Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
04-20-2006, 08:57 AM | #81 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,989
|
Quote:
Another way of considering it is as the history of God's revelation. Or, if you will, the developing stages of a people's awareness of what or who God is. I suppose this is akin to the way of explaining things to children. When six year olds ask where babies come from, they are happy with a 'simplied version' of events (which does not mean the old birds and bees or cabbage patches) and don't really want a medical-school level lecture on human reproductive technology. (Come to think of it, neither do teens, who are often bored in "Personal Health" classes with physiological details but who don't get the open and frank discussion about the psychology of human sexuality. I digress, though.) Adult understanding too, of all of life and not just theology/religion/sex, (should I add politics? Next paragraph!) undergoes change and development. There are more than a few people who have better knowledge of themselves at 40, 50 and 60 than they had at 25. And of other people. One problem with this POV is that is sounds similar to arrogant assumptions about human progress. Yet at the same time I think people do, slowly and often times with regression, change awareness. Most people on earth today would not accept slavery as a fair condition, yet there is still much "white slavery trade" going on with women. Yet by and large among the human communities, more are agin it than for it. I'm not quite so sanguine about our understanding of war. The other problem with this approach to revelation is that it tends to understand the Old Testament solely in terms of the terms set out in the New Testament. There's misrepresentation here. I suppose something similar must happen in Islam, where previous revelations are accepted as prior prophesies. (At least, I think this is what happens.) So, an understanding of the Bible as revelation involves an active, ongoing understanding of interpretation as process rather than as archeology. Quote:
Tolkien's insistence is all the more perplexing given that the Church never insisted upon conversion of a heathen partner. It required a promise that children be brought up Catholic, but it never forced conversion on the partner as a condition of marriage. Strange that Tolkien who was so anti-bullying in LotR should have been so demanding in this instance. Does that tombstone, stating Luthien and Beren, imply something here? And, umm, what was the topic here? EDIT: Opps, cross posted with drigel. I'm glad at least someone bothered to read that article!
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. Last edited by Bęthberry; 04-20-2006 at 09:41 AM. |
||
04-20-2006, 11:22 AM | #82 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,449
|
True. And this apppoach to faith I find easier to accept and understand. Yet there is also the problem associated with any faith that requires one to adhere to a particular doctrine or face eternal damnation. I recall once speaking to someone who was convinced that she would not see her parents in the afterlife since, although they were decent enough people, they did not share her faith and her particular beliefs and were therefore (in her mind) slated for a one-way trip to Hell. It rather put me off Christianity, or that particular doctrinal approach at least, for life.
I think it was you, Mith, who brought up the distress caused to Tolkien's wife by his insistance that she convert to his faith. Have I got that right? If so, I presume that his insistance was grounded in a similar approach.[/QUOTE] As Bethberry says, my shall we say sadness, regarding that conversion was mainly due to the negative consequences it had for Edith. I get the impression that it was a control issue rather than a theological one and influenced by the ostracism of his mother by her family on her conversion. What Freud would say about this moulding of the wife into the mother's image is perhaps a matter for another topic (or not). However I do think it is a factor in my hearty dislike of the story of Beren and Luthien . I also am not in accord with that idea. I think the acceptance of the Calormene by Aslan at the end of Lewis' "The Last Battle" is its redeeming feature. When I was a practising Christian I was rather ashamed to be associated with such people who use their "faith" as a justification for bigotry and intolerance. I felt that if they were right, then I didn't want to be apart of it to quote Franz Ferdinand "I never had a doubt you ever existed I only have a problem when people insist on Taking their hate and placing it on your name ". And as I grew up and associated more with of people of other faiths or none who led lives of equal morality and often greater charity then it seemed an increasingly unacceptable attitude and one that seemed alien to the spirit of the life of Jesus who tended not to be on the side of the sanctimonious and self righteous prigs if I remember correctly . There are more than one way to skin a cat (but don't try that at home, children).
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-20-2006, 12:15 PM | #83 | |
Dead Serious
|
Going back a fair ways to the below quote, let me first say that I have been extremely hesitant to enter this thread. It is, first of all, not really Tolkien-based anymore. Secondly, it has gained a very anti-Christian feel to it. LMP has bravely stuck it out, but for the most part it feels like he's just standing here taking the blows for Christianity, doing his best to apologise and admit the validity of other people's questions, while the non-Christians seem to just be standing there inflexibly, willing to throw out monkeywrench after monkeywrench, while refusing to admit the potential "maybe it could be" validity of a single Christian viewpoint.
Anyway, I've hesitated to get involved here, and I think there's something about anti-Christian thought in general that I could learn from this... Quote:
In the 4th Century, the Church in an Ecumenical Council, selected the books today known as the Bible, assembled them officially into one, and declared -using their authority as the representatives of God on Earth- that these books were the Inspired Word of God. This was not done hastily, but after careful consideration, and the books they canonised were by and large books that had been held in reverence by Christians since they were written- or in the case of the Old Testament, since Christ Himself. If you do not adhere to the Christian faith, there is no reason in the world for you to believe the Bible. If you DO claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ, then it would be well to exhaust all the options open to you BEFORE deciding that the Inspired Word of God is a "myth", "legend", or "distorting of the truth".
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
04-20-2006, 12:47 PM | #84 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
My feeling is that all things should be open to criticism. If there is a logical explanation for something that can be offered. Events like the slaughter of the Canaanites, or the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son, (or Balaam's particularly talented donkey come to that) are 'challenges' to Christians. 'How can a loving God demand such things' they will ask themselves & struggle to find the answers through prayer. Ironically, non-Christians will ask themselves exactly the same question & decide there's no point trying to answer them & decide to just forget the whole thing. Now, what's interesting is that in Tolkien & Philip Pullman we see these two approaches set out in the form of Secondary worlds. Tolkien attempts to explain through his Legendarium how God/Eru could be a loving creator & at the same time permit suffering to exist. He shows us the extreme of evil but still clearly states that both Eru & His creation are Good' (though Marred by evil). Tolkien refuses to give glib answers. Pullman, on the other hand, sees the evil & suffering in the world & decides God is a senile old so-&-so, & we need to be rid of Him once & for all so we can take over & run the show ourselves. Perhaps the difference is down to what you give priority to - if you focus on the evil & suffering in the world you'll decide that either there isn't a God at all, or that if there is he's like the one Pullman depicted & live in hope of the consumation depicted in HDM. If you focus on God you'll see evil as ultimately insignificant because God was, is, & will be, & 'all shall be well, & all shall be well, & all manner of thing shall be well'. Both sides seem to be looking at the same thing but from different perspectives. |
|
04-20-2006, 01:09 PM | #85 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,449
|
I certainly have not intended to be anti-christianity. I have no truck with fundamentalism - but that is fundamentalist anything.
I respect faith but I resent faith being claimed as incontrovertable fact. You, as a well informed believer, could not surely think your that your cause would be better off if such ignorance as was displayed earlier in the thread went unchallenged? The Bible may have been fixed in the 4th century but human knowledge wasn't. If it has to be taken "all or nothing", then many of us are going to have to say "nothing". However as I pointed out, many sincere Christians don't believe it is all or nothing and are able to reconcile their faith with modern learning and are motivated by their faith to great things. On the other hand, the fundamentalist attitude of "We're definitely right and the rest of you are not only wrong but going to roast in hell" is liable to put peoples' backs up.....
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-20-2006, 01:45 PM | #86 | ||||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
It's all very well for people to challenge my faith. That's fine, that's normal. To say nasty things is fine, is normal. But for people who are positioning themselves as enlightened, fair-minded, as thinkers who are "simply trying to look at things objectively" to repeatedly and unabashedly beat down something that simply doesn't sit with their deep-seated anti-absolutist preferences without even considering that there MAY be something to it, doesn't smack at all of fair play. However, I'm not trying to start any fights here so much as I am trying to get the point across that I'm distinctly uncomfortable with the attitudes here. Not the statements- I can handle challenges and assaults- but the general feeling that the people who are being intransigent in their opinions aren't the Christians, but the ones who really don't come across as Christian... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Believing that something is definitely right is not, of itself, going to get you into Heaven. Nor is believing something that is wrong going to send you to Hell. The Devil knows all the Right answers, he knows and believes God exists, and you ask him what the correct doctrine is on any matter, he'd be able to give as good or better an answer than any theologian. But the Devil won't get into Heaven. However, although Heaven and Hell is NOT an issue that is dependent on what you know or believe, that does not mean that a proper knowledge of what is and what isn't is to be considered completely trivial. To get into Heaven is to love God and to love man. If one loves God, then one will want to do everything the way God would want it, correct? Now, with regards to the Abraham/Isaac/God situation... It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. Saucepan Man might very well be justified in telling a God who wants him to kill his children to shove it, but Sauce is a product of 1500+ years of Christianity being the dominant force shaping the morals of his culture. Abraham lived in day when the rational thought of the Greek philosophers had yet to start influencing us, and when child-sacrifice was NOT uncommon at all in the religions of the day. So although WE, products of Christianity that we are, would have some major issues with God asking us to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham, though undoubtedly sorrowed beyond words, would not have the same impulses. Furthermore, it isn't exactly as if God was asking Abraham anything that He Himself would never go through. Not only was God's request reasonable from Abraham's cultural mindset, but God showed Abraham once and for all what absolute faith would be rewarded with: life, though we might have to go through death for it. Also, note the lamb... Abraham killed the lamb to spare Isaac. God killed His Son to spare us all. Anyway, this is getting dangerously far off-Tolkien...
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
||||
04-20-2006, 03:00 PM | #87 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
But being able to put forth an argument & defend it against all-comers was central to the Inklings. If you make a statement, religious or otherwise, you have to be able to defend it against challengers. You can certainly opt out of any discussion if you feel it is hitting too close to home, but you aren't allowed to state something & then say, 'That's it! No more discussion, no more questions or challenges!' If you enter the Inklings arena you have to be prepared to fight your corner. You may say that a particular point was expressed in a way you find 'offensive' or upsetting & ask your opponent to kindly rephrase it in a more polite, respectful way, but if they do that then the point must be answered. Your point re Abraham & Isaac is a good one. Certainly God's requirement of Abraham must (if you are a Christian) be seen & judged in the light of Christ's sacrifice. In fact, that is the only point of view from which it becomes acceptable. Without that it becomes the nasty little test of a smug, self righteous Deity - same with His ranting at Job - only the suffering & sacrifice of Christ can make the behaviour of the God of the old testament in anyway acceptable. His words via the Prophets may be of love & compassion but are only platitudes without Golgotha. Except .... I'm just spouting clever sounding words there, because I'm not a Christian. I adopted a Christian viewpoint for a moment. In fact, I could have argued from a Christian perspective all along & put forward (as I've done in the past) a whole series of 'proofs' of the innate Christianity of LotR. This is not an admission of any 'dishonesty' in previous posts. I responded honestly to each particular point made. I can see, if I choose, numerous correspondences between LotR & the Christian faith, but I can also look at the work another way & see none. Hence, I still hold that the work cannot be considered a 'Christian' work, though it can be seen & interpreted in that way. I'm sure one could come at it from a Moslem perspective, or a Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist or Pagan one & find enough in it to confirm it as a work entirely within that particular faith's worldview. This is the problem with threads like this. Once you move away from the direct experience of the story & into 'interpretation' you'll find exactly what you're looking for. In other words, its only a 'Christian' story if a Christian reads it.... |
|
04-20-2006, 03:14 PM | #88 | ||
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sorry Formendacil, but I don't think your own texts meet the standards you seem to be requiring from others... I know many flexible and open-minded christians - as I know some inflexible and narrow-minded non-believers. That's not the case: all differences between groups are always smaller than the differences inside any given group. It just sounds nasty to call open-mindedness from others, and then bang the others with the Truth...
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... Last edited by Nogrod; 04-20-2006 at 03:17 PM. Reason: grammatical... |
||
04-20-2006, 04:20 PM | #89 |
Blithe Spirit
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,779
|
I am not a practising Christian, but I am in no way antagonistic towards religion, in fact I am very open to it, and I have many close friends, whose views and whose intelligence I respect, who are practising Christians - mostly Catholics, as a matter of fact.
However, I do think we are dealing with a cultural divide here as well as a religious one. Most of the Christians I know here in the UK, and elsewhere in northern Europe, do not believe in the Bible as literal, word-for-word truth. In other words, they accept evolution and so on. I don't think many of them believe in Hell, either. But I get the feeling that literal/fundamentalist/Scripture-based brands of Christianity are the most dominant in the US. So while many posters here are questioning Biblical points, those questioners I note are mostly European. This kind of questioning is quite normal in religious debate over here, and is really not meant as heretical, aggressive or anti-religious as it is clearly taken to be by some. I hope this may help to calm the waters a little.
__________________
Out went the candle, and we were left darkling |
04-20-2006, 04:42 PM | #90 | ||||||||||||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I've answered this above. Those who have taken a more "flexible" approach (which included me until recently) have compromised their faith. How they can hold to what they do, without holding to the rest, is a rather tragic demonstration of irrationality. Lhunardawen's answer is good as far as it goes. But faith should never be irrational. If someone believes that Jesus died and was raised by God, that person should be convinced based on the best reasoning he or she can muster. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Warning: speculation: regarding sub-human or super-human, I've been wondering these last few years about such myths as the minotaur, or hippogriffs, or what have you. Now, they may just be fantasy, but if one posits the power of fallen angelic beings to incarnate as they wish and commit whatever unspeakable acts they wish to, who knows what might not result? But as I said, that's just speculation. As to "literally": Where the Bible speaks literally, I read it literally. Where is speaks metaphorically, I read it so. Where it speaks mythically, I so read it; however, I take my lead from Tolkien and do not equate myth with falsehood. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Hell is probably the single most difficult stumbling block. I realize that no matter what I say with this one, it's going to seem like an insult. I can't help that, and I don't mean it that way. I had a bit of an epiphany that hell is actually best seen as God's final grace to those who refuse him. 'What about the fire and brimstone?' you may ask, or the lake of fire? Here's a case in which I see those things as metaphorical. Hell is best understood as the absence of God. Not that God is absent from anywhere in existence; but humans have this unusual gift that they can choose not to be a part of God's reality. It's stunning, really. But God does finally say to some, "Your will be done; exist for eternity without Me." I can imagine this feeling like a lake of fire, or like fire and brimstone, especially if the person must live with the regret of "if only I had allowed him in, but I finally know better." That's hell enough. Quote:
There's a certain sense in which I think the 'pearls before swine' analogy is not apt to this thread. Swine were unclean, and content to live in their filth, and were apt to mistake pearls for more of their filth. Given that all who post here have a high regard for Tolkien, I would say that the analogy does not obtain, on that merit alone. Must run..... dinner and a conference...... back later..... |
||||||||||||||
04-20-2006, 04:53 PM | #91 | |||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
If the Mods have no issues with rampant discussion... fine by me. But, as currently defined- or as I currently understand it- it's getting off-topic. Quote:
Perhaps it's my fault for being unable to express perfectly, concisely, and politely what I'm trying to say. However, I hold to what I said: in general, on this thread, the Christian group (or just LMP, since he has comprised most of it, to date) has been a lot more willing to give and take, to say "you have a point". I'm not saying that one group has been, or ought to be, accepting the other group as right. I'm not even saying the Christian group is right (although as a card-carrying member, I obviously feel that way). What I am saying is that the Christian group has thus far been more willing to say "you have a point" whereas the non-Christian group hasn't been willing to say that. As noted, however, that is simply things as I am seeing them- on this thread. Possibly my vision is being coloured by the side of the fence that I'm on. Quote:
That's fine with me. That's not how I intended it... but it's.... fine. It's a call to take a closer look at what I am trying to say...
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|||
04-20-2006, 10:24 PM | #92 | ||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,989
|
Quote:
Quote:
To return this to Tolkien more specifically: I've seen a scholarly claim that Tolkien is acknowledged in the work done to produce The New Jerusalem Bible. I don't know what the extent of his contributions, if any, were. Does anyone? If we can find any of Tolkien's professional articles or opinions I think it might be interesting to explore them. After all, we know how important words were to him and languages. We know how he fulminated against inaccurate or misrepresentative translations of LotR. How did he view work on the translation of the Bible? After all, it was first in Aramaic, no? And then Greek and Latin versions became dominant before translations into the vernacular. Figuring out just which words are inspired is a handful. I know many people who profess a great love for the King James Bible because of its aesthetic or lyrical beauty, but anyone who has read even a little bit about the history of biblical translation knows that compromise and historical/political pressures are part of translation. But I get a very strong feeling that we are once again treading on canonicity grounds.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
||
04-21-2006, 12:47 AM | #93 | ||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
However, he considered his contribution quite small. I believe he only worked on the Book of Jonah, which is a mere four chapters long. Quote:
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
||
04-21-2006, 05:15 AM | #94 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
|
|
04-21-2006, 05:40 AM | #95 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
I have that conference to hurry up and get to, so further responses must wait. Back sometime soon.... |
|
04-21-2006, 06:04 AM | #96 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,449
|
Formendacil, I think you are taking this too persionally.
" you have to remember that I consider the fact that "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" to be as equally truthful a fact as "Catholics are Christian". On the same note, I also think that "the Bible is God's Inspired Word" is as equally true a fact." Similarly you have to be aware that the one is objective, the second at least 2/3 historically almost certain, the third is subjective. I have no problem with you believing this. As for the next bit well, I no longer believe in an afterlife so .... whatever.. I will carry on trying to live as good a live as I can in this one. " It is very amusing to watch people ascribe modern thoughts and feelings to a very much not-modern event. " And yet the fundamentalist expect a very much not modern collection of tects to be applied to modern day lives without the interpretation and rationalisation that you have applied to the story of Abraham and Isaac....
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2006, 06:26 AM | #97 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Of course I accept that Peter's dream in Acts effectively states that no animal is henceforward to be considered 'unclean' as a result of Christ's redemptive act - which, if true, would make Christianity a step forward from both Judaism & Islam, which still divide the Creation up into clean/unclean, redeemed/unredeemed, Creator/Creation. Christ's sacrifice (if you believe that kind of thing) united the broken Creation & made it whole again. |
|
04-21-2006, 07:17 AM | #98 | |
Corpus Cacophonous
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: A green and pleasant land
Posts: 8,390
|
Much to respond to here, but I don't have a lot of time. I shall have to return, as there are some very interesting discussion points crystallising here.
This is just to say that, in response to Formy that, by what I have said, I meant no offence to anyone. I was simply "laying my cards on the table". There is much in Christianity (and other faiths) that troubles me and, as some of these issues were, I thought, relevant to the ongoing discussion, I thought it necessary to identify them. There is intransigence on both "sides" yes (although I am not sure that there really are "sides" as such, merely a collection of varying approaches, beliefs, attitudes) but everyone has to have a starting point in a discussion. I am certainly willing to adapt, and even change, my opinions if I am persuaded as to the merits of a particular approach or argument. Of course, in this, I am guided by rationality, rather than faith, as you will probably have picked up, and in this regard there will always be something of an "unbridgeable gap" between those who are "of faith" and those who are not. Which brings me on to the issue of the suitability and relevance of many of the matters being discussed here on a Tolkien-based forum. Although I did start from the point of view that there is a comparison to be made between the differing approaches of those with faith to a book like LotR and the Bible (and I want to come back on lmp's well-made points on this), I tend to agree with davem that there is relevance on this forum in the wider discussion too. We have, in various Tolkien-based discussions, skirted around the edge of discussing our approaches towards religion generally, and sometimes dipped our toes in. But it is generally regarded as a somewhat taboo subject here on the Downs, both for the sensitivies involved (ie the capacity that it has to cause offence) and the fact that it is not strictly Tolkien-related. Nevertheless, I do sometimes find it difficult to discuss these kinds of issues, in relation to Tolkien's works, without "laying my cards on the table" in a more general way, as I have done to an extent in earlier posts. I therefore do think that there is a place for a more general religious discussion on a forum such as this and, while it is important to respect the sensitivities of others, it will in such a discussion be inevitable that some things will be said that fundamentally impact on the strongly held beliefs of others. Finally, for now: Quote:
__________________
Do you mind? I'm busy doing the fishstick. It's a very delicate state of mind! |
|
04-21-2006, 10:31 AM | #99 | |||||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
The angels, the maia, in Arda can incarnate yet do not mate with humans, at least directly. I guess the elves are something of a hybrid, allowing Melian's spirit/blood to flow in Aragorn's veins. Did Tolkien have this superbeing/human pairing because he too believed that Genesis 6 spoke of angels mating with humans? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
With the 24/7 media blitz in which we live today, could something as spectacular as LotR even make it to the presses? Or would Professor Tolkien be blogging instead? Quote:
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|||||
04-21-2006, 11:03 AM | #100 | |||
Cryptic Aura
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,989
|
Quote:
btw, there's a bit on inspiration in Catholic Encyclopedia: The Inspiration of the Bible. I hadn't realized that, according to this article: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away. |
|||
04-21-2006, 12:05 PM | #101 | |||||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies. Quote:
Quote:
Saying that you are guided by reason, rather than faith, makes me laugh at the moment. I'm sorry- it's not the statement itself, but the context I find myself in when I read it. Blame it on a book I just read. Basically, it set about showing how RATIONAL a faith Christianity is, and it got my mind thinking quite a bit about lately about just how true that is. But I won't go about proving that on this thread, since that's not really what it's for, even if it remains an Inklings-esque discussion. However, if you're interested in a more private venue... Anyway, I found that ironically amusing, coming at the time that it did...
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|||||
04-21-2006, 12:47 PM | #102 | ||||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
04-21-2006, 12:47 PM | #103 | |||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
Compare that to some who believe in a reward. Quote:
I too welcome PM discussion if anyone so desires (or if I'm beating dead equine or steering the thread into a boring corner).
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|||
04-21-2006, 01:03 PM | #104 | ||||
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
Quote:
Or does God dump you down the memory hole, and this begs the question: can an omniscient omnipresent god will itself to forget something? Sorry, but don't have enough coffee for that one. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
||||
04-21-2006, 01:50 PM | #105 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,449
|
[QUOTE=Formendacil]It's my life, what can I say? If I take it personally, it's because it is personal... though that really doesn't mean that I should GET personal
Okay... I'm really curious how Catholicism being Christianity is only "at least 2/3 historically certain"- and not because I wish to argue the matter, but in light you being the first one (if I recall) to point out to Legolas-I-S that Catholics are Christian... Very curious indeed.... I cannot express my utter dread and horror at the idea of not having an afterlife. What POINT is there to life, if this short span -so easily ended in a car accident or a medical breakdown- is all we get. Call me whatever you like... the very idea gives me the jibblies. Well, I'm not a fundamentalist... I subscribe, perhaps, to a more literal interpretation of things than several of you here appear to, but I wouldn't call it a fundamentalist's position. Context, both within the writing and when it was written, has to be taken into account. QUOTE] Rightio, first of all please bear in mind that I shoved my ten pennorth in to this thread partly because I felt that a certain person's ludicrous statement was potentially offensive to Catholics ..... not everyone who is not with you is against you..... but I beginning to wish I had kept my woolly liberal mouth shut. Second "Jesus Christ was Crucified, Died, and was Buried, and that He Rose Again from the Dead" was the thing I referred to as being 2/3 certain, Catholics being Christians as objective fact and the status of the Bible as being subjective. Actually I should have said 3/4 but I was in a rush and lumped dead and buried together. pretty good historical evidence for the Life and death of Jesus and for all my issues with taking the bible to literally (and I have a whole load more having read some of the Old Testament last night as research!!!) I used to be able to say the creed in good conscience. This life ain't so bad - and anyone able to surf the net isn't doing badly on the scheme of things. I have had some difficult thing happen as most people do if they live long enough, but I don't want to go in to that now or the reasons for my lapse - if you want to know PM me - but you appreciate it so much more if you think it is all you are going to get. I am so much happier now I no longer beat myself up for my failure to be perfect. I don't behave any less morally now than I did but I certainly seize the day more rather than banking on an afterlife to make up for the bad sides of this life. It would be lovely to believe I would be reunited after death with those I have loved and lost but I can't. Believing this life is all there is doen't have to turn you in to a selfish hedonist it can make you more compassionate and concerned with people's immediate needs rather than their eternal salvation - isn't he Christian Aid slogan "We believe in life before death"....
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2006, 02:31 PM | #106 | ||
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
Also, interestingly enough... the Resurrection of Jesus was the main rational reason, in the book I mentioned above and which I forget the name of and no longer have access to. And not just how the Resurrection, if it happened, validated Christianity, but how the Resurrection is the most logical explanation for what actually happened to Jesus and the disciples. I seem to be having an interesting day, making connections... Quote:
For one thing, I want to create a fictional word with as much or more depth than Middle-Earth.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
||
04-21-2006, 02:36 PM | #107 |
Pilgrim Soul
Join Date: May 2004
Location: watching the wonga-wonga birds circle...
Posts: 9,449
|
I did read a book where a lawyer presented the evidence for the resurrection - he had set out to discount it and ended up converting himself......
I used to feel sad when I finally came to the conclusion that this was all there is but I did an astronomy course and all the particals that make us will return eventually to the stars whence they came ... so I am content with cosmic recycling
__________________
“But Finrod walks with Finarfin his father beneath the trees in Eldamar.”
Christopher Tolkien, Requiescat in pace |
04-21-2006, 02:39 PM | #108 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Eckhart believed that God was constantly creating (because He is a Creator in His essence) everything - even the past & future are being constantly created, not just the present is. Nothing can exist unless it is being constantly created. He also believed that we are judged on our intentions - hence, if you so all you can to feed the hungry then from God's POV you actually have fed all the hungry: ie, you fed as many as you could, & if it had been possible you would have fed them all therefore it was only limited resources (for which you cannot be held responsible) which prevented you from feeding them all. From that perspective Hitler would be judged to have killed all the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled simply because he did all he could to bring that about. The point is, God cannot create evil, only good, therefore if someone had become completely evil He could not continue to create them as He would not even be aware that they needed to be created.... Hence, God cannot 'talk to the Devil' in Eckhart's view. The Devil,, having been cast from Heaven would not 'be'. I think you're referring to the Book of Job, which clearly was written as a cosmic drama. the problem with the Devil 'creating' Hell is that it ascribes the power of Creation to a being other than God. All the Devil could do was corrupt something pre-existing. Quote:
|
||
04-21-2006, 02:53 PM | #109 | |
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,466
|
Quote:
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
|
|
04-21-2006, 03:04 PM | #110 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
I accept that some Christians believe there is a real Satan. Many don't. I don't think that makes them less Christian though my knowledge of Christianity is admittedly theoretical. |
|
04-21-2006, 03:25 PM | #111 | |
A Mere Boggart
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: under the bed
Posts: 4,737
|
Excuse my poor typing and rambling before I begin, I'm not very well.
I was a thoroughly conventional Protestant (C of E brand) until I read Tolkien and started exploring some of the wonderful stories and ideas that I had heard more deeply, especially exploring what those who came before me believed, and what those who were in other parts of our world believed. I'm not that way nowadays, but nor am I a fully paid up Atheist. I can't remeber who said that Atheism was a 'broad, breezy highway' - might have been Russell? But anyway, I didn't find it to be so. Experience has shaped me. I have experienced that moment of death, and I can say now that the one emotion I felt in that split second was utter disappointment. I can't forget that. It left me knowing that whatever happens, even if there is life after death, it's nothing like what we have been blessed with right now. This is our only chance for any kind of happiness in the way we see it now. Any other kind of happiness is unknowable. If there's a god, it wouldn't want us to waste that mad chance that we have been given to be alive - and the chance that we came to be is a chance in a million anyway. But there is no way I can accept the concept of either Hell or the Devil as a place or a supernatural being. Hell is here now, it's being bullied, being robbed. The Devil is also something here, it's that thing which gets into people just like you or me which makes us tut at people in queues, shout at kids, etc. Or worse. Hell and the Devil are just us. God is in the best we can be, no matter what our religion is, or even if we don't have one. If there is god, then it will accept everyone no matter if they reject it. And I'm deliberately not saying He because that sticks in my throat - as a woman I find it ridiculous that god is He, especially as women are the ones who go thorugh all the pain to prodcue the human race. That is one reason I reject any conventional form of religion, another is that it also exhorts me to reject science and I find theoretical physics to be truly transcendent. But the main one is why should I accept what other humans have written as the Truth? I'm truly universalist (and I also deeply respect anyone who has a religion - I see the individual's religion as deeply personal and will only criticise it where it impinges on the good of other people) and I find that sense of the Universal in Tolkien's work more than anything else. I do find god in his work, a sense of limitless possibility and a sense of awe, but not one kind of god, one brand. Quote:
__________________
Gordon's alive!
|
|
04-21-2006, 10:11 PM | #112 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
There is much, much more to respond to, but bed is calling. |
|
04-22-2006, 02:04 AM | #113 | |
Dead Serious
|
Quote:
Ahem! Anyway, the main reason I quoted/posted here was to say how terribly sad the relationship between Science and Religion has become. Prior to the 20th Century, and even ofttimes therein, the great scientists tended, by and large, to fairly devout people- typically Christians, if from the Western world. Newton, Galileo, Einstein- all believed in God (and according to an organised faith) and studied His creation out of a desire to understand the things He wrought (I simplify, somewhat...). Religion, particularly Christianity, it is true, has always been somewhat reactionary. Since Science, of its very nature, is forward-looking, changing its appearance with the emergence of every new theory, it was natural the Religion and Science should collide, with Science tugging inexorably towards the future, while Religion moves more slowly, with a much greater trend towards keeping the valued things of the past. The two are not natural enemies, though, and it is entirely possible to be both a progressive scientist and a devout -even a conservative- believer. Alas that things appear otherwise these days...
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
|
|
04-22-2006, 02:14 AM | #114 | ||
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
Of course, in the Pagan traditions the pig was always a 'sacred' animal, associated with the Underworld deities (see Math, Son of Mathonwy in the Mabinogion) so maybe there was a 'religious' taboo involved..... EDIT Bit more on pigs in Middle/Near-Eastern myth: [color=#800080] Quote:
__________________
“Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects." Last edited by davem; 04-22-2006 at 05:58 AM. |
||
04-23-2006, 03:30 PM | #115 | ||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
I had a post up early yesterday but being on an unfamiliar computer at a certain conference I was attending, I was unsuccessful in posting it.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
More later. |
||||
04-23-2006, 04:00 PM | #116 | |
Illustrious Ulair
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,240
|
Quote:
The Bible says Jesus was the Son of God, the Koran denies that. To the followers of each the others are heretics, unbelievers. LMP, you scare me. Sorry, but you do. I know you would never light the fire, but you would create the climate, make it possible for the fire to be lit. When you say 'I believe the histories contained in the Bible, no matter what the 'scholars' say.' & I ask for evidence its not because I want to belittle your faith, butbecause only evidence is safe. The Twin Towers fell, & thousands of people died because some people decided to 'believe' something they read. Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust because people made the choice to reject the 'scholars'. Belief is the single most dangerous approach to life. Its an approach that seems the way of least resistance, 'let go, trust in a Higher power', don't worry about all these confusing 'facts'. Admit your ignorance & rest in the arms of God'. Sorry, but its a cop out, a denial of your intellectual responsibility - & that is ultimately a rejection of your moral responsibility. And now I'm on the attack again. Look, I'm not saying the cold, hard material world is all there is. I've had experiences which have confirmed to me that 'there are more things in Heaven & earth' than are included in the works of 'scholars' but I've never gone down the line of simply 'believing' anything. If the historical accounts in the Bible are true they can be proved (& it will be 'scholars' who prove them), if they can't be proved they are not true. You've called yourself both a writer & a poet - if you are, & especially if you are a poet, you don't get the luxury of such a cop out. Sorry for my harsh words, but they had to be said.... |
|
04-23-2006, 04:16 PM | #117 | |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Do you see it Form? Isn't life's precariouisness just the thing that gives it meaning and depth? Why to care, if this is just an interlude or or an overture? Just play your cards wisely and wait for the next level (like in WW-game, flying under radar and hoping you wouldn't be noticed?). And to the second point. The fideistic point (called forwards by Kierkegaard & co.) is quite new indeed - but widely held in protestant countries nowadays. They think, that you should make a difference between belief and knowledge. It's an old & new fundamentalist view to call the questions of faith epistemological ie. being questions of truth or falsity - things to be known, or reasoned / proved about... So when you call your belief rational, you line up with the fundamentalists - even though you say the contrary. Already most of the medieval monks felt quite uneasy with those rational "proofs of God's existence" (brought forward from 11th. century forwards), as they seemed to tie God in logic and (human) reasoning... So there is this tension between rationality and christianity - has been there since Paul, of course, but it has not been done away with quite yet.
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
04-23-2006, 04:35 PM | #118 | |||||||
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
Quote:
The questions seem linked. Maybe the fallen angels got smarter and began to realize that they could be much more effective as invisible, possessing agents, rather than as physical beings wielding physical power while trammeled to many (if not all) of the limitations thereof. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
04-23-2006, 04:50 PM | #119 | |
Flame of the Ainulindalë
|
Quote:
Claiming something to be a mystery, then, I find deeply unnerving. It's always the hiding place of power and intrigue. Open arguments can be looked at, together, mysteries are only for the "chosen" (normally self-chosen).
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red Beneath the roof there is a bed; But not yet weary are our feet... |
|
04-23-2006, 05:35 PM | #120 | |
Itinerant Songster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,066
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|