Question

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by Neil_Caple
While we're at it, you have previously indicated that the commonly held meanings of purification and charity were not the meanings you implied when you used these words. Perhaps you should give us the definitions you are using.

I was referring to spiritual purification whereas you were referring to physical. Oftentimes spiritual purification is accomplished through suffering, which is one of the reasons why a loving God would allow suffering to exist.

By charity I was referring to the theological virtue of that name, not giving money to philanthropic organizations. Charity is the equivaelent of the Greek agape or the Latin caritas. The closest word in common, modern English would probably be love, but the word love does not do it justice, since charity refers to a specific kind of love; not necessarily the romantic sort but the altruistic, self-sacrificing sort, such as the kind Christ displayed when he volunteered to suffer death by crucifixion on behalf of his sheep. According to Christianity, our purpose on earth is to become more like Christ, which entails growing in the virtue of charity. And of course, the best way to grow in charity is to practice it, and being able to practice charity requires some opportunity to make an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of another. This is another reason why a loving God would allow pain and suffering to exist; without them, there would be no opportunities to make an act of self sacrifice, and hence no opportunities to practice charity and grow by doing so.

Remember, I'm not necessarily saying that either of these reasons were why God caused the Bam earthquake.

[DevineHerring]

FNB I think you have been up in the beanntan a wee bit too long…

Why you would expect people with a good general knowledge of the world, its various religions and traditions and a grasp of the vastness and infinite variety of the universe to accept the collected misunderstandings, fragmentary observations and superstitions of variously related levantine societies overlaid with the political aspirations of an imperial power and its descendant institutions as the justification for anything I find mind boggling.

I don’t think that you will find many here, or for that case many persons of reason in the world, that would argue that acts of charity, or better tzedakah and tikun olam are worth while and indeed benefit the one performing these acts as much or more than those who are direct beneficiaries and that the benefits are generally intangible, and manifest themselves in the better well being of the social milieu. It’s just a bit sad that you seem to have to attribute the impetus for benevolence to a mythical three faceted god and the carrot and stick of salvation and the threat of damnation (yes I know you didn’t actually reference this but as a Christian you know that it is always there). Well anyway …

Artoo has made a very good point about our knowledge of the origins of space-time and the n-dimensional universe (IIRC there is some consensus around 17 total dimensions many of which are wrapped around themselves, very involved stuff it is too)

The crux of the matter though is that, for all of our endeavours, scientific and in your case superstitious and tautological, as physical beings we have extremely limited means to observe the totality of existence. Our minds and bodies are inexorably fused and our powers of observation are inconsistent and easily compromised as is proven daily by entertainers and con artists in every corner of the world. There are an infinite number of things happening around us for every one we observe. It is no wonder that most of what mankind has observed is not understood except in the most direct terms. It is also not surprising that those events for which the cause is not observable or not understood tend to be explained as the actions of spirits or gods or a god. Monotheism (especially Christianity and most especially Roman Catholicism) if examined closely is not so very different from Polytheist traditions, which get you back to animism with just a few short hops. Not really a very sophisticated belief system, just well obfuscated by the likes of you and generations of people before you that have labored hard to wrap layer upon layer of rhetoric and bombast around the myths underlying your beliefs. This does not validate either the myths or the beliefs. Neither does the fact that many of these people, as I assume you are, were devout, pious, well meaning and acting out of a desire to bring enlightenment and truth to those who lack it. This is just a simple naive conceit, which believers never see, and non believers find infuriating. Historically the church has been first and foremost a political entity and it’s functionaries had/have ulterior motives, most commonly of the most banal nature such as “I really need this preachin’ gig and it sure beats working for a livin’” commonly found in American evangelical missions though it’s allegories work well all the way back to about the first shaman I would imagine. I get over long but I’m not done…
For anyone to believe that they have the answer to the origin of things based on a dogma supported by a “lack of evidence to the contrary” is the height of ostentation and part of the same naïve conceit I mentioned earlier. To suggest that events such as earthquakes destroying cities or Mt. Aetna erupting yet again are “acts of god” and the god has some reason for destroying innocents is stretching the point beyond its obvious reason. Act of god = No one knows why and never will. Very simple, no superstition needed. Of course we can do all we can to understand geologic processes an vulcaninsm and the mechanics of the universe, but as to why there was a single singularity that expanded into the universe well maybe god struck a match to light his pipe, nahhhh now I'm creating another silly dogma. I just don't know and I'm happy with that.
That's all...


[Edited by DevineHerring on 14th April 2004 at 15:02]

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by DevineHerring
FNB I think you have been up in the beanntan a wee bit too long…

Actually I haven't been in the mountains for quite some time.

Originally posted by DevineHerring
Why you would expect people with a good general knowledge of the world, its various religions and traditions and a grasp of the vastness and infinite variety of the universe to accept the collected misunderstandings, fragmentary observations and superstitions of variously related levantine societies overlaid with the political aspirations of an imperial power and its descendant institutions as the justification for anything I find mind boggling.

That's quite a mouthful. My answer is simple enough though. Catholicism is not the collected... institutions. It is the true religion founded by the God-man Jesus Christ upon the rock of St. Peter the Pope.

I don’t think that you will find many here, or for that case many persons of reason in the world, that would argue that acts of charity, or better tzedakah and tikun olam are worth while and indeed benefit the one performing these acts as much or more than those who are direct beneficiaries and that the benefits are generally intangible, and manifest themselves in the better well being of the social milieu.

Actually I know quite a few.

It’s just a bit sad that you seem to have to attribute the impetus for benevolence to a mythical three faceted god and the carrot and stick of salvation and the threat of damnation (yes I know you didn’t actually reference this but as a Christian you know that it is always there).

The impetus for a Christian's benevolence should be charity, and not the "carrot and the stick." Contrition is vastly superior to attrition.

The crux of the matter though is that, for all of our endeavours, scientific and in your case superstitious and tautological, as physical beings we have extremely limited means to observe the totality of existence.

That's why a belief system based on revelation is superior to one based solely on empirical observation.

Monotheism (especially Christianity and most especially Roman Catholicism) if examined closely is not so very different from Polytheist traditions, which get you back to animism with just a few short hops.

How so? By the way, I am not a Roman Catholic.

Not really a very sophisticated belief system, just well obfuscated by the likes of you and generations of people before you that have labored hard to wrap layer upon layer of rhetoric and bombast around the myths underlying your beliefs.

You're operating under the unproven assumption that the foundational historical events of my beliefs are myths. If you want to justify your assumption you're going to have to do a lot more than bluster.

Historically the church has been first and foremost a political entity and it’s functionaries had/have ulterior motives, most commonly of the most banal nature such as “I really need this preachin’ gig and it sure beats working for a livin’” commonly found in American evangelical missions though it’s allegories work well all the way back to about the first shaman I would imagine.

Right, that's so many clergy take vows of celibacy. It's all sellfishness and greed, I tell you.

For anyone to believe that they have the answer to the origin of things based on a dogma supported by a “lack of evidence to the contrary” is the height of ostentation and part of the same naïve conceit I mentioned earlier.

Catholicism is not based on "lack of evidence to the contrary." It is based on history, reason, and fact.

[CreepingJesus]

Right, that's so many clergy take vows of celibacy. It's all sellfishness and greed, I tell you.

My experience of priests is that, for the ones that aren't molesting kids, the vow of celibacy isn't that much of a sacrifice.

The kind of people I've met who want to become priests, and I've met a few, appear to be a particular kind of social inadequate, rejected by peer group and oposite sex alike, often with terrifying dilemmas about their sexuality, having been told they're going to hell if they're gay.

I'd imagine the prospect of holding the kind of power over people that the priest has over the credulous would outweigh much of the "sacrifice" of a celibacy they'd have had anyway, frock or no.

I'm aware that I'm generalising here, but I'm sure there's a weight of statistical evidence to back that one up.

The church's own psychiatrist investigating the mass child abuse in teh USA said as much in a recent TV documentary.

Take a look at some history. You'll find examples in several societies where men became eunuchs in exchange for power. The symbolic castration of the vow of celibacy is an easier option.

Your argument doesn't hold much water.

[Fear_nam_Beanntan]

Originally posted by CreepingJesus
My experience of priests is that, for the ones that aren't molesting kids, the vow of celibacy isn't that much of a sacrifice.

The kind of people I've met who want to become priests, and I've met a few, appear to be a particular kind of social inadequate, rejected by peer group and oposite sex alike, often with terrifying dilemmas about their sexuality, having been told they're going to hell if they're gay.

Hmmm, I've had the opposite experience. All the people I've met who are considering the priesthood get along just fine with peers and the ladies.