The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum


Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page

Go Back   The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum > Middle-Earth Discussions > The Books
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2006, 01:55 AM   #161
Formendacil
Dead Serious
 
Formendacil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers.
Posts: 3,346
Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Send a message via AIM to Formendacil Send a message via MSN to Formendacil
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Come again?

Actually, I think I know what you mean. And it a point on which you and I must disagree in brotherly kindness. I don't have much quarrel with the seven sacraments, and by saying so I reveal myself as a bad protestant. However, I think that the Roman Catholic church is too ready to identify itself as THE Church. By contrast, I view the Real Church as a more or less invisible organism that only God can know the true membership of, that becomes visible only through the deeds of real believers.
I think you may have misinterpreted me... You seem to be taking my meaning to infer that Catholics alone are necessarily saved, while the rest of Christianity is out there with the Hindus and Buddhists on the Maybe list.

That was not my meaning at all!

What I was trying to express is that being a Christian- be it a Christian of the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox persuasion is not a guarantee to getting into Heaven. If you live a Christian life, then, yes, it would seem you've got a good chance- regardless of your denomination. However, I was speaking with the people in mind who CALL themselves Christian, who go to Church and put a semblance of a Christian lifestyle, in complete hypocrisy. These people are Catholic as often as they are Protestant, and that fact that they are formal members of any Church will not save them from Hell if they deserve it.

I hope that clears it up...

Quote:
As you seem to be able to infer from the test, and the study of Jesus' resurrection, the crucial thing has nothing to do with deciding to sing hymns and all that paraphernalia of ritual (Roman Catholics will not like me saying this). Rather, it has to do with your deep being, who you really are, meeting the deep being of God, person to Person.
Contrary to what you were thinking, this Roman Catholic at least (although Roman Catholic is a bit of an antiquated term. In this era we try to remember and recognize our Greek Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Catholic, and so forth, brethern. Latin-rite Catholic is more accurate, and reminds the reader that the "Roman" Church is just a rite of the Catholic Church) would agree with you. Hymns, rituals, and the like are not going to get you into Heaven. I say this in agreement with my last remark of clarification.

However, I would take issue with the use of the word "paraphrenalia" with regards to ritual. This is not mere extraneous "stuff", this is a very real and tangible way of connecting to God, person to person. Again, the issue of the Sacraments comes up. God realized that Man needs physical connections, that he needs Real connections to God. The Sacraments are physical in nature. There is never any doubt as to whether they've occured or not- any newspaper reporter could watch them and document them. The Eucharist in particular is a Real, Physical connection with God.

Now, some of the arguments in the Church over the DETAILS of ritual, etc, are somewhat extraneous. In God's eyes, I doubt it really matters if we kneel or stand for the Consecration. I doubt if it really matters if the people respond "and also with you" or "and with your spirit also". But the reason that people debate these things, their deep love and concern for the rituals, ultimately stems from a noble devotion to God Himself, for these rituals are very important part of the means by which we know Him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Now c'mon Form! You can't be serious! And this is not a point of an afterlife or something like that - for that, I think well all have freedom (within cultural constraints) to believe what we will. But really: a christian, believing in one God - or a moslem, believing in one God - what's the difference? If you look at the history of these religions, none! Only Islam is the updated version of Christianity - so being a Christian is kind of using Windows 98 still? You can't be serious about this Hell-stuff anyways. That's just a puerile-metaphysical-void-nightmare -thing most people get over with as they grow up...
This seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.

And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
So you are going to heaven? Which here is the primary motivation in your life: securing yourself, or being good? This I would call something like crooked utilitarianism (which indeed the "golden rule" can be interpreted as too?). So you are "offered benefits"? Like the store that gives you three for the price of two? Which one do you see better in moral sense: the one that does good without believing to be paid for it, or the one awaiting a nice return?

Just think this question carefully. It's a stinger! Sorry to mention it.
It is possible for two reasons to produce the same results- and to be present in the same person and situation, is it not?

In my own particular case, I will not deny that going to Heaven and avoiding Hell are major reasons for living a Christian life. However, as I live that life, the more I follow it for those "selfish" reasons, the more I want to follow them for the right reasons. I'm far from perfect, and always will be, but there is a genuine interest when helping others, to help them because they need it, and because that is what God would want. It's a very basic "I want to please God" feeling that I feel when being somewhat successful at living a Christian life. The ramifications of "maybe I'll get into Heaven" or "whew! a little further from Hell" are not thoughts that occur to me immediately, but later, if I'm thinking things over too much.

Finally, is it WRONG to want to go to Heaven, and to avoid Hell, and to be Christian for that sole reason? I think not. If you truly want to avoid Hell and get into Heaven, you cannot help but do as God directs, and love your neighbour as yourself, and as if he or she was Jesus in person. And if you start to treat other people as though God was in them (meaning respectfully and lovingly) then you cannot fail but come to love God as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
And anyhow. What are you going to do there - and what is the meaning of your life here?
I shall love the Lord my God with all my mind and heart, body and soul, and I shall love my neighbour as myself.

Or, at least, that's what I'm going to try and do. There is nothing more than that.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
Formendacil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 12:09 PM   #162
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
First, Nogrod's statement that Islam is 'merely' an updated version of Christianity. It isn't. If anything its an updated version of Judaism which completely by-passes Christianity. Both Judaism & Islam emphasise the 'separateness' of Creator & creation, of God & man. The creation in both is seen as fallen & apart from the Creator.

Christianity teaches that the Creation has been redeemed, the split healed:

Quote:
"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God" was written by Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria, in De inc., 54, 3: PG, 192B, in his refutation of Arius during the First Ecumenical Council
Some people think that St. Irenaeus of Lyons may have said it before Holy Father Athanasios the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria.
The image: Christ hangs on the cross - he is 'transfixed', uniting in himself in that moment all the broken parts of Creation: God & Man, life & death, heaven & earth. Day & night are joined at that moment as the sky darkens. Christ becomes the central point of the new Creation & the Fall is healed. Without this act the Fall still operates, the Universe is still broken & the creation is still sick.

Islam denies this act because it denies that Jesus was God & merely a Prophet (who would be 'superceded' by Muhammed, who goes on to bring fire & the sword to most of the known world - & marrying a six year old girl btw- though it must be acknowledged that the marriage was not consummated till she was nine). Yet this is an act which only the Creator of the Universe could accomplish, because it would require the active participation of God to bring it about.

Now, I'm not changing my spots here - if Christianity is true that act would be vitally necessary, but I don't see any evidence that it is true - in a literal sense. It is a myth which is internally self consistent - like all good secondary world should be if they are to convince & move the reader & produce a sense of Eucatastrophe.

Quote:
But that's only half justice. Good and evil runs through the heart of every human. It starts with our refusal to accept God as He is. God's justice will necessarily include punishing those who refuse to acknowledge him. So he gives us his mercy. I say it again, you don't really want his justice; if you think you do, it's because you misunderstand it. If that sounds pejorative, I'm no better. The only difference is that I've given my acknowledgement.
But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff. If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least. If I was to go around punishing everyone who failed to acknowledge me - not saying thank you when I hold a door open for them, or barging past me in a queue, I'd pretty soon get a reputation for being an overly sensitive so-&-so who ought to lighten up & get a life. I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out. If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2006, 05:31 PM   #163
Nogrod
Flame of the Ainulindalë
 
Nogrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves
Posts: 9,330
Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.
Send a message via MSN to Nogrod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
IThis seems to be written very tongue in cheek... I hope it is... The differences between Islam and Christianity are many and varied, and to call Islam an "updated Christianity" is to ignore the numerous contradictions between the two religions. Christians have claimed Jesus as the Son of God since the time of Jesus Himself. Even if you throw out all the Bible as evidence, Jesus was accepted as God by Christians before the 1st Century was out. Islam, started in the 600s, completely disagrees with this. The two may have similarities, but they are not compatible- at all.
-------------------------------
And yes, Hell exists. Theologians have jumped all over the place in guessing what it's like, but it exists. And, quite frankly, I have no desire or intention of going there and seeing firsthand what it's like.
To your first question, yes. It was written with a tongue in cheek. Surely. But the question behind is a good one - even though I somewhat admit Davem's point of the Islam being a "update" of Judaism in the first place. But really, what's the difference? the jews still wait for the Messiah - the Shii'te moslems wait for him too (read what the Iranian president Ahmadinejad talks!), the christian believe, he was here already, but needs to come again... So everyone is waiting .

You can google the different people announcing the end of the world in internet: some say, it will be 06.06.06 (the number of the Beast!), some give other dates... They all are the same people, wishing or believing, that certain things they hold true, will be so. How can you differentiate between them - or between a jew, a christian or a moslem?

And for the hell. You should go back to the scripture & some Middle-age -studies. Hell is a medieval invention - that can be explained quite nicely with very earthly agendas. The moslems make a difference between the holy scripture and the interpretation of it. Should those christians not doing it already, do it too?
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red
Beneath the roof there is a bed;
But not yet weary are our feet...
Nogrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2006, 07:28 PM   #164
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Someone sent me a very kind rep regarding this thread without saying who they were. I'll quote a portion of it so you can know you you are, as there are questions I'd like to answer if I may, via PM, once you PM me who you are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ?
Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 01:07 AM   #165
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?
If we're reading the Bible, yes. I could just as well ask 'If Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, aren't we all sort of on the same page?'

The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy. Take the following. Read the blog & the first comment. http://shelleytherepublican.com/2005...-american.html

Now, some will see them as opposing political views. I see them as two 'realities'. 'Shelley' claims (& no doubt believes) he/she is a Christian, but so do many of his//her opponents.

Problems arise when one group adopts a consensus 'reality' & sets out to 'prove' it is objectively true by imposing it on everyone else. In other words, one group builds a set of pigeon-holes & tries to force everyone & everything to fit in them. Anything that will not fit is dismissed as untrue, 'evil' (the work of Satan or the 'fallen Angels) or, if possible, destroyed. Alan Watts told a great story of an eminent scientist who won great kudos for a theory about marine biology. One day someone came up to him with the shell of a creature, the existence of which would destroy both his theory & his reputation. The scientist asked to examine the shell, promptly dropped it on the floor & stamped it to pieces saying 'There, I told you it didn't exist.'

Christ's redemptive act is absolutely a FACT to LMP & Formendacil & absolutely a fantasy to others. Same with the Afterlife. My own position is that there are lots of very interesting stories out there, many of them very beautiful & interesting, just as there are many cultures & languages. Some of the stories contradict each other, but that's fine as long as they don't contradict themselves, as then they would not be very good stories. The thing I fear is that the 'story' of one particular group, because of the power that group gets, comes to dominate & destroy all the other stories. We end up with one story, one language, one way of thinking about & seeing the world. And the road to that destination begins when one group decides 'our story is the only true story - the other stories may have something of truth in them, of course - but if they do its because they're only versions of our own'.

One Story. One Truth. One Reich.

One Ring.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 12:34 PM   #166
Laitoste
Wight
 
Laitoste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Behind the hills
Posts: 164
Laitoste has just left Hobbiton.
Pipe

Not sure if this really fits, but I wanted to clarify some issues regarding Islam. The Islamic religion is not necessarily an update on Christianity. They are both updates on Judaism. Christians believe that, with the birth and death of Jesus, the title of "chosen people" transferred from the Jews to them. Muslims believe that with the revelation of the Qur'an to Muhammad, the title of "God's chosen" is moved to them. In Islam, Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians are seen as “people of the book”, and are not included among the “unbelievers” and therefore are dealt with differently. Muslims historically see the Christians as wrong only in the emphasis they place on Jesus. According to the Qur'an, Jesus is merely a prophet, nothing more. In the Qur'an, in the sura about Mary, Jesus, as a baby, says:

Quote:
I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is on me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised into life.
Christianity and Islam have the same base. The truly major differences between the religions are cultural, rather than religious. For example, the five pillars of Islam are: Shahada (confession), Salat (prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Saum (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). Similar ideas can be found in Christianity. However, you could claim that, historically, Muslims have been more intelligent about using their faith, despite the lack of any concept of a secular state. In the Pact of Umar from the 7th Century, a set of conditions for non-Muslims under Muslim rule, requires non-Muslims simply to not ostentatiously display their religions or impede the Muslims in any way. They are also required to pay slightly higher taxes. However, if you take a look at what happened during the aftermath of the 1st Crusade, when the Christians actually accomplished something (taking Jerusalem), they gave no thought to making political enemies or alienating the people who lived there first. It was a massacre. During the penitential pilgrimages that took place between the major Crusades, the knights just wanted to go, kill some “pagans”, and leave. This wreaked havoc on the Christian leaders who had set up kingdoms in the area.

(For the record, I was Lutheran all my life, go to a Lutheran college in Minnesota, and am now far too apathetic to be religious. Furthermore, I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul). I took a history class examining the Crusades and the Islamic counter crusade last semester and we read parts of the Qur'an (poorly translated) in another class this semester. I am not an expert on Islam, nor am I Muslim, and apologize for any mistakes or misunderstandings. )
__________________
"If we're still alive in the morning, we'll know that we're not dead."~South Park
Laitoste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2006, 12:55 PM   #167
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Great post, davem, especially the end.

My position, from the science corner of the world, is that if there exists these Truths, then no one or group can successfully hide them. There are 6+ billion people on this planet, and if these truths are self-evident, surely persons will stumble upon them again and again.

And who can thwart the will of God?

When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.

Religion follows a similiar process. Unchanging? Not likely, for the same reasons I give above. On the other hand, the religious can point to something purportedly outside of influence and say that that Truth is objective and in no need of change. Trouble is, is that one many want to look at that Truth to find out why it is considered to be so, not just accepting the finger pointing and statement "Truth." Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?

I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.

Like the link that davem provided, the site provides a list of things one should do to be a good American or whatever. Each statement seems clear enough and simple enough to follow. But what if one looks a little deeper, or asks the dreaded "why?" Does that make one less American (or Republican or whatever)?

Paul had the Bereans; Denethor II Gandalf, and Manwë Fëanor.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2006, 09:54 AM   #168
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
But I'm not asking for 'full' justice here & now, only a little intervention to stop the really bad stuff.
Ah. Thanks for your persistence. God has put something in place to stop the really bad stuff, or at least when it happens, to be right there and fix or heal it. However, this 'something' has done by and large a deplorable job. No excuse. It's called the Church. That means us folks who say we follow Jesus. We've failed God and our fellow humans a lot over the last 2,000 years, and it's something we ought to be very remoresful about.

Quote:
If God feels the need to 'punish' those who refuse to acknowledge him he seems a little tetchy to say the least.
but he doesn't. He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.

Quote:
I also have to point out that God actually made us (if you believe that) so He should take some responsibility for the way we turned out.
That's one way of thinking about why he sent Jesus.

Quote:
If I paint a picture that looks nothing like the subject I'd blame myself for my lack of talent, not seek to punish the painting.
But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?

[quote=Nogrod]Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D.

davem's concerns about power are apt. However, the Church should not seek earthly power. It's not what Jesus put it here for.

I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God

must run......
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2006, 02:00 PM   #169
Nogrod
Flame of the Ainulindalë
 
Nogrod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wearing rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves in a field behaving as the wind behaves
Posts: 9,330
Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.Nogrod is wading through the Dead Marshes.
Send a message via MSN to Nogrod
[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Hell is a medieval invention[/b] That would mean that Matthew 25 was written sometime after 450 A.D.? Not to mention the lake of fire in Revelation? I could have sworn those documents had been around before 450 A.D.
Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway (and of these the Revelation-stuff is just so sick - and most of the exegetics seem to be at wonder with it: why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).

The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with. It was the charismatic movements all around the Mediterranean & Middle-Eastern world during the centuries surrounding the beginning of our year 1, that really brought this idea of an eternal afterlife to the fore. And these movenets were mainly from Persia (could be lendings from Indian thought-world, as they had this notion of eternall bliss in Nirvana?) - lending all those early agricultural myths of a God sacrifying himself for the new life to be born on springtime.

But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!
__________________
Upon the hearth the fire is red
Beneath the roof there is a bed;
But not yet weary are our feet...
Nogrod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2006, 03:24 PM   #170
Celuien
Riveting Ribbiter
 
Celuien's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Assigned to Mordor
Posts: 1,795
Celuien has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
The Jews were quite low-toned about any afterlife to begin with.
Just popping in briefly...

There is an afterlife in Judaism (although details are somewhat open to interpretation and it really isn't the main focus). But I'm far from a religious scholar, so I don't know the historical timeline that well.

Click here for a pretty good explanation.

Popping back out again. Carry on.
__________________
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect. But actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey... stuff.
Celuien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2006, 03:47 PM   #171
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMP
He has been very merciful. And I still think that there is some way in which Christ's redemptive act works backwards into the past such that many who were believed to have never had a chance, will be numbered amongst God's people. There are references to this same kind of thing in the NT here and there: we will be surprised who's there and who isn't ... largely because we look at the outside while God looks at the heart.
If the act took place in both time & eternity (uniting both in effect) this would be a valid interpretation - in fact it would be a necessary consequence. But that doesn't make it true, merely 'logical' within the 'Secondary World'. But this is the point - it doesn't prove it actually happened in the Primary World. Its also 'logical' that the destruction of the One Ring cause the fall of Sauron within that Secondary World. It seems that you inhabit a 'world' that I don't. Actually, I like your world a lot. There's something in me that responds strongly to the world of little country churches, the language of the King James Bible & the Prayer book, of evensong, of tradition stretching back into the mists of time, of the same hymns sung & prayers said in the same words. Part of me would love to enter into it & live there. But there's also a part of me that would love to go live in the world of Ealing comedy & Launder & Gilliat, with Alistair Sim & Margaret Rutherford, Terry-Thomas & St Trinians, when the world was in black & white & safe & comfortable. Or Middle-earth. Only problem is that world never really existed - its nice to go & visit though.

Quote:
But the picture isn't nothing like the subject, to use your analogy. All humans still bear the image of God, however blemished it may be. Again, why do you think He reached out in the person of Jesus?
Well, I don't believe that He did. I do love the story, though. I'm reminded of that line from 'The Man who Shot Liberty Valance': 'When the Legend becomes fact, print the Legend.'
Quote:
I'm surprised, davem, that you didn't add one more phrase: One God
Oh, but that's the problem: One God, One Story, Many Gods, Many Stories. The Elves made many rings, Sauron made One. I just like stories so much that I want as many as possible.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2006, 12:54 AM   #172
Formendacil
Dead Serious
 
Formendacil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers.
Posts: 3,346
Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Send a message via AIM to Formendacil Send a message via MSN to Formendacil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Thanks. I think I deserved this one, for being quite hasty in this discussion (well you all write so much and I only seem to be able to pop-in/pop-out occasionally). But then again, I'm not sure, whether you have just pinpointed the only two mentionings in the Bible that could be in any way interpreted as something like a Hell anyway...

...But back to the bussiness. What I meant, was that the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!
AS

Although I do not recall the word "Hell" being used, nor of it having the same connotations as that term does for us, there are definitely Biblical, indeed New Testament, references to it.

As LMP demonstrated with his reference to Matthew 25, in which Jesus -so yes, this is a teaching of Jesus- speaks of seperating the goats from the sheep, and condemning the former, on the basis of their lack of Christian service (not, interestingly enough, on the basis of their acknowledgement of Christ), there are definitely New Testament references to punishment for those who DON'T welcome the Kingdom of God.

Only a few chapters earlier, in Matthew 22, is another parable referring to the punishment of those who disobey God. This parable, the parable in which the Kingdom of Heaven is compared to a wedding feast, has one of the unworthy (poor) guests attend garbed improperly (and disrespectfully). The king has this unworthy guest "bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth" ( Matthew 22:13)

Or, to jump to a different Gospel, Luke, there is the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, in which both die, and Lazarus the poor man goes to Heaven and is with Abraham, but the rich man is seperated permanently from them:

"The rich man also died and was buried; and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom. And he called out, "Father Abraham, have mercy upon me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame." (Luke 16: 22b-34)

There are other references, but this is enough to be going on... and the last reference even had fire in it.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
Formendacil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2006, 09:29 PM   #173
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
The question is whether in either case we are dealing with a 'fact' about the Primary World, or a particular Secondary World. Speaking as an Introvert I'd tend to give priority to a Secondary World over the Primary one.

Of course, the Primary World is also in some ways an amalgam of all our Secondary Worlds - we invent our own model of 'reality' which we project onto the things around us - we tell ourselves a story about it. The 'real' world has no colours, sounds, tastes, textures. Quantum theory tells us that all that is 'really' out there is energy. Our brains interpret that sea of energy & invent the colours, sounds, etc. 'I' exist as a character in my own invented secondary world, the one my brain has put together.

LMP, Formendacil & others 'really' see a fallen but redeemed creation when they look at the world. Many others see nothing of the sort. What happens though is that we get so caught up in our 'Secondary World ' that we forget that we're dealing with a fantasy.
We need to distinguish between how davem is using the phrases Tolkien coined, from how Tolkien used them. The difference is subtle but profound.

Tolkien meant, by Secondary Reality, a mental construct, passed, by means of the written word (in Tolkien's case), from the author's mind to the reader's mind, in order to engender Secondary Belief.

Secondary Belief is the act of entering into a story one reads, knowing it is not primary reality, but engaging the story as if it is while in the act of reading.

Willing Suspension of Disbelief, by contrast, is the act of choosing not to get derailed by a lack in either the story or the reader's ability to engage the story, in order to .... engage the story.

davem means a mental construct, created in the mind of the perceiver, by means of the senses from Primary Reality to the mind, engendering - by nature - Primary Belief.

As I said, a subtle but profound difference. Tolkien coined the phrases in order to shed light on story and the reading of stories. davem is using these same phrases in a way that confuses things; without the intention of doing so, I would bet. However, there are perfectly adequate words and phrases to describe what davem is really talking about: "world view; weltanschauung; philosophy of life".

Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laitoste
I refuse to believe in a God who tells someone to "kill thirty-one kings in all" (Joshua 12), or who appoints misogynistic jerks as his mouthpieces (Paul).
Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appelation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formy
Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has.
Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

That's all I can manage for now. Alatar, I'll respond to your post when I get a chance.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2006, 10:24 PM   #174
Formendacil
Dead Serious
 
Formendacil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Perched on Thangorodrim's towers.
Posts: 3,346
Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.Formendacil is lost in the dark paths of Moria.
Send a message via AIM to Formendacil Send a message via MSN to Formendacil
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.
You are, likely enough, right. What I'm trying to express is the idea that God is the final judge of who's going to get into Heaven or not- and that he's going to judge all of us individually- based on what we've done, not on what membership cards we've held.

If I say that only Christians are going to get into Heaven, then why shouldn't I say that only Catholic will get into Heaven? After all, the Catholic Church is the Right Church, and the other Churches are in contravention with the Church Christ established?

It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".

Anyone who has heard what the Church teaches and rejects it is definitely in much graver moral peril than someone who has never heard, but I have great difficulty in believing that one HAS to a Christian (or, by extension, a Catholic) to get into Heaven.
__________________
I prefer history, true or feigned.
Formendacil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 02:48 AM   #175
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMP
Primary Belief is believing something to be real. It is unhealthy to have Primary Belief regarding Secondary Reality. Of course, what davem is more or less saying is that we're all delusional and we might as well enjoy it and let each other have the delusions of our choice. Sorry, that's not good enough.
Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'. At the moment I'm happy for you to keep your beliefs, but if we can only have the one 'true' belief you better start putting up your barricades.

I'm absolutely certain my 'weltanshauung' or belief system is as delusional as anyone elses. But I'm equally sure that all religions & philosophies are secondary worlds created in the minds of individuals & passed on either via the written word or via sermons, rallies or TV etc.

Of course, the problem comes when individuals confuse the primary with their own secondary worlds, but I'm sure we all do that - Tolkien himself certainly did, referring to certain individuals as 'Orcs' or to Satan as 'Sauron' ('Its a dangerous business, stepping into a Secondary World - if youdon't keep your common sense there is no knowing where you might end up.

I'd say that's what you've done - found yourself a Secondary world that you like so much that you've confused it with everday reality & I've no doubt you believe I've done the same. If there's a difference between us its probably just that I acknowledge I've done that.

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 07:42 AM   #176
drigel
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
drigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
drigel has just left Hobbiton.
I think I see davem's point. The fact that no one on this plane of existence is actually one with God (which would be Primary belief), we all, in a sense live in a state of Secondary belief.

But, the author, in proposing the idea of primary/secondary world, I construe was implying that the whole act of creating a secondary world is a gift from God. Actually praising (complementing, validating) the Creator. The secondary world is impossible without the primary, and at least in the authors case, the primary includes the authors primary belief of a higher power in the Christian and Catholic sense.
drigel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 08:46 AM   #177
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?
Here's the problems:
  • When I cannot speak of my secondary world for fear of retribution, and
  • When belief in a secondary world kills.

If you want to believe in Balrog wings and elves and lycanthropy and feng shui and pyramid power and Atlantis and God and the Devil and all things in between, well, have at it and enjoy. When I respectfully and humbly say that one, some or all of these notions are bunk, and suddenly must fear for my life as the pitchforked mob is coming, then I think we have a problem. If you believe that God will heal your child of X, and I have a scientifically proven cure for X that you will not utilize and the child suffers and dies, then we have a problem. If I wanted a bridge built, I would ask the help of an engineer (one with a proven track record) than someone who simply really really believes that with the help of Oompa-Loompas that he/she can do just as well.

Getting the placement of your keyboard, mouse and monitor 'just right' is a bit of an art, and no two persons would arrive at exactly the same configuration, just like when interpretting John's words in Revelations, or when considering why Peter Jackson spawned his Uruks from mud, or what really made Gollum fall. We can fill in with Art that which we cannot definitively nail down.

But for somethings, we'd better arrive at the same answer or one of us is wrong. The Mars Climate Orbiter crashed as someone confused imperial units for those metric. Oops!

Not even science has all of the Answers, but with a free market place of ideas and thought, for those physical/materials things within its scope we will continually arrive at the Truth (an approximation, as some of you well know ).

And lastly, the first part of this article, coincidencely published today (spooky! ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 09:33 AM   #178
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
I think the point is that, in effect, all philosophies, religions, worldviews begin as 'secondary worlds'. They may be in intention models of the primary world, but they all begin as fantasy worlds, same as stories.

What we refer to as 'myths', 'legends', folktales, were in origin models of the primary world. They only became 'secondary' worlds when they were replaced by a different model - one which may have subsequently been replaced by yet another.

Of course, a 'secondary' world may (as in the case of Middle-earth) have always been intended to be a 'secondary' world - though its possible that some mad dictator may attempt to make the primary world like M-e through genetic engineering & landscaping, etc.

The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we? Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 09:48 AM   #179
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we?
In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 10:03 AM   #180
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I think the point is that, in effect, all philosophies, religions, worldviews begin as 'secondary worlds'. They may be in intention models of the primary world, but they all begin as fantasy worlds, same as stories.
I'm with you. I would just want these models to be not only explanatory but reliably predictive if they are used in certain arenas. If you always got rain after sacrificing a virgin to the volcano, then maybe you have something there I can use.


Quote:
Of course, a 'secondary' world may (as in the case of Middle-earth) have always been intended to be a 'secondary' world - though its possible that some mad dictator may attempt to make the primary world like M-e through genetic engineering & landscaping, etc.
Dagnabit, davem, quit spying on me! Engineering elven ears is hard enough without having Monday morning geneticists telling me that they're not pointy enough (or too pointy) or should look more like cabbage leaves. Shhh!


Quote:
The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we? Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.
I'm no philosopher or deep thinker, but think that we all work with a projection of the real world within our heads. You and I see the same wavelength of light and think 'orange' - even if I see it as grey and you see it more yellow than red. We have our own pretty little universes between our ears, and it's amazing that when they bump up against each other that there's any congruence. But we've worked that out for some things and not for others.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 10:30 AM   #181
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.
Define 'reality'. Is it where my body is, or where my mind is?

Define 'mind'. Is it limited to 'reality' - ie the 'primary' world, or can it also exist in a secondary world?

Am 'I' my mind, or my body, (or my soul or my spirit)?
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 10:44 AM   #182
drigel
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
drigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
drigel has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Hence, all our 'primary' worlds are a step away from reality & are therefore 'secondary', inventions that are either unique or shared with a few others ('living shapes that move from mind to mind'). In other words, LMP's 'primary' world (Christianity) is, to me, a 'secondary one' as it is one that is only 'real' in Tolkien's 'secondary' sense, no more rooted in the primary than is M-e.
It's still all about perception. Or, levels of voluntary hallucination.

But if one subscribes to this line of thought, I still say the concept of a higher power could still fit in the picture. In other words -

Quote:
The point being, a 'secondary world' can be the model of the primary world which you have in your head at this moment. If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we?
Then our primary should also be derived from a higher model. Or, again in other words, from whose head did our primary spring from? Otherwise, we are the ultimate masters of the universe, or delusional animals.

drigel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 11:08 AM   #183
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drigel
Then our primary should also be derived from a higher model. Or, again in other words, from whose head did our primary spring from? Otherwise, we are the ultimate masters of the universe, or delusional animals.
Not sure this follows – the use of 'higher' in this context is possibly a bit misleading as it implies superiority – a 'higher' power etc. There's no reason to bring in a 'higher' mind.

Of course, I don't deny the possibility of such a 'being'. I've had experiences which could be labelled 'psychic' or 'mystical' (which, incidentally, I neither believe nor disbelieve – or even attempt to 'explain' come to that. They were simply 'experiences'. Quite possibly part of my particular 'delusion').

I wouldn't consider myself a 'master of the universe' (not while Lalwende is around) & my natural humility (which other Downers will vouch for) inclines me more towards thinking of myself as a 'delusional animal'.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 11:10 AM   #184
Laitoste
Wight
 
Laitoste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Behind the hills
Posts: 164
Laitoste has just left Hobbiton.
My sincerest apologies...

Quote:
Originally Posted by littlemanpoet
Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appellation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?
Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my use of the term "jerk". It was inappropriate, and I had let my emotions run away with me. It is my gut reaction to Paul, for more reasons than just misogyny. So again, I apologize.

However, the fact still remains that Paul was unsympathetic towards women, with no good reason. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, he says:

Quote:
As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
My marginal notes for this passage consist of: WHAT?!! Now, when we discussed Corinthians in my Romans and Early Christians class, many of my classmates wanted to simply forgive Paul for this clearly antifeminist text on the basis of history. Well, that doesn't work. People, in general, don't look at the Bible in a historical context. It has been abused, and is still being abused, to push political agendas (slavery, homophobia, etc). Furthermore, there is no Biblical precedent for this behavior. In fact, in the letter to the Romans, chapter 16, Phoebe, “our sister”, is listed as a deacon, and a Junia is mentioned as an apostle. According to the footnotes, in many translations, “Junia” is actually mentioned as “Junias”, a male Latin name that was not used among the Romans at that time. The earliest manuscript the editors used actually reads, “Julia.” If a woman was preaching the Gospel, how can Paul even imagine saying that “women should be silent in churches”? (Another good place to look for Paul’s attitudes about women is 1 Timothy; however, many scholars doubt the authenticity of this text.) To me, this obviously denotes a misogynist, and not a very observant one, either.

About Joshua: these kings happened to be in the way of the Israelites. They inhabited the land that the Israelites wanted, and were therefore eliminated. For example:

Quote:
So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. Joshua 8:28-29
There is even one passage where one of the Israelites takes a few ornaments from the treasure gathered from Jericho, causing “the anger of the Lord [to burn] against them” (Joshua 7:1). This causes the Israelites to lose their next battle, and eventually, “all Israel stoned him to death; they burned him with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Joshua 7:25). Now, in my class on Jihad and the Crusades, we were required to read this at the beginning of the term so as to understand where the medieval holy violence was coming from. They used texts like these to completely massacre various populations of “unbelievers” in Europe and the Levant. It is simply repulsive.

To answer your third question, littlemanpoet, a creature cannot be morally superior to its “creator”, if such a being exists. However, once a creature starts acting in morally repugnant ways in the NAME of that creator, another creature is perfectly free to make moral judgments on those actions. It is wrong to kill another human being. It doesn’t matter if you do it in the name of God or not, it’s wrong either way. It is wrong to try to repress the ideas of others. If God exists, it would, theoretically, not be possible for humankind to be morally superior to it. On the other hand, we don’t have proof God exists, and have even less proof that this God has commanded people to do anything at all, so it is very easy to use God’s name to commit morally wrong acts. I think it is clear that anything that is a basic human rights violation is wrong. I would like a clarification, however, of what you mean by “psychological illness.” To what are you referring?

Finally, to restate my personal beliefs: I do not yet know if there is a God, but if there is, God will not be found in “holy texts” such as the Bible. The Bible was written by men, even if it was “divinely inspired.“ Men (and women, to be gender-inclusive) are apt to get things wrong. If God is to be found anywhere, God is in collective worship, such as in a church, or in nature. There is some value, I think, in people gathering to worship together. The only issues surface when these groups become hateful and intolerant towards other groups. But respectful, collective meditation, prayer, and song can be good for one’s mental state. It just doesn’t work for me, as much as I love the liturgy of the Lutheran Church (which is pretty much the same as in any other liturgical church, like the Catholic or Episcopalian Churches). As I said in my previous post, I cannot believe in the God of the Hebrew-Christian Bible. That God has been twisted and changed from its original form, whatever that was. That God has been manipulated by humankind, and is, in my opinion, no longer a god.

EDIT: I used the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV with Apocrypha 3rd Edition. The footnotes and introductions are amazing.
__________________
"If we're still alive in the morning, we'll know that we're not dead."~South Park

Last edited by Laitoste; 05-04-2006 at 08:59 PM. Reason: Spelling and grammar: to think, I want to be an English major!
Laitoste is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 02:04 PM   #185
drigel
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
drigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
drigel has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Not sure this follows – the use of 'higher' in this context is possibly a bit misleading as it implies superiority – a 'higher' power etc. There's no reason to bring in a 'higher' mind.
Nor should there be a reason to deny a higher power. Except the absense of humility. Or, instead of asking: "..... from whose head did our primary spring from?", I should have asked "From whose loins did our primary spring from?" Higher Mind is misleading and not what I was striving for there. Power would be more apt.

Dont get me wrong, im just suggesting here.

Quote:
Of course, I don't deny the possibility of such a 'being'. I've had experiences which could be labelled 'psychic' or 'mystical' (which, incidentally, I neither believe nor disbelieve – or even attempt to 'explain' come to that. They were simply 'experiences'. Quite possibly part of my particular 'delusion').
Or quite possibly a touch of something of a higher nature than yourself. Your "labels" might be substandard in describing the context of what you experienced.

drigel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 02:47 PM   #186
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drigel
Nor should there be a reason to deny a higher power. Except the absense of humility. Or, instead of asking: "..... from whose head did our primary spring from?", I should have asked "From whose loins did our primary spring from?" Higher Mind is misleading and not what I was striving for there. Power would be more apt.

Dont get me wrong, im just suggesting here.
I wouldn't deny the possibility, but I don't think 'belief' helps there. You can believe in any kind of 'higher power'. I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'. I can't explain how the primary world came to be, but I don't think that's sufficient justification for positing a Creator.

Quote:
Or quite possibly a touch of something of a higher nature than yourself. Your "labels" might be substandard in describing the context of what you experienced.

They might well. The danger is that you construct (or adopt) a very convoluted 'belief' in a 'God' to account for your experience. Just because you experience something doesn't mean you can explain it accurately. I & a man living 1,000 years ago both experienced seeing the sun on the eastern horizon at dawn, at different places in the sky throughout the day & on the western horizon at evening, but we interpret the experience in different ways. For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 03:00 PM   #187
drigel
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
drigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
drigel has just left Hobbiton.
Quote:
I wouldn't deny the possibility, but I don't think 'belief' helps there.
totally agree. but, if you replace belief with humility, I think it would help there

Quote:
I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'. I can't explain how the primary world came to be, but I don't think that's sufficient justification for positing a Creator.
Inteligent design for me is a mistaken approach. It's lost it's purpose by its very format. Good science, like good information cannot be competed with. I am not defending that strategy, but I dont science will ever fill all the gaps either.

Quote:
For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.
Ahhh but you learned that. Your experience is tainted with what you have read (and believed) from a book. Unless you have a space craft that you havent informed me about, and havent invited me on board (yet).
drigel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 03:14 PM   #188
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drigel
Ahhh but you learned that. Your experience is tainted with what you have read (and believed) from a book. Unless you have a space craft that you havent informed me about, and havent invited me on board (yet).
Exactly my point. We both experience the same thing but interpret it differently according to what we know & what we choose to believe. We may both be wrong.

Of course you can come on my spacecraft. I will need a cheque for $10,000 first, though. I'll let you have the address to send it to if you're interested....
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2006, 09:03 PM   #189
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
And who can thwart the will of God?
Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
When someone in the scientific community proposes a theory that cuts across the accepted paradigm, this person may be ridiculed, shunned, persecuted etc by the establishment. It happens, as we are dealing with humans who are prideful, in fear of change, desiring personal power and stability over openness, slothful...along with many other virtues and vices. However, eventually the truth will win out. Goodly objective people lend a hand, obstinate personalities die out, as does their power and influence, and so we move science and everyone with it over to the new paradigm. Shortly thereafter, the cement comes, forms the new floor and starts to solidify, making the new bosses much like the old bosses.
This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
I find it funny that the DaVinci Code has caused any uproar, as it has been resoundly debunked by both the Christian community and the pagan skeptics. Yet some Christians still doubt, which makes me think that either they do not really know what they believe, tend to believe in anything rather easily without evidence, or have not or are trained not to ask for the evidence.
While I'm not familiar with DaVinci Code (yet), there are many followers of Christ who are ruled by their fears; which is sad. Their faith is weak and they feel that they can be waylaid by such things (Harry Potter's another example ). Because fear rules them, they can't think very clearly. It's a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
Why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).
Wow. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind about the man already. Are you talking about Paul the apostle? Could you provide examples of the hate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nogrod
the doctrine of Hell was not anything particularily popular - if even outspoken - in the early Christianity. It became a subject of discussion (and an idea to frighten people with) only on medieval times. And thence should be seen as an invention of the medieval clergy, more than an original Christian stance, or a teaching of Jesus!
Well. Matthew 8:12; 2 Thess. 1:9; Romans 2:1-10; 2 Peter 2:4; Matt. 10:15&28; Matt. 5:29,30.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
It says in the Bible that is better to be hot or cold than lukewarm. I find it a good deal more consistent for God to allow into Heaven a firm, if misguided, Moslem than a lukewarm "Catholic".
This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the Calormene who sought Tash but really sought Aslan, not knowing it. I've always been rather enamored of the idea. I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but it's attractive. I do agree with your point that God is the judge, not some organized church's set of doctrines. Oh! and regarding "paraphernalia": I have a higher view of the sacraments than that word may connote. God's grace is communicated to us through the sacraments and many other rituals of the church, even icons. It's important not to confuse the things with the source of the grace, of course.

(post 175 next), much hie me to bed.....
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 10:57 AM   #190
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMP
Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.
But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.

Quote:
This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.
But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 02:15 PM   #191
alatar
Doubting Dwimmerlaik
 
alatar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Heaven's basement
Posts: 2,499
alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.alatar is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.
That's one of my issues with the paranormal, God and all things supernatural. If you cannot predict with even a little certainty what could happen, then how can you determine anything? For example, if one were to pray for a certain event, and if the event happens, then one would say that the prayer was answered. If, however, the event happened awry, then either the prayer did not work, was not received or the event was determined not to be God's will and so the prayer was heard and answered but in the negative. It's not easy to test the divine, but it's easy to say that the test was passed after the fact when any answer will do.

Frank Herbert (of Dune fame and my other favorite author) collaborated on a series of books, the first being The Jesus Incident. Not his best work, but one thing within I found interesting. A woman, traveling through time with the assistance of God, is an eyewitness to the Crucifixion of the Christ. Jesus, of course, is aware that she's not as she appears to be. Afterwards, safe back in her own time, she finally comes to the realization of why Jesus was hung on the tree (besides for the Redemption of Humankind). The crowd was hoping to get God to tip His hand. Even if this meant their immediate destruction, for a moment they would know.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Herbert
Religion begins where men seek to influence a god. The biblical scapegoat and Christian Redeemer are cast from the same ancient mould--the human subservient to an unpredictable universe (or unpredictable king) and seeking to rid himself of the guilt which brings down the wrath of the all-powerful.
--Raja Flattery, The Book of Ship
I thought that interesting.


Quote:
But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.
That's one of the problems with the religious science, as embodied in Intelligent Design. In ID, you have point A (i.e. Genesis) and point B and must to connect the two. In non-ID, you have point B and you attempt to work back to some point A. Are scientists free from already having a point A in mind which they desperately try to get to? I'll admit that that happens as well, but in that case one can argue with the person, whereas one cannot ask God for His notes etc.

Can't tell you the number of times I wanted to throw my TV out the window while watching some religious science (hmm, it'd be fair to note that this throwing behaviour is triggered by other topics as well ). Watched one show where a "scientist" showed how the decay rate of uranium changed just after the flood. Also have read that the spead of light has slowed, and that light from distant galaxies was given a head start so that we could see the light that has traveled millions of light years to get here. All that and more to connect A to B.

Would have loved to have the chutzpah, on one of my exams, to set up the problem to a certain point, then state that there was some divine intervention, and just provide the answer.
__________________
There is naught that you can do, other than to resist, with hope or without it.
alatar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 03:29 PM   #192
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar
Watched one show where a "scientist" showed how the decay rate of uranium changed just after the flood. Also have read that the spead of light has slowed, and that light from distant galaxies was given a head start so that we could see the light that has traveled millions of light years to get here. All that and more to connect A to B.
Robert Anton Wilson makes the point that you might as well say that the whole universe was created three minutes ago, including us & all our memories of it being older. Its not scientific, because it can't be disproven - I'd like to see anyone actually prove that Wilson's example is false. If you're going to bring an all powerful creator in as an explanation for things you can put forward any mad theory forward, but, hey, whatever lights your candle.

I take Herbert's point - I'd be tempted to push God to the limit just to get Him to admit He's there, even if it was the last thing I ever experienced. It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist. If a parent behaved the same way with their children, hiding from them, & dropping dubious 'hints' which may or may not 'prove' he's really there we'd either dismiss him as a fool or charge him with cruelty - particularly if he had left notes around threatening them with death if they didn't believe he existed & worshipped him regularly.

EDIT Must thank Bethberry for referring me to The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Last edited by davem; 05-05-2006 at 03:33 PM.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 07:16 PM   #193
drigel
Ghost Prince of Cardolan
 
drigel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: commonplace city
Posts: 518
drigel has just left Hobbiton.
FSM hehe
the essense for my faith is what is inside my heart, and what goes on between my soul and the other souls who cross my path, physically or otherwise. The rest - eh.... Ill side with science.
drigel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 09:40 PM   #194
Bêthberry
Cryptic Aura
 
Bêthberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 6,159
Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.Bêthberry is wading through snowdrifts on Redhorn.
Tolkien

Perhaps I can drag this back to Tolkien ....

Please correct me if I have the wrong interpretation, but it seems to me that people are understanding 'miracle' merely as something which violates the natural order or principle of the material, physical universe.

However, if 'miracle' is understood as something that occurs other than what was expected, the concept of miracle can be related to Tolkien's idea of eucatastrophe. Think for a bit about the destruction of the Ring. Was Frodo's desire not to throw the Ring into Mount Doom a violation of natural principles or expectations? No, most readers understand that by that time he had come completely under its influence. Is Gollem's jump and the violence of his act to take the Ring a violation of our expectations? No, not at all. Competely what we would expect of him at that point in the story.

Wherein lies the unexpected? In his inadvertent fall into the volanco, taking the Ring with him. Is this contrary to physics? No. Is it, according to Tolkien's explanation of eucatastrophe, something not foreseeable which brings 'piercing joy', a result completely unexpected? I think so. It is the sort of thing which demonstrates--as others have argued elsewhere--Providence.

And that appears to be the essential nature of miracles, that they have an effect unexpected, a working out of things which does not in itself automatically or essentially mean a violation of the material world. And in the eyes of believers, demonstrate God's Providence. Something happens completely other than what we expect, and that something brings about a change. Evil is not destroyed forever in Middle-earth, but a balance has been altered.

So, if one accepts Tolkien's concept of eucatastrophe, must one accept the concept of miracle?

I assume davem got a laugh out of the FSM, a form of comedic political activism which I told him of in Private Message as something not unrelated to his idea of personal mythologies. I hope others can see the humour in the letter and the situation without being offended--the desire to avoid offending people is why I referred davem to it in private message rather than here.
__________________
I’ll sing his roots off. I’ll sing a wind up and blow leaf and branch away.

Last edited by Bêthberry; 05-06-2006 at 06:58 AM. Reason: ET phone home
Bêthberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 09:58 PM   #195
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'.
Fine with me. I'm glad the truth is out. You think I'm 'delusional', I think you're deluded. Even - - - sort of. "de = un; ludens = light" - - - deluded = unenlightened; delusional = given to lack of enlightenment. Fair enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Tolkien himself certainly did, referring to certain individuals as 'Orcs' or to Satan as 'Sauron'
Do you really think he was getting confused? Isn't it quite obvious that he was drawing analogies to make points?

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I'd say that's what you've done - found yourself a Secondary world that you like so much that you've confused it with everday reality & I've no doubt you believe I've done the same. If there's a difference between us its probably just that I acknowledge I've done that.
So basically what you're saying is that you admit to having lost touch with reality, and my problem is that I haven't admitted it. But there's another difference. I've experienced positive changes in character directly attributable to this "delusion"; from bitterness to joy, despair to hope, confusion to clarity, et cetera. Any delusion that can do that, is one that I'm quite content to 'stay in the dark with'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drigel
The fact that no one on this plane of existence is actually one with God (which would be Primary belief), we all, in a sense live in a state of Secondary belief.
Which is to say that since we do not have union with God, we're all in a state of not knowing the truth. True as far as it goes, but I have chosen to believe, and with great reward, that God has in fact revealed Himself in such a way that we CAN know him, through Jesus. Care to test Him on it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?
Here's the problems:

* When I cannot speak of my secondary world for fear of retribution, and

* When belief in a secondary world kills.
Good points, alatar.

[/quote]I think this reveals what must result from a point of view that chooses against belief in the God of the Bible. Being that you're such a decent fellow, davem, yours is what I would call a conscientioushedonism: "Eat, drink, and be happy," and live well so that you can live with yourself while you live, "for some day we die and that's it". Makes perfect sense, nothing relativistic about it. Quite rational. And sad in its ultimate despair. It makes sense therefore to treat life as a big smorgasbord of ideas, trying out this, then that, but committing to none, since none really can satisfy that ultimate craving that lies in the depth of our being.

Not even science has all of the Answers, but with a free market place of ideas and thought, for those physical/materials things within its scope we will continually arrive at the Truth (an approximation, as some of you well know ).[/quote]As I said, intelligent Christians like scientists, because at least they're in touch with the reality they can be in touch with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
And lastly, the first part of this article, coincidencely published today (spooky! ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do.
Quite an excellent article, and something that has always been a part of my mental package since I was about 9 (for reasons I'd rather not go into right now); vigilance, self-knowledge, fooling myself as little as possible about what's really going on, no matter how bad it looks or feels. I wasn't always successful, but to the degree I succeeded, it did not do me harm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
I'm no philosopher or deep thinker, but think that we all work with a projection of the real world within our heads.
How is it that all humans agree about so much of what's out there? [rant]It's as if we're 'wired' to engage the world. Come now! This Cartesian "i think therefore i am" business really has not done us much good at all. Science would have continued quite successfully without it. It has created a subjective versus objective split (thank you, Greeks ) that only gets worse with time and has resulted in such relativistic non-reason-promoting reasoning as has done nothing but confused westerns.[/rant]
Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
it's amazing that when they bump up against each other that there's any congruence.
What should be amazing is that there's so little in-congruence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Define 'reality'. Is it where my body is, or where my mind is?
Reality = God + what God has made.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Define 'mind'. Is it limited to 'reality' - ie the 'primary' world, or can it also exist in a secondary world?
A secondary world is by Tolkien's definition (he did coin the term after all) a feigned reality. I don't accept your use of the term, nor should anyone else. What you mean is 'world view'. Thus: Is 'mind' limited to reality, or can it also exist in a feigned world? A feigned mind can exist in a feigned world. Simple enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Am 'I' my mind, or my body, (or my soul or my spirit)?
You're not in it; you are all of it combined. We westerns run the risk of divorcing our thinking the more from reality with every distinction we make; all the more important it becomes to stay in touch with reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drigel
It's still all about perception.
This is true if you choose not to have any certainties in life. That's also a choice. God has revealed himself. God has been born a human and lived and died and risen and made it possible for us to have unity with God, and to begin to learn from God what is real and what is false. And yes, a higher power can break through our limited perception, if we choose to let it.

Laitoste: Your apologies are accepted and unnecessary. You are addressing two issues at once. (1) Paul's supposed anti-feminism; (2) how moderns are abusing Paul's words. It's not Paul's fault that modern abuse his words. The only way the Bible should be read is be taking account of historical and cultural context. God certainly doesn't want us to turn off our brains! Misogynist - woman hater, correct? I have a hard time imaging that a woman as successful and obviously intelligent as Lydia would be willing to give ear to an obvious woman hater.

As to your contention regarding the Bible, I have discovered through experience how God speaks onto the written page through dictation. Make of that what you will.

Regarding the 31 kings, I'm not supposed to explain that ... yet ... or at least, not here.

So yes, you are going to have to see me either as delusional or on target. Take your pick. Anybody up to test God? You don't have to believe in God to do it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laitoste
The Bible was written by men, even if it was “divinely inspired.“ Men (and women, to be gender-inclusive) are apt to get things wrong.
This is something you're probably going to choose not to believe, but the people to whom God spoke God's word had already gotten to know God well enough such that they were ready 'instruments' to get God's message right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I think its dangerous to stray into the area of 'intelligent design' without more support than the 'God of the gaps'.
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
For him the Sun moved around a stationary earth, for me its the opposite. All I know is what I actually experience.
Surely you're not suggesting that you might be wrong? That this is merely a matter of perspective? Come now....

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.
This comes back to the Church. For 'some reason', God wants prayers to be made, which He answers. This is his preferred mode. I know the reason, but I don't want to say just yet....

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago.
Ever heard of "figurative"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor.
Science tells us that as far as can be determined by current methods, life evolved, et cetera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.
As it should. Miracle is God's action. God cannot be controlled by scientific experiment, and is therefore necessarily outside the domain of science. That does not mitigate the fact that science is a useful and viable means of gaining knowledge about the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
It's not easy to test the divine, but it's easy to say that the test was passed after the fact when any answer will do.
It's impossible to scientifically test the divine. I've already explained why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alatar
The crowd was hoping to get God to tip His hand. Even if this meant their immediate destruction, for a moment they would know.
On their own terms, not His. Very insightful of Herbert. I read that book. Very strange, very interesting.

'Intelligent Design' has an ulterior motive. Whereas I happen to agree with their contention, I think they're foolish and wrongheaded for trying to do what they're doing in the way they're doing it. It's "being Saruman to fight Sauron". Doomed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
It seems to me that believers go to such extremes to construct reasons why God doesn't openly reveal His existence because they're afraid He doesn't actually exist.
If you have found that to be true of me, I would appreciate having it pointed out so that I can get my head straightened out about it. The fact is, God did & does openly reveal His existence; most of us lack the perception to receive it. Sin. Quite simply, really. Nothing extreme or elaborate about that. Merely offensive to the human ego, that's all.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2006, 10:50 PM   #196
Legolas
A Northern Soul
 
Legolas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valinor
Posts: 1,850
Legolas has just left Hobbiton.
As Bethberry has pointed out, this thread has gone way past Tolkien...please pull your thoughts back around to how they relate to the original question, or some subsequent, Tolkien-related point.

Digressions on who thinks who is delusional are misplaced.
__________________
...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art.

Last edited by Legolas; 05-05-2006 at 10:56 PM.
Legolas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2006, 02:39 AM   #197
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Now, I don't deny the possiblity of an afterlife, of God, or even that Christianity is 'True'. I'm merely saying that there is no proof for any of them. My position is difficult to defend, admittedly, as I have had what could be called 'mystical' experiences. What I try to avoid is constructing complex theories to account for them.

Look, I've used tarot in the past & I know it has worked. There are various theories as to why. The 'traditional' theory is the 'Angel of the Tarot' - ie an Angel communicates the truth about the future through the cards. A jungian would call it synchronicity. A fundamentalist Christian would say it was demons attempting to lead me away from God. All I actually know is that for me Tarot worked.

As to the six 'days' of creation. It is possible to take 'days' figuratively. Except that in the Ten Commandments we are told to rest on the seventh day because God made the world in six days & rested on the seventh, so clearly God was referring there to actual days as we understand the term.

I don't take Bethberry's point on miracles. A 'miracle' must be something that cannot be accounted for by natural, scientific 'laws' - ie walking on water, dead bodies coming back to life, virgin births, etc (Occam's Razor should be applied here.

I also have to say that this is in no way off-Tolkien & I suspect that Tolkien would be joining in here with gusto. Certainly it is off Middle-earth, but I'm sure Tolkien considered God more important than Middle-earth. I'm pretty sure what we've been discussing here would be very close to the discussions the Inklings had pre-Lewis' conversion. And I have to add that if Tolkien had felt the same way as Legolas Lewis would never have converted, there would have been no Narnia, no Mere Christianity, no Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, etc, etc.

It seems important to LMP that I & others adopt their worldview, as though that would in some way confirm its 'Truth'. I don't see this at all. There was a time when all our ancestors believed the earth was flat, but it wasn't. Certainly, I accept that reality is a certain way & not a whole lot of different ways all at once - in Chesterton's words:

4)
Quote:
Don't say, "There is no true creed; for each creed believes itself right and the others wrong." Probably one of the creeds is right and the others are wrong. Diversity does show that most of the views must be wrong. It does not by the faintest logic show that they all must be wrong. I suppose there is no subject on which opinions differ with more desperate sincerity than about which horse will win the Derby. These are certainly solemn convictions; men risk ruin for them. The man who puts his shirt on Potosi must believe in that animal, and each of the other men putting their last garments upon other quadrupeds must believe in them quite as sincerely. They are all serious, and most of them are wrong. But one of them is right. One of the faiths is justified; one of the horses does win; not always even the dark horse which might stand for Agnosticism, but often the obvious and popular horse of Orthodoxy. Democracy has its occasional victories; and even the Favourite has been known to come in first. But the point here is that something comes in first. That there were many beliefs does not destroy the fact that there was one well-founded belief. I believe (merely upon authority) that the world is round. That there may be tribes who believe it to be triangular or oblong does not alter the fact that it is certainly some shape, and therefore not any other shape. Therefore I repeat, with the wail of imprecation, don't say that the variety of creeds prevents you from accepting any creed. It is an unintelligent remark. (see http://www.catholic-forum.com/saintS/gkc13038.htm
All I'm saying is that I've seen no proof that one weltanshauung is truer than any other. Certainly there is one 'Truth' about Reality, but there are multiple attempts to explain it. One of those attempts may actually be True - its possible. But I'd say that to adopt one of those based purely on 'belief' is to live in a delusion. As another fantasy writer, Gene Wolf, put it: 'Belief insults the mind - a thing is either true or it is not.'

I see little difference between saying Middle-earth is 'Christian' & saying Christianity is 'Middle-earthian'. Christianity is a 'secondary world' which only (as far as scientific proof goes) exists only in the mind (whether that was the intention or not) of believers. I've read of people who believe Middle-earth was really this world in some ancient period of history. If we all believed that the 'secondary' world would suddenly become the Primary, secondary belief would become primary belief. At the end of the movie The Time Machine (the 60's version) the main character returns to the distant future permanently, taking three books with him to a world that has none. Its not stated which books. Suppose he had taken LotR, TH & The Sil & told no-one they were fiction. Would they not likely be taken as historical accounts?

For all I know Christianity may have been the invention of a bunch of drunken Greek philosophers who were a bit bored one night. Certainly the Gospels were not written as 'reportage' - John even states 'These things were written so that you might believe' - in other words he's not simply stating facts objectively so that people might think for themselves. (Robert Anton Wilson in Illuminatus depicts a painting of Moses coming down from the Mountain holding stone tablets on which were inscribed the words: 'Think for yourself, schmuck!)
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2006, 08:36 PM   #198
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
As to the six 'days' of creation. It is possible to take 'days' figuratively. Except that in the Ten Commandments we are told to rest on the seventh day because God made the world in six days & rested on the seventh, so clearly God was referring there to actual days as we understand the term.
The conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the original point; 'a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day' .... therefore, the two are analogous and the day-eon can be used as a prescriptive for the day-24-hours-long.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I also have to say that this is in no way off-Tolkien & I suspect that Tolkien would be joining in here with gusto. Certainly it is off Middle-earth, but I'm sure Tolkien considered God more important than Middle-earth. I'm pretty sure what we've been discussing here would be very close to the discussions the Inklings had pre-Lewis' conversion. And I have to add that if Tolkien had felt the same way as Legolas Lewis would never have converted, there would have been no Narnia, no Mere Christianity, no Screwtape Letters, Great Divorce, etc, etc.
Hear! hear!

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
It seems important to LMP that I & others adopt their worldview
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
as though that would in some way confirm its 'Truth'.
No. I've never been more certain of my world view as I am now; in fact, this discussion has strengthened my certainty. I want you to know the joy I've discovered.

Good quote from Chesterton. In summary, ONE of the world views has be true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
All I'm saying is that I've seen no proof that one weltanshauung is truer than any other. Certainly there is one 'Truth' about Reality, but there are multiple attempts to explain it. One of those attempts may actually be True - its possible. But I'd say that to adopt one of those based purely on 'belief' is to live in a delusion. As another fantasy writer, Gene Wolf, put it: 'Belief insults the mind - a thing is either true or it is not.'
I disagree, of course, with Gene Wolf. Belief is unavoidable. To stay on the fence regarding all beliefs is not humanly sustainable. Everyone believes somthing about ultimates. It's impossible not to. Whether you're confident about your beliefs, that's another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
I see little difference between saying Middle-earth is 'Christian' & saying Christianity is 'Middle-earthian'. Christianity is a 'secondary world' which only (as far as scientific proof goes) exists only in the mind (whether that was the intention or not) of believers.
Not so. The primary reality of Christianity has been demonstrated over and over to me.

Scientific proof of Christianity is indeed impossible (although a very intelligent Christian friend of mine disagrees with me). Juridical proof is not. There are two kinds of juridical proofs: (1) proof beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) proof by weight of evidence. Obviously, beyond a reasonable doubt is much to be preferred to mere weight of evidence. When I say that my faith has been demonstrated over and over to me, I'm speaking of beyond a reasonable doubt. Too many things have built up a case for it such that to refuse to believe it would be the height of foolishness on my part.


Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
For all I know Christianity may have been the invention of a bunch of drunken Greek philosophers who were a bit bored one night.
There is documented proof that this cannot be the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davem
Certainly the Gospels were not written as 'reportage' - John even states 'These things were written so that you might believe' - in other words he's not simply stating facts objectively so that people might think for themselves.
John's and the other gospel writers' purpose was to persuade. That doesn't make their works 'not reportage', but reports designed to show what they knew to be the truth.

There is much in the bible that will seem dead, boring, unbelievable, or unpalatable, precisely because the reader has refused to entertain the possibility of God on the bible's terms. For the reader who does entertain this possibility, the rewards will be few but available, because that is only a first small step. If the reader allows that God speaks through the words of the bible, more will be understood, about life, God, and self. If the reader agrees that God inspired the bible, and that it, being the Word of God, has power to change lives, the reader will be changed. If the reader accepts the bible as true, including most especially the way of repentance from sin into life in Christ, the reader's eyes will be opened and the reader will understand that much which s/he had thought was natural, is revealed as fallen and unredeemed. If the reader receives the fire of the Holy Spirit, the Words of the Bible will come alive on the page, and new meanings before unseen shall be seen, and realities before unknown, will become known.

Now, the above could be written off as "well, it's all wish fulfillment". To believe that is a choice one may take; but to one's own detriment in the here and now at least.

Regarding 'Consciously in the Revision':

One obvious revision is the chapter, Riddles in the Dark from The Hobbit, as most here are well aware. I quote:

Quote:
So they came to a dead stop. Gollum had brought Bilbo to the way out after all, but Bilbo could not get in! There was Gollum sitting humped up right in the opening, and his eyes gleamed cold in his head, as he swayed it from side to side between his knees.

Bilbo crept away from the wall more quietly than a mouse; but Gollum stiffened at once, and sniffed, and his eyes went green. He seemed to be crouched right down with his flat hands splayed on the floor, and his head thrust out, nose almost to the stone. Though he was only a black shadow in the gleam of his own eyes, Bilbo could see or feel that he was tense as a bowstring, gathered for a spring.

Bilbo almost stopped breathing, and went stiff himself. He was desperate. He must get away, out of this horrible darkness, while he had any strength left. He must fight. He must stab the foul thing, put its eyes out, kill it. It meant to kill him. No, not a fair fight. He was invisible now. Gollum had no sword. Gollum had not actually threatened to kill him, or tried to yet. And he was miserable, alone, lost. A sudden understanding, a pity mixed with horror, welled up in Bilbo's heart: a glimpse of endless unmarked days without a light or hope of betterment, hard stone, cold fish, sneaking and whispering. All these thoughts passed in a flash of a second. He trembled. And then quite suddenly in another flash, as if lifted by a new strength and resolve, he leaped.
You know what happens next. The italicized section is the temptation. The first underlined section is Bilbo's conscience at work. The bold is new insight; it could be argued that this new insight finds Bilbo a passive receiver ... that is, he receives the insight; from where? Inside himself? Perhaps. But the second underlined section is clearly passive. Bilbo is lifted by a new strength and resolve. It's not something that he generated for himself, it was something he received. In other words, it was given to him. By whom? It has all the earmarks of grace received. This is beyond the ability of the Valar, and can only come from one Source. Thus, this is an example of 'consciously Christian in the revision'.

Last edited by littlemanpoet; 05-06-2006 at 08:42 PM.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2006, 02:44 AM   #199
davem
Illustrious Ulair
 
davem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties
Posts: 4,256
davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.davem is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LMP
You know what happens next. The italicized section is the temptation. The first underlined section is Bilbo's conscience at work. The bold is new insight; it could be argued that this new insight finds Bilbo a passive receiver ... that is, he receives the insight; from where? Inside himself? Perhaps. But the second underlined section is clearly passive. Bilbo is lifted by a new strength and resolve. It's not something that he generated for himself, it was something he received. In other words, it was given to him. By whom? It has all the earmarks of grace received. This is beyond the ability of the Valar, and can only come from one Source. Thus, this is an example of 'consciously Christian in the revision'.
Of course, that is the revised version (I gave the original version here So we are dealing with a change after the event. Tolkien is attempting to integrate TH into the Legendarium at this point, & Bilbo's story has changed, as has his character to an extent. I suppose it could be argued that the the fairy story world of TH has now been absorbed into the 'High, mythological world' of The Sil. (& changed for the worse in the process, some of us would argue). Bilbo has become a more 'Christian' hero & is now responding in a more 'Christian' way.

Yet, one could argue that these changes are not necessarily 'Christian' at all - we find the same kind of acts of 'compassion' in the heroes of fairy story. The change in Bilbo's character is necessitated by the change in Gollums', due to LotR, not by the need to make Bilbo more 'Christian'. The more of a 'victim' Gollum becomes the more understanding & compassionate Bilbo must become - or perhaps one could say the less of a 'monster' Gollum becomes the more 'human' Bilbo must become. Circumstances alter cases.
davem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2006, 01:33 PM   #200
littlemanpoet
Itinerant Songster
 
littlemanpoet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Edge of Faerie
Posts: 7,072
littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.littlemanpoet is battling Black Riders on Weathertop.
Quite, davem. If this was the only evidence of "consciously Christian in the revision", it would be a weak case.

Now, I don't have the Christopher Tolkien books about Tolkien's process of writing LotR, but I've read them. I recall that the sudden deepening in his original draft occurred when Tolkien got to Weathertop, and he determined that he needed to start all over from the beginning with the new deepening taken into account. Therefore, it is logical to say that this new deepening is NOT "consciously Christian in the revision", but what Tolkien saw it to be: a more serious and adult story than The Hobbit had been.

Not having the HoME volumes, I can't check them against the final version in my possession. So I'd be interested to learn from those of you who do, how the original versions go compared to those that I quote as potential signs of "consciously Christian in the revision". But for now I must go do some research.
littlemanpoet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:58 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.