if that's how you know Christ, that's awesome! i don't think there's anything wrong with that. some people think in a very linear fashion. some think in circles. God engages all of that.
I'm sorry, Max, but I don't understand what you are saying (what about my post you think is awesome and what nothing is wrong with). I am often slow and this seems to be one of those oftens (yes, I know that doesn't make sense). Thanks.
Lots of good stuff here to respond to. You wouldn’t know it to see how a lot of churches operate, but Christianity moves almost wholly past the laws and rules of the Old Testament. There is room to quibble about this and what role they play, and they do in fact play some role, but the cornerstone of Christianity is the idea of justification by grace, not works. You know this, of course, but what is often not well understood is that it really means what it says. Literally what you do, the actual physical deeds, become unimportant. The spirit you operate by, however, becomes the key. It’s like the idea of intent. Did you do what you honestly thought was right? Whether it was “right” or not is subject to a lot of worldly and personal imperfections, including imperfect perceptions, to the point that you can never be 100% sure if what you did was actually the right thing or not. All you can be responsible for is your genuine intent (and even there you’re not going to achieve perfection). Am I making sense? There may well be moral absolutes, in other words, but none of us can know exactly what they are or see exactly were they exist in our world, so, strictly speaking, we are not judge others based on them in any way, because we are not fit to judge. We are to live by the Spirit, however, the fruits of which are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. (As you will doubtless have noted, it’s not always easy for us to do this, but there is no doubt that when we (me especially) fail to do so we are wrong and we are not living in the manner that we should). Another key difference is the external vs. internal focus. If you are simply obeying a list of rules, that’s purely external. It doesn’t touch your soul or your spirit. The internal focus is the internal spiritual journey. This relates to the personal relationship part of Christianity. Ultimately it boils down to a relationship between the individual and God. No one else exists at that most fundamental level. A church is simply a group of people with similar faiths who come together to support, stimulate and learn from each other. Groups of people can be even more prone to error than individuals and the history of the Christian church is littered with spectacular examples of “errors”, and worse, but this not the nature of a church community. It represents the shortcomings of the community. I most recently have gone to a small non-denominational church because I have a low tolerance for church bureaucracies, but big churches can offer other good things, so in practical terms there tend to be tradeoffs. So “religion” doesn’t need to mean a big, rigid, political institution. Those things often represent the shortcomings of a church community. Ultimately Christian spirituality is between the individual and God, but when two or more people get together and help each other from their strengths and be supported though times of struggle, then that is a Christian community in its most basic form.
Yes, I think that’s a pretty accurate description. It’s a difficult thing to explain, but I can try to elaborate if you like.
Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: "I seek God! I seek God!" As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why? is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea voyage? Has he emigrated? - the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. "Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed him, you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Backwards, sideways, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction? - for even Gods putrify! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife - who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event - and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!" Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. "I come too early," he then said. "I am not yet at the right time. This prodigious event is still on its way, and is traveling - it has not yet reached men's ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star - and yet they have done it themselves!" It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day, and there intoned his Requiem aeternam deo. When led out and called to account, he always gave the reply: "What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?" -Nietzsche, section 125 (The Madman), The Gay Science (1882)
Beautiful. Many people misunderstand this assertion by Nietzsche, which is unfortunate because it was a leitmotif of his thought. There is a fundamental error that N. was proclaiming the death of God based on the (then) new scientific theory of evolution. While that did factor into his thought, his prime suspect was "nihilism" - he used the word to describe the cultural situation that results when "the highest values devalue themselves." In brief (and one needs to be brief): He saw "world-historical irony" in what Christianity had become in Europe in that it had essentially transformed into the opposite of the values that originally made it beautiful (Nietzsche found a great deal to respect in early Christianity, but also found much of it questionable - he was far too complex a thinker to favor a simple EITHER/OR answer to any question). He saw this historical decadence had introduced so much hypocrisy and stagnation in those religious values, that they operated in culture as a sort of argument against their own existence. (I'd definitely suggest reading N. to get the full picture as this synopsis can't possibly account for all the detail and diversions and density of the original). Much of Nietzsche's concern was with the creation of values that were naturalistic instead of supernatural - that's the explanation for the "With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? " - he's saying, once we've lost the divine sanction behind our values, how will we determine value at all? And, he believed that would be the central problem of the future. I don't agree with everything he says, but Nietzsche is one of the most astoundingly insightful writers I've encountered. He can be very difficult to read - but that is what he intended.
Still skimming this thread but had to respond to this. For the record I don't consider myself an atheists or a proponent of Atheism, am spiritual and even attend religious services regularly, if one consider meditation and Dharma talks religious services. Accepting Evolution as being the most plausible scientific explanation for speciation has nothing to do with anti-intellectual tribalism and frankly I think its a misunderstanding of science and the scientific method to portray continued support for Evolution in terms of a rigid defense of intellectual orthodoxy or a rejection of religion in favor of Atheism. The only reason it is viewed that way is because that most of the proponents of ID are religious and are seeing this in religious terms. Many scientists, including Darwin himself, have spiritual beliefs and in no way see Evolution or a belief in God as being in conflict. At the sametime while there is orthodoxy and intellectual inertia in science new ideas, even ones that overthrow long held preexisting ideas, are accepted as long as they can pass through the tests of the scientific process. Further if Evolution were such a matter of orthodoxy that would also ignore that there is a lot of debate and even dissension among evolutionary scientists. So support for Evolution is far from an Atheistic belief being clung to on a quasi religious basis but is based upon following the scientific method and evidence presented. Its not held to as absolute unchanging truth since even the most die hard Evolutionists would agree that there are unknowns and things not fully explained by Evolution. That is very different than religous orthodoxy which will not acknowledge things not explained by the religious belief.
Rhester pardon me for phrasing this but I can't think of a better way. THAT POST KICKS @SS! I don't plan on becoming a Christian but your posts have helped me understand, appreciate and respect Christianity far more than I did before. Have you thought about writing a book? I mean that seriously.
I would think about it this way. If God is everywhere and everything then why would anything be apart from God? The idea of an omniscient and omnipotent being would seem to me to mean that being is essentially everything and everything is one within that being. If we are separate beings and there is a seperate Universe apart from God that to me would be a duality that limits God.
yeah, what if he got on a boat or something and sailed away like the elves in lord of the rings. wouldn't it be great if instead he rode into iraq on a white horse like gandalf and helped rid the world of terrorists.
One reason perhaps that religion is not being abandoned as quickly as one would think despite the coming of the Age of Enlightenment, rationalism and rise of scientific inquiry is probably the "Big Lie" effect at work. Consider the centuries and millenia people spent devoting entire lives to religion. It seems inconceivable that something that has lasted so long and something that people sacrificed their lives for could be nothing more than myth, fable, superstition and legend (MFSL) which is no more true that Norse, Graeco-Roman, Egyptian beliefs have now been relegated as. When one has devoted one's life to it, rejecting it would be difficult as it would be tantamount to admitting one has wasted much of one's life on MFSL. However, how long can the "Big Lie" effect last to perpetuate religion? Unlike past generations, the current ones are slowly being brought up in a secular world where religion is now considered by many to be MFSL. Religion's days are numbered in today's freethinking world.
Maybe you should think of it as one religion replacing another... rationalism, enlightenment and 'scientific inquiry are just another religion when you have to answer the questions religion deals with, like- life after death or nothing after death moral conscience reason for living reason for dying
I think that referring to religion as the 'big lie' and implying that those who have faith are somehow duped and not enlightened enough might fall into the 'athiests having a mandate to bug others' camp. Perhaps you should post this in the "why do christians insist on bugging me" thread . Some pretty smart people are quite religious. ANd have been through-out time.
Religion is not going anywhere. Now, more than ever, we have ways of reaching more and more people throughout the world. Combine that with people's natural fears and need for social interaction, religion provides all of that. Is that a good thing? We shall see.
That was a great quote from flamingmoe, and a beautiful reflection on it by you, thadeus. Sometimes we read posts from members that announce the death throes of D&D, or belittle it's worth. I would put this thread, with many excellent posts in it, as an example of how they are wrong. (of course, there's a bunch of crap here as well, but what are you gonna do??) Keep D&D Civil!!
I completely agree that those are reasons we will always need faith but I would disagree that rationalism, enlightenment and scientific enquiry are just another religion replacing religion. As both spiritual and rational beings I believe we can both be religious and engage in things like scientific inquiry. I agree that some take it too far to make rationalism the end all and be all, like Objectivists, but that is a very sterile way of viewing existence and denies the innate striving within us to search for higher meaning to our lives and angst of knowing our own mortality.
I agree with your principle Sishir Chang, but I think we both know in practice people tend to be very 'religious' about their personal beliefs. If scientific inquiry was sterile and pure and untainted by personal lifestyle, belief and moral reason then we wouldn't all be so dogmatic.
