Religion, Theology, and all that good stuff

[Rit]

Jac and Phil, if you'll allow me to add my two cents to the conversation you were having... civilized life is hard enough to keep intact with all the raging hormones, dubious agendas, and small minds running about. so we all agree to adhere to neatly defined categories as a matter of principle/courtesy to each other. fair enough.

but, i refuse to accept that reality works that way. if you're going to pursue the nature of things to their ends, you see definitions fall apart. Overlaps occur more and more.

As far as i've been exposed to, i think the underlying current beneath both religions and science is as a particular quality -- and a not statement or purpose. I think i rambled on this many many months ago once... as i recall, i tried to state that i think art and science and religion are not separate spheres. When something is done creatively, with foresight, awareness of the "whole" in relation to its parts, and as an intepretation of incoming data/ sensory input, then that thing is done artistically, be it a Scientific theory with all the elegance of Relativity, or the Buddha's wholistic rejections of extremes... or Jesus' exhortation to love one another as you love yourself, or Bacon's inductive reasoning ennabling a mindset which promotes a culture of technology advance and so on and so on....

these things (and many others) have been the flashes of titanic genius through human history, whether in Science or Religion, which ennable a healthy, sustained, more humanized culture to develop. It is the artistic side of perception which brings that about, which fights bare dogmas in religion or mad-blind science in natural philosophy. And, to repeat, when i say "artistic perception", i mean that the person at the heart of that development employs a broad insight (whether purposely or by accident), and displays a foresight for how what he/she is doing will affect the culture they live in.. which only really comes from a deep grounding in humanity and commitment to the society they live in.

There have been far too many examples of bad science or bad dogmatic faith throughout history which upsets this crucial balance, which only aims downward as it spins its grand concept into the ground. And the kind of mind that brings that about is the brutish sort, which compartmentalizes everything, has poor commitment to the society they live in, and cuts and pastes insight to serve a small-view purpose.

... not to mention the complications of human personality tendencies and so on, all of which combine to make none of this very certain, which i'll be the first to admit. However, i think the broad truth of what i'm grasping for here is true enough.....which is that there are more connections between real Science and real Faith than there are dissimilarities.

[chrisfan]

Phil, allow me to straighten one thing out. I know it's simplistic of me to write you off as an asshole. I do that, because other than your post above from today, I can't think of a time I've ever really seen you express YOUR views around here in a committed way explaining why you think as you do. You c/p articles, and you make snide comments. Why waste my time writing out more of a response to you when you don't put anything out there yourself? I did not just write you off as an asshole from the get go. Years ago, I tried to engage you in discussion. You'd run away from it at every chance, claiming a language barrier. So when someone is fine with letting his views be as simplistic as you present around here, I think a simplistic write off is in order.

Beyond that, I'll say that I agree with Jac. You're critique of religion is a critique of something I do not recognize. I've had multiple discussions with my pastor, asking him for his opinion of a theological question where he has responded first with "What do you think?" He ends many sermons the same way. I'm not sure why exactly he's asking for others thoughts so much if he's in for nothing but telling us NOT to think. And he's not unsual in this approach.

[phil]

Rit ~ First of all, this was not meant to be
a balanced analyse of religion and it is not as such
really suited for debate or argument ...

This essay is not about individual faith
but about organized religions...
And it is not about science VS religions
but more about reason VS dogmas ...

Feel free to disagree all you want with my POV
and come back with your own take on the subject
but it would be nice if you could quote the whole paragraph
when you want to rebuke something I say
because each one is constructed as a whole
and most of the time,
the conclusion is in direct relation with the idea
introduced in the first phrase...

[phil]

Here another one that may have been lost
in the posting frenzy over at the Evolution debate ...

The bible is a written collection of great myths and sublime metaphors borrowing heavily on Sumerian and Egyptian own mythologies and its purpose was to be a source of spiritual enlightenment for the elite rather than a book of doctrines designed to teach the ‘truth”.

The Old Testament is not an historical recollection of factual events but the story of the evolution of the people’s understanding of God and the connection between God and humanity.

To establish early on its moral authority over the masses and precedence over other religious currents, the church adopted a literalist, populist and historical approach to those myths; allegories became recognized facts and symbols became incredible miracles.

The Messiah who was supposed to be embodied inside each of us (by reading or hearing individualy about those myths) became the Messiah – embodied inside ONE man – an historical figure and the total embodiment of God. So instead of becoming aware or our own internal power of moral and spiritual transformation (salvation), humanity had to turn to a vain and impossible quest for salvation outside ourselves.

The message of Jesus that was supposed to be humanist, timeless and universal became confined to a single person, time and space you have to believe in, but the myth, in its meaning/signification, is more important than the historical facts. The Gospels were religious dramas designed to inspire and support faith, comfort the faithfulls and bring new converts to the fold.

Now people who lack in proper judgment and an open mind can quote the Scriptures to the letter, but the only thing they do most of the time is negate the interior truth those myths try to explain.

While Science is the source of knowledge and progress for the human race, religious Faith (not religious dogma) is the way to keep the tiny flame of HOPE for each individual that the Messiah will come in your life and inside of you to awake your conscience and lift your spirit.

[JACkory]

The bible is a written collection of great myths and sublime metaphors borrowing heavily on Sumerian and Egyptian own mythologies and its purpose was to be a source of spiritual enlightenment for the elite rather than a book of doctrines designed to teach the ‘truth”.

That's a pretty definitive statement, Phil. Makes it sound like you know an awful lot about not only the Bible but also about ancient Sumerian and Egyptian mythology as well. I'd be interested to know the extent of your research into the Bible...I mean, I'd imagine that you've spent a significant portion of your life plumbing the depths of it's complexity if you think you're qualified to tell the world what it's "PURPOSE" "was"/is.
And yet with all that knowledge of the Bible you purport to have (and if you DON'T have it, you have no right making such sweeping criticisms of it), your statement of it's "purpose" doesn't quite jibe with the Bible's own insight into it's "purpose":
"All scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"---2 Timothy 3:16 (the NIV translation is easier to understand, I think: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness"). This verse from 2 Timothy shoots down the notion that the Bible is not a "book of doctrines designed to teach the ‘truth”. And where do you get the idea that it was written "for the elite"?

The Old Testament is not an historical recollection of factual events but the story of the evolution of the people’s understanding of God and the connection between God and humanity.

Are you referring to the Old Testament as a whole or just certain parts of it? Archaeology and other ancient writings have helped to confirm the accuracy of OT writings that deal with history. But there's a lot more to the Od Testament than that...
You say that it's "the story of the evolution of the people’s understanding of God and the connection between God and humanity", which tends to lay emphasis on THE PEOPLE (and the "evolution" of the PEOPLE's understanding), when in reality the emphasis throughout is NOT about PEOPLE (or their perceptions/understandings) but on GOD...it is the story of how the invisible Prime Mover, the Uncaused Cause, entered into His own creation and initiated His plan of redemption, revealing Himself to the Jews (His "chosen people"...chosen for what, you ask? Chosen to be the race entrusted with the initial revelation of the One True God). It is the story of the Jews' response to that revelation (for the most part an outright rejection of it, choosing to instead worship the gods of the nations), but even more it is the story of God's faithfulness to His people contrasted with their rejection of Him.

To establish early on its moral authority over the masses and precedence over other religious currents, the church adopted a literalist, populist and historical approach to those myths; allegories became recognized facts and symbols became incredible miracles.

Mean old church. Naughty church, out to establish moral authority over the masses...yeah, that's what the church was up to when they "adopted" their "literalist, populist and historical approach" to the Old Testament (although, even if I agreed with that I'd have to say "what's wrong with being populist? Why WOULDN'T you want to adopt a historical approach when such an approach helps ground your belief system in reality as opposed to "myth"? "Literalism" is not a dirty word, either, though I think you're exagerrating the degree of literalism that the church has employed).
Regardless, if you want to criticize how the church has handled the responsibility entrusted to them, go for it. I'll back you on a lot of the points that could be made supporting that. But you're still criticizing human frailty and NOT the religion itself (and certainly not God).
The early church fathers knew the difference between "allegory" and "fact"; they understood "symbolism" and did not confuse it with "miracles".
That you would accuse them of confusing one with the other only tells me that you have not read very much (if any) of what they actually wrote.

The Messiah who was supposed to be embodied inside each of us (by reading or hearing individualy about those myths) became the Messiah – embodied inside ONE man – an historical figure and the total embodiment of God. So instead of becoming aware or our own internal power of moral and spiritual transformation (salvation), humanity had to turn to a vain and impossible quest for salvation outside ourselves.

The Messiah was supposed to be embodied inside each of us? According to who? According to what? Where do you get this stuff, man?
Do you even know what "MESSIAH" entails? Oh, I realize that question sounds condescending, and I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm being that way, but seriously I have to wonder where you came up with the idea that the Messiah is to be embodied inside each of us. That concept is nowhere to be found in the Bible.
You have also confused the term "salvation" with "spiritual transformation". They are not the same thing. Salvation implies the necessity of being saved from something. Spiritual Transformation implies transition and can be thought of within the context of salvation.
You write: "...instead of becoming aware or our own internal power of moral and spiritual transformation (salvation), humanity had to turn to a vain and impossible quest for salvation outside ourselves"...
The very nature of the word "salvation" necessitates a saving agent outside ourselves, ie. if you could save yourself you wouldn't need salvation.
Vain? Impossible? Says who?
You talk about our own "internal power of moral and spiritual transformation"...I ask, where does such power come from? Why isn't it constant among all human beings? At what age do we recognize it and how do we know that our individual allotment of this "power" is sufficient to provide whatever it is this "power" is supposed to bring us?

The message of Jesus that was supposed to be humanist, timeless and universal became confined to a single person, time and space you have to believe in, but the myth, in its meaning/signification, is more important than the historical facts. The Gospels were religious dramas designed to inspire and support faith, comfort the faithfulls and bring new converts to the fold.

That the message of Jesus was timeless and universal I'm sure you'll get no argument from Christians, but HUMANIST? Please. He sure talked a lot about the Kingdom of God for a humanist. He flat out stated that He WAS God and that His words held all the authority of God. You'll have to at least give me a few examples of "the humanistic aspect of Christ's teachings" before I'll even consider such a notion.
You show a contempt for the Gospels by relegating them to the sphere of "drama". They have been accepted as reliable witnesses by the early church fathers and there is more manuscript evidence to verify their authenticity than for any other work of antiquity. I can think of no good reason to doubt their accuracy or the intent of their writers, especially in light of the fact that there are details in the gospels that would have been left out IF their purpose was anything more than the relating of actual historical events as they occurred and the teachings of the Messiah.
You call it a "myth" and ascribe singular importance to it, but you fail to recognize that the historical aspects of Christianity are what seperates it from most other religions and from "myth" in general .

Now people who lack in proper judgment and an open mind can quote the Scriptures to the letter, but the only thing they do most of the time is negate the interior truth those myths try to explain.

You try and justify your contempt for religion by stating that you are only tearing down the concept of RELIGION...pointing out the capacity of a certain kind of people to quote Scripture to justify their own agenda has nothing to do with your argument/critique. It only tells me that people are prone to a desire to validate what they believe to be true, and that Scripture is a favorite tool some of them use to do that (discerning and dividing the Word wisely or twisting it to their own ends).
I am VERY interested in hearing what you believe are "the interior truth those myths try to explain" which these less "close-minded, lacking in proper judgement" people are negating by quoting the scriptures.
PLEASE enlighten me, if you have such a firm grasp on these truths that "myths" try to explain (and please confine your explanation to what you consider to be "Judeo-Christian myths").
This is something I really want to know from you.

While Science is the source of knowledge and progress for the human race, religious Faith (not religious dogma) is the way to keep the tiny flame of HOPE for each individual that the Messiah will come in your life and inside of you to awake your conscience and lift your spirit.

Science may well be considered a[/u] source of progress for the human race, even the most dedicated scientist on the planet would refute that it is the "source of knowledge". A RESOURCE of knowledge, maybe, but the SOURCE? The only power that science has is the ability to EXPLAIN. By explaining natural laws and phenomenon science enables us to use those laws and phenomenon to further our progress, but it is human WILL, INGENUITY, CREATIVITY and INQUISITIVENESS that is responsible for USING the explanations that science provides and transforming them into tools of progress (abstract concepts that science is impotent to explain, but which religion tells us are part and parcel of having been created in the image of God).
At any rate, faith is a subconscious belief that there's more out there than we'll ever know in this life. Faith in God is also subconscious, latent in some, missing in others, recognized and acted upon by others...it's not simply "the way" to keep hope alive. Religious dogma is to faith what science is to the law of gravity. It attempts (with varying degrees of success) to explain something that's already there and wants explaining.
Messiah has already come.
There's no need to hope for something that has already happened. The Messiah came to save me from the sin that enslaves me (leading to death) and get me back to the Source of life, my Creator, NOT to "awaken my conscience" or "lift my spirit".


I think it's great that you have thought about the subject enough to feel qualified to express an opinion about it. But you state your opinion as if it were objective fact when it is obvious that it is informed a great deal by your own personal prejudices and biases.

[JACkory]

Wow...I figured to have some sort of response by the time I came home from work...
Come on, now, I was polite and asked nice...

In case you missed it:

I am VERY interested in hearing what you believe are "the interior truth those myths try to explain" which these less "close-minded, lacking in proper judgement" people are negating by quoting the scriptures.
PLEASE enlighten me, if you have such a firm grasp on these truths that "myths" try to explain (and please confine your explanation to what you consider to be "Judeo-Christian myths").
This is something I really want to know from you.

[Rit]

The message of Jesus that was supposed to be humanist, timeless and universal became confined to a single person, time and space you have to believe in, but the myth, in its meaning/signification, is more important than the historical facts. The Gospels were religious dramas designed to inspire and support faith, comfort the faithfulls and bring new converts to the fold.

Now people who lack in proper judgment and an open mind can quote the Scriptures to the letter, but the only thing they do most of the time is negate the interior truth those myths try to explain.

While Science is the source of knowledge and progress for the human race, religious Faith (not religious dogma) is the way to keep the tiny flame of HOPE for each individual that the Messiah will come in your life and inside of you to awake your conscience and lift your spirit.

this, Mr Phil, i found to be quite attractive. it coincides with what i believe.

yesterday, i thought i had more in common with JAC on this particular point, but today, i find that i stand with you.

the only stance i keep emphasising is that Faith and Reason are complementary. without one, the other is adrift.

[phil]

Because, honestly, I don't appreciate wasting my time reading critiques of ANYTHING when the critic responsible is so obviously ignorant of the subject they're criticizing.

Jac ~ Your wish is my command ...
and I will not waste any of your precious time
with more of my ignorant take on this subject ...

I would truly like to respond to the rest of your "Criticism" but I've got better things to do, and I've already made my point, anyway.


What's good for the gander ...

[phil]

OH ! BTW ... One last thing ...

One of my mother's brothers is a priest.
He teached philosophy in vocational school (collège classique)
was editor-in-chief of the Québec Bishops' Monthly Journal
and he was also a parish priest in a small village
where he wanted to retire ...

In his small house, he had probably around a thousand books
( and yes ! I did read a few of those ...)
about religion and philosophy and I remember
many wonderful and profound AND animated discussions
we had about religion, faith, humanity and partridge hunting !!

We were not often in agreement
but he never called me ignorant !!

[Rit]

i don't think you're ignorant.

[JACkory]

You didn't answer my question.

[JACkory]

And I never called you ignorant.

[phil]

Jac ~ Go read post no. 37 again...

Your answer is there !!

[JACkory]

Because, honestly, I don't appreciate wasting my time reading critiques of ANYTHING when the critic responsible is so obviously ignorant of the subject they're criticizing.

Jac ~ Your wish is my command ...
and I will not waste any of your precious time
with more of my ignorant take on this subject ...


You say that almost as if you really think I asked you not to "waste any more of (my) precious time"...
If you'll re-read the post you'll see that I'm asking you to investigate Christianity a bit more before you criticize it like you do. That's reasonable. Don't turn it into somthing that it's not.
If my wish is your command I wish you'd cut out these mamby-pamby stalling attempts and threats to leave me hanging and just answer the damn question already. There were no personal insults in either of my long posts to you. What is your problem? Why are you spazzin' out, saying that I want you to cease and desist? That's weak.

I'll repeat...I never said you were ignorant. I suggested you might be ignorant of the subject of religion, but all that means is that, lilke Chrisfan said, what you describe as religion is nothing that I recognize. Perhaps that was a bad choice of words, I'll concede. But you get the point. For all I know you may have a greater knowledge of religion than I do...but with your generalizations it's sure hard to tell if you know much of anything about it.

I responded to your last post in a very thoughtful and courteous manner. I don't know where the stick up your ass came from but I didn't put it there.

So your brother had a sweet library. Mine does, too, and his DVD collection rules. Big deal.
I read a few editions of The Humanist in my days as an agnostic, as well, so don't think I'm clueless about where you're coming from.
So you read a few books. Were any of them about Christianity?

[phil]

I'm speechless !!