps, and then they hoped we'd all ignore such an inconvenient question.

Or give them one of Erich von Däniken books...  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

One posit is that the Bible says Adam and Eve were the first.

Nobody said there weren't others along the way, the story just focuses on the first. Thus, when it came time for Adam and Eve's children to marry, there were others around.

The guy I knew (in seminary) that was translating everything he could find from the most 'authentic' texts said that from his readings, that was highly probable--the "first" wasn't the only, just first.

My command of ancient languages is sadly lacking in breadth and depth, so finding out for myself is out of the question. :readbook: :sheep:

Literalness (or consistency in general) would wreak havoc on Roman Catholic doctrine, e.g. Jesus being the first son of Mary (and the Greek word demands a follow-on much more than English). The Holy Spirit/Ghost was female in Genesis (Ruach Jahwe), the New Testament neutered the entity (to pneuma) and Augustinus&Hieronymus deliberately used the male word (spiritus). Iirc, they explicitly insisted on the maleness (there was a possible choice, in German there isn't).
And let's not talk about Jesaja not actually predicting a virgin birth, St.Pauls wife being reduced (again by Hieronymus) to a female servant, apostle Junia being transgendered by adding an s ...
Please avoid to mention St.Peter's mother in law in the presence of pious Catholics (some Fathers of the Church were of the opinion that by his martyrdom he "washed off" the stain of being married but better be silent about the whole thing altogether).
The angels are anglophone anyway.

Which is funny, because I was told the Bible should, by and large, be taken literally by my CCD teachers.

Chatty--I know a number of Christians who would consider that position blasphemous. Interesting, isn't it?

Yep. I'm a semi-heathen, though! We get to blaspheme if we want to.

And the interesting thing is, there's almost NOBODY that could even pretend to get an un-editorialized translation made. People with the knowledge also have an agenda.

I would love to have the resources to have 5 or 6 different groups do a "not-directed" translation, and then get translations from say, Hindus, Buddists and atheists. I just gotta get me a bunch of money and some linguistic scholars that probably don't exist.

Saddest thing is, I grew up in a church that said it was OK to work this stuff out for yourself, if you asked for help when you needed it. Then, they changed the rules....

Isn't that the reason for the reluctance to openly translate the Dead Sea scrolls?

It would be interesting to have an unabridged version of all the writings from both the old and new testament including the books that didn't made the cut, with an impartial translation.

As Chatty, one can dream.

I sense a future task for this Monastery, and I'm only half joking.

Who gets to make the directors cut?

Who would really want to know about Mary's shady business deals in Nazareth or the Wise Men actually being the scouts for the Golden Triangle Cartel? :mrgreen:

Now as you know I am not a believer but it seems to me that the way to look at this is like this:

If you believe that the Bible is the word of God (or whatever sacred text you choose and whatever corresponding deity), and if that god made us in his/her/its "image" - which I have always taken to be a figurative thing (in fact a Jewish friend of mine put thusly: (any errors are mine) the image of god is spirit, that spark that makes us human, intelligent), then it follows that this god would want us to use our intelligence to understand what is written.  It seems to me that given the many inconsistencies in the various accounts of different parts of the Bible, then "the word of God" cannot mean the literal word, rather it is a figurative thing and that the important things are not the literal words but the meaning behind them.  Take Genesis for example.  I do not think the important truth is that God made the world in six days, but that he/she/it made it at all.  I would have thought that God would want us to use our intelligence to find the truth behind the words.  So going back to Genesis, primitive tribal people 5,000 years ago would not have had the knowledge-base to understand things like the Big Bang, or Brane Theory or timescales of billions of years and evolution and the whole lot.  So the story would of necessity be simplified.  It is, IMHO, for a believer a travesty of one's God given intelligence not to use that intelligence to understand the sacred texts.

Now, of course, this is not my position as an unbeliever, but I wish some of those more fundamentalist believers would use such logic rather than the very childish nonsense that they so often do spruik (fortunately, I am happy to report that I do not find these types in the Monastery, but as we all know, they are out there - just look at the Kansas School Board).  Of course, as a good Toadfish, I know that I must practice to;erance. so it will be interesting to see how it goes when we do have some come here.

I have no trouble accepting the belief of others.  In my way of looking at things, it is a logical progression from the opposite Basic Premise to that which I employ.  My BP is that there is no ultimate meaning to the Universe and thus, logically, no God.  Take the opposite BP, and God is one possible logical solution.  At the end of the day we can argue about which BP is correct but as in all logical argument the premise is given and cannot be proved by any chain if logic deriving from it.  All such arguments are circular.  That does not exclude the possibility of people using such arguments and in fact not even realising that they are making a Basic Premise at all!

Quote from: Bluenose
it is a logical progression from the opposite Basic Premise to that which I employ

Yes.  Newton indicates ("Every action has an equal and opposite reaction")  that for everyone that believes there is someone else who does not believe. ;)

I think the fundamental problem we have is with fundamentalists of any religion, and they're not likely to come here and talk with us, especially since we take an intolerant stance towards intolerance.

As you can tell, it makes my head spin.

Still, there must be a way for us to figure out how to communicate with fundamentalists, so we can attempt to make the point that in order to create peace between the religions of the world, we have to communicate, and in order to communicate, we can't be telling people that they are damned for believeing what they believe. Is there any way we can we do this nicely and in a non-threatening way?

One thing we'll need to do is to knock down our temptation to assume that fundamentalists are too closed-minded. Maybe we need to make a welcoming thread here for fundamentalists who may be open to trying to fix this problem.

Opas, I believe that trying isn't a *sin* (as not trying), but we have to acknowledge that most of us have our minds set in whatever we do or do not believe. For some of us it is easier to admit the beliefs of others but for many it is almost by definition impossible. The people I know that have changed their mind have done so because a very particular, personal and almost always tragic incident that made them reconsider their beliefs.

Trying also means being patient. How long did it took for regular folks to vote? How long it took for women/blacks/indians to vote? How long it took for a woman to be elected as a senator? etc, etc etc. Changes take time and in most cases take generations. It is a safer bet to make sure that the new generations will see the light than trying to convince the current one (which BTW has backfired in many occasions).

You're right, Zone, it has backfired and any change will take patience. I just wish we could find some people who are sort of in the middle, so we can learn from them how to not offend them and how we can talk with them.

I'm also concerned about the young people who are being threatened with Hell, etc. in an attempt to scare them into following a religion. Is that really necessary?

Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 02, 2008, 12:52:15 AM
Who gets to make the directors cut?

That's the deal...no one director (or directorial philosophy) no cuts.

The main assertion I have about Genesis, timelines and Biblical inerrancy with fundamentalist Christians always annoys them beyond belief.

First I get them to agree that the Bible says a day shall be as a thousand years and a thousand years shall be as a day. THEN I ask them if they're really sure they want to tell me that Genesis means 6 literal 24 hour days, seein' as how there WERE no days until darkness was divided from light...

Most of 'em tell me they'll pray for me, and I tell them thanks, but God knows my name already and if they'd direct that prayer toward my health and not toward my being as small minded and small of faith as they are, I would appreciate it. (On the plus side, the pastor of the biker church here has backed away from the 6,000 year bullshit after I asked him to tell me WHERE it said that God couldn't use metaphors when he directed people to tell a story they weren't around for. That keeps it out of a number of families homes and 'religious legacies'.) ;D

That "I'll pray for you" is a funny one.

Especially when contemplating alternatives:

I'll think of you
I'll light a candle for you
I'll send you healing
I'll do some sums for you (believers in mathematics only)

But it certainly beats praying against somebody like certain TV evangelists >:( (like calling for a meteor strike on Pennsylvania)

Sometimes I wonder where the teachings of Christ went in many of today's modern Christian cults and churches. What happened to "you that are without sin may throw the first stone"?*
The more I see of those TV evangelists the more I wonder if they have read The New Testament at all or if they perhaps read  the "blood, guts and vengeance" readers digest version?



*The quote might be translated wrong, I didn't have the time to find it in English right now, but I think you know which quote I mean.

That's more or less the exact wording, Darl.

I'm not entirely sure what version they're reading. Certainly not the version I ever read, but then I was reading the Catholic version (has a couple of books the Protestants took out), and I rarely hear the priests at my church go for the fire and brimstone and praying against people sort of thing.

I have always enjoyed having Mormon/LDS friends and extended family members (B's dad was adopted from Mexico at 2 months old by --- drum roll please--- a caucasian/hispanic couple from back East (Jersey) named Goldsworthy who were converts from Judaism to Mormonism who'd moved to Tuscon to help do the 'stake' and 'ward' founding thing in the early 60's. Anyway-- very interesting-- so I don't see the problem people have (or allegedly) have with Mitt Romney--- it's just silly IMO.

goes back to throwing rocks and people in glass houses shouldn't throw them either--- it's like do they have nothing better to do that
Gasp! he's a mormon Oh we can't have a Mormon presnit-- no we've got to have a formerly fatboy Baptis preacher or we're Dooooooomed I tell ya dooooomed!

religion is important to people- and should be in whatever way the choose it to be but it's not the big question people make it out to be when deciding a presnit--- or is it- after all I am concerned that a really over the top push it down my (our) throat religious zealot not be presnit...... hmmmmm

The problem is that it is part of some religions to shove their religions down other people's throats. They mean it well, they think they're saving other people.

I want to tell them that it's part of my religion to try to make peace in this world and to do that we have to respect eachother's beliefs and trust that the intention of any belief, even atheism, is to give enlightenment. Enlightenment has to come from within. When shoved down a throat it becomes endarkenment.

Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 04, 2008, 04:19:02 PM
Enlightenment has to come from within. When shoved down a throat it becomes endarkenment.

Endarkenment.  I like that. (I finally got around to catching up on this thread from a year ago, when I last commented).

It would be quite interesting to see an impartial translation of the Bible.

But, in order to do that, you'd have to really, really understand the people that wrote it.  You'd literally have to understand their day-to-day thoughts, habits, attitudes and so on.

For that would be the only way to translate the meanings of what they wrote.  The words by themselves do not have meaing at all-- there must be context.  Especially if the concept has an emotional component (and, what in the bible is devoid of emotional content? Very, very little, if memory serves.  Perhaps the line of begats? ::)  ).

Thus, the only way a truly impartial translation could be made was if we had a time machine, or at least a time viewer. *sigh*

At best, we try to re-create the society that originated much of the Bible, and make assumptions from there.

It would be a series of assumptions, actually.

I think an honest preamble would include the assumptions made, about the authorial peoples. 

Perhaps, one day, in the coming age of computer intelligences, we can design software to do those translations for us-- complete with various assumptions.

You could have several side-by-side versions, each with a slightly different assumption about the authors' societies.

Now that would be some fascinating reading.

Just maybe don't ask Martin Amis at the moment.

I always find those plays which do the same story several times, once from each person/part's viewpoint each.

But then that is a bit like what my mind does as a counsellor.