"The Minister for Family of the Papal Government, Cardinal Antonelli, told me a few days ago in Zaragoza that UNESCO has a program for the next 20 years to make half the world population homosexual. To do this they have distinct programs, and will continue to implant the ideology that is already present in our schools." -- Demetrio Fernández, Bishop of Córdoba.
(H/T: Pharyngula)
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Four From Voltaire
Les habiles tyrans ne sont jamais punis.
-- Clever tyrants are never punished.
C'est une des superstitions de l'esprit humain d'avoir imaginé que la virginité pouvait être une vertu.
-- It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue.
Nous cherchons tous le bonheur, mais sans savoir où, comme les ivrognes qui cherchent leur maison, sachant confusément qu'ils en ont une.
-- We all look for happiness, but without knowing where to find it: like drunkards who look for their house, knowing dimly that they have one.
Il y a eu des gens qui ont dit autrefois: Vous croyez des choses incompréhensibles, contradictoires, impossibles, parce que nous vous l’avons ordonné; faites donc des choses injustes parce que nous vous l’ordonnons. Ces gens-là raisonnaient à merveille. Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste. Si vous n’opposez point aux ordres de croire l’impossible l’intelligence que Dieu a mise dans votre esprit, vous ne devez point opposer aux ordres de malfaire la justice que Dieu a mise dans votre coeur. Une faculté de votre âme étant une fois tyrannisée, toutes les autres facultés doivent l’être également. Et c’est là ce qui a produit tous les crimes religieux dont la terre a été inondée.
-- Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.
(Source)
-- Clever tyrants are never punished.
C'est une des superstitions de l'esprit humain d'avoir imaginé que la virginité pouvait être une vertu.
-- It is one of the superstitions of the human mind to have imagined that virginity could be a virtue.
Nous cherchons tous le bonheur, mais sans savoir où, comme les ivrognes qui cherchent leur maison, sachant confusément qu'ils en ont une.
-- We all look for happiness, but without knowing where to find it: like drunkards who look for their house, knowing dimly that they have one.
Il y a eu des gens qui ont dit autrefois: Vous croyez des choses incompréhensibles, contradictoires, impossibles, parce que nous vous l’avons ordonné; faites donc des choses injustes parce que nous vous l’ordonnons. Ces gens-là raisonnaient à merveille. Certainement qui est en droit de vous rendre absurde est en droit de vous rendre injuste. Si vous n’opposez point aux ordres de croire l’impossible l’intelligence que Dieu a mise dans votre esprit, vous ne devez point opposer aux ordres de malfaire la justice que Dieu a mise dans votre coeur. Une faculté de votre âme étant une fois tyrannisée, toutes les autres facultés doivent l’être également. Et c’est là ce qui a produit tous les crimes religieux dont la terre a été inondée.
-- Formerly there were those who said: You believe things that are incomprehensible, inconsistent, impossible because we have commanded you to believe them; go then and do what is unjust because we command it. Such people show admirable reasoning. Truly, whoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you unjust. If the God-given understanding of your mind does not resist a demand to believe what is impossible, then you will not resist a demand to do wrong to that God-given sense of justice in your heart. As soon as one faculty of your soul has been dominated, other faculties will follow as well. And from this derives all those crimes of religion which have overrun the world.
(Source)
Moderate Folks and Fanatics
"The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas." Tao Te Ching, Ch. 59, as interpreted by Stephen Mitchell (1992).
The first two questions I have about this passage are relatively simple: If it is true that the mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas, then is the mark of a fanatic that he is enslaved to his own ideas?
If so, how does a fanatic become enslaved to his own ideas?
The next two questions I have about this passage are perhaps less simple: In so far as most or all of us see the world through the lens of our ideas about the world, are not most or all of us somewhat less than free of our own ideas?
If so, what would it mean to be free of one's own ideas?
The first two questions I have about this passage are relatively simple: If it is true that the mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas, then is the mark of a fanatic that he is enslaved to his own ideas?
If so, how does a fanatic become enslaved to his own ideas?
The next two questions I have about this passage are perhaps less simple: In so far as most or all of us see the world through the lens of our ideas about the world, are not most or all of us somewhat less than free of our own ideas?
If so, what would it mean to be free of one's own ideas?
Where Did the Notion the Gods Care About Our Morals Come From?
I am of the tentative opinion the notion the gods care about our morals was invented by our ancestors precisely 15 minutes after they elevated from among themselves the world's first priest:
Joking aside, though, I think there might be a relationship between priests (or a priestly class) and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals.
Based on my very limited knowledge, I cannot think of a society in which the notion is prevalent that does not have priests. Although, I can think of at least one society in which I suspect the notion is either quite weak, or simply does not exist, and yet there are priests (Japan).
Moreover, as Jared Diamond somewhere points out, the New Guinea highlanders -- like many other tribal peoples -- do not think of their gods as beings interested in human morals. That is, the notion is not intrinsic to religion, and you can, and do, have religions without it.
So, do you think there might be a relationship of some sort between a presence of priests and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals? Why or why not?
ANCESTORS: "Now that we have made you the highest among us, the intermediary between us and our gods, O Priest, tell us what me must do."From such humble beginnings, the notion the gods are keenly interested in our morals eventually spread to all the nooks and niches of the earth so that, today, it is second nature for us to believe that every religion goes hand in hand with its own moral code.
PRIEST: "You must sharpen your pointy sticks for we must soon war upon the nation of the Amourites, because men with men and women with women of that nation have fornicated with each other."
ANCESTORS [embarrassed]: "Ummm...are you sure it's wrong for same sex couples to fornicate with each other? I mean, we ourselves have been....."
PRIEST: "Of course it's wrong!"
ANCESTORS: "But why? Why is it wrong?"
PRIEST: "Well, I don't actually...[suddenly has an idea]...Wait! It's because the gods forbid us to fornicate with the same sex. Yes! That's it! Because the gods forbid it!"
Joking aside, though, I think there might be a relationship between priests (or a priestly class) and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals.
Based on my very limited knowledge, I cannot think of a society in which the notion is prevalent that does not have priests. Although, I can think of at least one society in which I suspect the notion is either quite weak, or simply does not exist, and yet there are priests (Japan).
Moreover, as Jared Diamond somewhere points out, the New Guinea highlanders -- like many other tribal peoples -- do not think of their gods as beings interested in human morals. That is, the notion is not intrinsic to religion, and you can, and do, have religions without it.
So, do you think there might be a relationship of some sort between a presence of priests and the notion the gods are concerned with our morals? Why or why not?
Are Misogynists Wimps at Heart?
They must be very macho men to verbally abuse an eight year old girl. I would like to meet them in person so I could personally congratulate these men on their macho. I would also like to ask them what they think of Yocheved Horowitz."The same broadcast featured a religious eight-year-old girl terrified to walk the short distance between her home and school, since she is subject to verbal abuse of ultra-Orthodox men who claim her attire is not sufficiently 'modest'." -- Source.
Horowitz, you see, is an Orthodox woman who does not buy into the bullshit of these Orthodox men. And apparently, because she is not a (understandably) frightened eight year old girl, she is sometimes able to shut them up.
Horowitz was on a public bus one day when one of these macho men told her to move to the back of the bus:
What do you think? Do you think maybe these macho misogynists are not really so macho unless they outnumber their victims?"Women to the back," he called out like a conductor. "To the back, to the back." He trembled with anger. A man sitting in the first row whose appearance revealed him to be a Gur Hasid, shushed him, with a finger to his lip. But the shouter paid no attention to him. "Men's area," he continued to shout. "Women to the back."
Now Horowitz turned around and said loudly and clearly: "What do you mean by 'men's area'? A geographical area?" she wondered. "What is mehadrin? Are you talking about an etrog, a lulav?" she queried, referring to two of the principal symbols used during the festival of Sukkot. "Nowhere in rabbinical law does it say that it is forbidden to sit behind a woman, not in the Shulchan Arukh and not in the Yoreh De'ah [two classical compilations of Jewish law]. What is written in the Torah and in rabbinical law is that it is forbidden to humiliate sons and daughters of Israel."
Like a deflated balloon, the man became quiet, and maintained his silence for the rest of the bus ride.
I have often wondered what relationship there might be, if any, between a man being a misogynist and a man being a wimp?
_________________
(H/T: Hoyden About Town)
Can Jesus Christ Empower Us to be True to Ourselves?
I once overheard a young woman all but violently diss her pastor. He had offered his sermon that Sunday on the commandment of Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself". But, while her fool of a pastor thought "neighbor" referred to everyone and anyone, she just knew that Jesus meant by "neighbor" only those folks who were members of her church. "How could her pastor be so wrong?"
When I was younger, I assumed that whatever influence the teachings of Jesus had on people was straight-forward. That is, I assumed if someone read, say, "love your neighbor as yourself", they would either reject that teaching or accept it, and if they accepted it, they would attempt to live up to it. What I did not grasp for many years was the extent to which people would interpret the teachings of Jesus, to say nothing of interpreting the rest of the Bible.
The Bible is the book everyone quotes and no one reads. Hence, ignorance of the Bible might explain how there can be so many interpretations of Jesus' teachings. But another possibility is a bit more subtle. We often project ourselves into things without realizing it. Or, as an old joke has it:
I often hear the religious folk among us talk about being "empowered by Christ's message". And, almost as often, I find myself wondering what that really means. And, in attempting to answer that question -- "What does it mean to feel empowered by Christ's message" -- I naturally turn to my own experience. That is, I do exactly what I have suggested many (or most) of us do when interpreting Jesus' teachings: I project myself into the message.
As it happens, I was once a Christian. My "Christian phase", which occurred during middle school, lasted less than a month, and in the end, I rejected Christianity on the grounds that -- if my unsaved family was going to hell -- I would rather join them in hell than be separated from them, though in heaven. For a short while, however, I was Jesus-intoxicated, and hour by hour yearned and stretched myself to live up Christian ideals -- as I understood those ideals.
That experience, however brief, was enough to teach me how strangely empowering it is to feel Jesus is on your side. For instance, when I was a kid, I valued honesty, but I didn't always feel I was supported in that by my peers and teachers. After I became a Christian, however, I felt immensely supported in that valuation because now Christ was on my side. If I had any doubts about whether honesty was appropriate in some given circumstance, I had only to ask, "What would Jesus want me to do?" And Jesus, of course, always wanted me to do what I was inclined at the time to do anyway -- that is, he always wanted total honesty.
Because of my own limited experience, I think there might be some circumstances in which a commitment to the teachings of Jesus can empower us to be true to ourselves. Or, at least, to be more true to ourselves than we might be otherwise. Yet, I do not think everyone discovers that a commitment to the teachings of Jesus empowers them to be true to themselves.
I once told my friend Don what a positive experience it had been for me to be a Christian. Unfortunately, Don's own experience of being a Christian -- an experience that had lasted decades, rather than mere days -- was far from positive. Christianity, rather than empower him to be true to himself, had too often caused him to feel daunting fear and guilt when he tried to be true to himself.
So,. I suppose it might depend on whether we get past reading our own self into the teachings of Jesus. I never really did during my short time as a Christian. Everything Jesus wanted of me was what I myself wanted of me. Hence, Jesus was emotionally empowering.
But Don got way past reading his own self into the teachings of Jesus. Then, like many, many other people, he discovered things in the teachings of Jesus -- or things in his religion as a whole -- that were self-alienating, rather than self-affirming. Consequently, Jesus was not an overall empowering influence in Don's life.
What do you make of this issue? Can faith in Jesus empower us to be true to ourselves? If so, how so? If not, why not?
______________
(H/T: Was Jesus a great teacher? Sabio Lantz has begun a promising series of posts on that subject over at his Triangulations blog. His core question -- "Was Jesus a great teacher?" -- inspired this blog post.)
When I was younger, I assumed that whatever influence the teachings of Jesus had on people was straight-forward. That is, I assumed if someone read, say, "love your neighbor as yourself", they would either reject that teaching or accept it, and if they accepted it, they would attempt to live up to it. What I did not grasp for many years was the extent to which people would interpret the teachings of Jesus, to say nothing of interpreting the rest of the Bible.
The Bible is the book everyone quotes and no one reads. Hence, ignorance of the Bible might explain how there can be so many interpretations of Jesus' teachings. But another possibility is a bit more subtle. We often project ourselves into things without realizing it. Or, as an old joke has it:
So ignorance of the Bible might not be the main culprit here. Instead, it might well be that many of us -- perhaps even most of us -- interpret Jesus in light of our own selves. If we love everyone we meet, then we tend to think Jesus meant everyone we meet by "neighbor". If we love only those we feel a strong commonality with, then we tend to think Jesus meant only a our favorite group by "neighbor". But whatever the case, we read into the teachings of Jesus as least as much as we get out of them.A new patient comes to see a psychiatrist. The doc decides to give the patient a Rorshach Test, and shows him a series of cards with different inkblots on them.
“What do you see on the first one?” asks the shrink.“That’s a man and a woman making love.”
“And the second one?”
“That’s a couple who just finished making love.”
“And the third one?”
“That’s a man asking a woman to make love, and she’s deciding what to do.”
The shrink asks, “Don’t you think it’s interesting that you see sex in every card?”
“Don’t blame me,” says the patient “they’re your cards.”
I often hear the religious folk among us talk about being "empowered by Christ's message". And, almost as often, I find myself wondering what that really means. And, in attempting to answer that question -- "What does it mean to feel empowered by Christ's message" -- I naturally turn to my own experience. That is, I do exactly what I have suggested many (or most) of us do when interpreting Jesus' teachings: I project myself into the message.
As it happens, I was once a Christian. My "Christian phase", which occurred during middle school, lasted less than a month, and in the end, I rejected Christianity on the grounds that -- if my unsaved family was going to hell -- I would rather join them in hell than be separated from them, though in heaven. For a short while, however, I was Jesus-intoxicated, and hour by hour yearned and stretched myself to live up Christian ideals -- as I understood those ideals.
That experience, however brief, was enough to teach me how strangely empowering it is to feel Jesus is on your side. For instance, when I was a kid, I valued honesty, but I didn't always feel I was supported in that by my peers and teachers. After I became a Christian, however, I felt immensely supported in that valuation because now Christ was on my side. If I had any doubts about whether honesty was appropriate in some given circumstance, I had only to ask, "What would Jesus want me to do?" And Jesus, of course, always wanted me to do what I was inclined at the time to do anyway -- that is, he always wanted total honesty.
Because of my own limited experience, I think there might be some circumstances in which a commitment to the teachings of Jesus can empower us to be true to ourselves. Or, at least, to be more true to ourselves than we might be otherwise. Yet, I do not think everyone discovers that a commitment to the teachings of Jesus empowers them to be true to themselves.
I once told my friend Don what a positive experience it had been for me to be a Christian. Unfortunately, Don's own experience of being a Christian -- an experience that had lasted decades, rather than mere days -- was far from positive. Christianity, rather than empower him to be true to himself, had too often caused him to feel daunting fear and guilt when he tried to be true to himself.
So,. I suppose it might depend on whether we get past reading our own self into the teachings of Jesus. I never really did during my short time as a Christian. Everything Jesus wanted of me was what I myself wanted of me. Hence, Jesus was emotionally empowering.
But Don got way past reading his own self into the teachings of Jesus. Then, like many, many other people, he discovered things in the teachings of Jesus -- or things in his religion as a whole -- that were self-alienating, rather than self-affirming. Consequently, Jesus was not an overall empowering influence in Don's life.
What do you make of this issue? Can faith in Jesus empower us to be true to ourselves? If so, how so? If not, why not?
______________
(H/T: Was Jesus a great teacher? Sabio Lantz has begun a promising series of posts on that subject over at his Triangulations blog. His core question -- "Was Jesus a great teacher?" -- inspired this blog post.)
Jennfier Keeton: Playing the Christ Card
Jennifer Keeton was until recently a graduate student in counseling at Augusta State University in Georgia. About 18 months ago, she sued the University, saying that it had violated her rights to free speech and the free exercise of her Christian faith.
Among other things, Keeton claimed University officials had told her that, in order to stay in the University's school counseling program, she would have to change her beliefs about homosexuality. According to Court documents (.pdf pp.5-6):
As it happened, though, a three judge panel for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal found Keeton was mistaken to claim the University had asked her to change her beliefs. Instead, the University had only asked her to adhere to a certain professional code of ethics.
The school counseling program at Augusta State University is accredited by an organization with the exciting name of, "The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)" As part of the accreditation deal, the University agreed to teach its counseling students to professionally conduct themselves according to the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics. The Code includes ethical principles such as (.pdf pp. 6-7):
There are quite a few details to the case, but in effect, the University asked Jennifer Keeton to professionally conduct herself according to the ACA Code of Ethics and she refused to so.
Some years ago, I paid for my college room and board by working as a fire fighter. I do not now recall that we ever -- even once -- asked someone about their sexual orientation before knocking down their fire or extracting them from their wrecked car. More to the point: Had I decided back then that I would only provide my services to heterosexuals, I would have been (justifiably) fired. But the judges of the 11th Circuit said it best (.pdf pp. 30):
In order to secure preferential treatment, she cynically tried to play the Christ Card. That is, she deceitfully tried to fob herself off as -- not some jerk seeking preferential treatment -- but someone wrongfully oppressed because she is a Christian.
Of course, some folks are now tripping over themselves in their rush to buy into Jennifer Keeton's notion of herself as a martyr. Here is what they have been saying...
Ramona Hicks Willis thinks, "This is not a questions of ethics, it is a power play by the homosexuals. They want to destroy anyone that does not agree with their lifestyle. Plain and simple."
The Court's ruling in the case seems to have traumatized Diana Shugar, who is suddenly ready to give up on life: "God is not the god of this world; Satan is. Satan is the invisible god of this world. He is the author of its organization, its basic philosophies, its systems of government, business, society—yes, AND RELIGIONS! It's best to just tell people of the new upcoming world ruled by our Lord and Savior. This one is beyond redemption."
Michael Galvin fully agrees with Diana that requiring Jennifer Keeton to live up to a professional code of ethics is so traumatizing the end of the world must be near: "You are right. We cannot save this world and the people in it. God desires that none would perish, but they have rejected Him and His Gospel. The date it set, the orchestra is in tune, the curtain is soon to be lifted."
Adrienne Elizabeth Crawford cannot believe Keeton did anything wrong. Apparently, she just doesn't get what the case was all about. Nevertheless, she's sure it has something to do with the way Christians are always being persecuted: "It’s just really sad that this woman is being reprimanded (so to speak) for her beliefs. We ALL have a right to our own beliefs. I don’t believe she did anything wrong. But we as Christians should not be surprised by this persecution. After all, we live in Satan’s world. He’s the Prince of this world but only temporarily."
Tolfe Lee Albert thinks working with gay kids is a lot like risking your life -- or at least your health (he's not sure which): "What if the student had AIDS, or a very bad cold...would she not have the right to refuse that student? Where are HER rights. Another victory for the ACLU and loss of our personal rights and dignity."
Last, Jack Oliver thinks he knows the sacred duty of a true Christian: "As a christan [sic] she is bound to speak up against queres [sic]."
Jennifer Keeton played the Christ Card by demanding special privileges for herself while shouting that she was being discriminated against. Naturally -- inevitably -- some folks bought her story. But it would be a mistake to assume -- simply because some Christians have uncritically bought Keeton's story -- that the majority of Christians in America agree with them, for there is no evidence that the majority do in fact agree with the poor fools among us.
(H/T: Chappie at An Apostate's Chapel)
Among other things, Keeton claimed University officials had told her that, in order to stay in the University's school counseling program, she would have to change her beliefs about homosexuality. According to Court documents (.pdf pp.5-6):
In Keeton's view, the University was asking her to change her beliefs, and thus violating both her right to free speech and her right to freely practice her religion.[Keeton] holds several beliefs about homosexuality that she views as arising from her Christian faith. She believes that “sexual behavior is the result of personal choice for which individuals are accountable, not inevitable deterministic forces; that gender is fixed and binary (i.e., male or female), not a social construct
or personal choice subject to individual change; and that homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle,’ not a ‘state of being.’” ASU’s officials became aware that Keeton held these beliefs when she expressed to professors in class and fellow classmates in and out of class that she believed that the GLBTQ population suffers from identity confusion, and that she intended to attempt to convert students from being homosexual to heterosexual. Keeton also said that it would be difficult for her to work with GLBTQ clients and to separate her views about homosexuality from her clients’ views. Further, in answering a hypothetical posed by a faculty member, Keeton responded that as a high school counselor confronted by a sophomore student in crisis, questioning his sexual orientation, she would tell the student that it was not okay to be gay. Similarly, Keeton told a fellow classmate that, if a client discloses that he is gay, it was her intention to tell the client that his behavior is morally wrong and then try to change the client’s behavior, and if she were unable to help the client change his behavior, she would refer him to someone practicing conversion therapy.
As it happened, though, a three judge panel for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal found Keeton was mistaken to claim the University had asked her to change her beliefs. Instead, the University had only asked her to adhere to a certain professional code of ethics.
The school counseling program at Augusta State University is accredited by an organization with the exciting name of, "The Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP)" As part of the accreditation deal, the University agreed to teach its counseling students to professionally conduct themselves according to the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) Code of Ethics. The Code includes ethical principles such as (.pdf pp. 6-7):
and:“Counselors are aware of their own values, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors and avoid imposing values that are inconsistent with counseling goals. Counselors respect the diversity of clients, trainees, and research participants”
“Counselors do not condone or engage in discrimination based on age, culture, disability, ethnicity, race, religion/spirituality, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, marital status/partnership, language preference, socioeconomic status, or any basis proscribed by law.”
There are quite a few details to the case, but in effect, the University asked Jennifer Keeton to professionally conduct herself according to the ACA Code of Ethics and she refused to so.
Some years ago, I paid for my college room and board by working as a fire fighter. I do not now recall that we ever -- even once -- asked someone about their sexual orientation before knocking down their fire or extracting them from their wrecked car. More to the point: Had I decided back then that I would only provide my services to heterosexuals, I would have been (justifiably) fired. But the judges of the 11th Circuit said it best (.pdf pp. 30):
Of course, what Keeton was attempting to do with her lawsuit should be transparent to anyone: She was trying to force the University to make her an exception to the rule that counseling students must be taught to professionally conduct themselves according to the ACA Code of Ethics. In short, she was looking for preferential treatment.Every profession has its own ethical codes and dictates. When someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements. Lawyers must present legal arguments on behalf of their clients, notwithstanding their personal views. Judges must apply the law, even when they disagree with it. So too counselors must refrain from imposing their moral and religious values on their clients.
In order to secure preferential treatment, she cynically tried to play the Christ Card. That is, she deceitfully tried to fob herself off as -- not some jerk seeking preferential treatment -- but someone wrongfully oppressed because she is a Christian.
Of course, some folks are now tripping over themselves in their rush to buy into Jennifer Keeton's notion of herself as a martyr. Here is what they have been saying...
Ramona Hicks Willis thinks, "This is not a questions of ethics, it is a power play by the homosexuals. They want to destroy anyone that does not agree with their lifestyle. Plain and simple."
The Court's ruling in the case seems to have traumatized Diana Shugar, who is suddenly ready to give up on life: "God is not the god of this world; Satan is. Satan is the invisible god of this world. He is the author of its organization, its basic philosophies, its systems of government, business, society—yes, AND RELIGIONS! It's best to just tell people of the new upcoming world ruled by our Lord and Savior. This one is beyond redemption."
Michael Galvin fully agrees with Diana that requiring Jennifer Keeton to live up to a professional code of ethics is so traumatizing the end of the world must be near: "You are right. We cannot save this world and the people in it. God desires that none would perish, but they have rejected Him and His Gospel. The date it set, the orchestra is in tune, the curtain is soon to be lifted."
Adrienne Elizabeth Crawford cannot believe Keeton did anything wrong. Apparently, she just doesn't get what the case was all about. Nevertheless, she's sure it has something to do with the way Christians are always being persecuted: "It’s just really sad that this woman is being reprimanded (so to speak) for her beliefs. We ALL have a right to our own beliefs. I don’t believe she did anything wrong. But we as Christians should not be surprised by this persecution. After all, we live in Satan’s world. He’s the Prince of this world but only temporarily."
Tolfe Lee Albert thinks working with gay kids is a lot like risking your life -- or at least your health (he's not sure which): "What if the student had AIDS, or a very bad cold...would she not have the right to refuse that student? Where are HER rights. Another victory for the ACLU and loss of our personal rights and dignity."
Last, Jack Oliver thinks he knows the sacred duty of a true Christian: "As a christan [sic] she is bound to speak up against queres [sic]."
Jennifer Keeton played the Christ Card by demanding special privileges for herself while shouting that she was being discriminated against. Naturally -- inevitably -- some folks bought her story. But it would be a mistake to assume -- simply because some Christians have uncritically bought Keeton's story -- that the majority of Christians in America agree with them, for there is no evidence that the majority do in fact agree with the poor fools among us.
(H/T: Chappie at An Apostate's Chapel)
If God is Incomprehensible...
For the sake of discussion, let us assume there's a god. And let us further assume that god is incomprehensible.
If we were to now ask the question, "Does god exist", whose notion of god do you suppose would be closest to the truth:
If we were to now ask the question, "Does god exist", whose notion of god do you suppose would be closest to the truth:
- The Theist who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that exists?
- The Atheist who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that does not exist?
- The Agnostic who has an idea of god and thinks his idea represents something that he is uncertain exists?
- The young child who has as yet no idea of god and consequently cannot even understand the question?
Jiddu Krishnamurti on Religion and Self-Reliance
"Religion as we generally know it or acknowledge it, is a series of beliefs, of dogmas, of rituals, of superstitions, of worship of idols, of charms and gurus that will lead you to what you want as an ultimate goal. The ultimate truth is your projection, that is what you want, which will make you happy, which will give a certainty of the deathless state. So the mind caught in all this creates a religion, a religion of dogmas, of priest-craft, of superstitions and idol-worship and in that, you are caught, and the mind stagnates. Is that religion?"
"Is religion a matter of belief, a matter of knowledge of other people's experiences and assertions? Or is religion merely the following of morality? You know it is comparatively easy to be moral to do this and not to do that. Because it is easy, you can imitate a moral system. Behind that morality, lurks the self, growing, expanding, aggressive, dominating. But is that religion?"
"You have to find out what truth is because that is the only thing that matters, not whether you are rich or poor, not whether you are happily married and have children, because they all come to an end, there is always death. So, without any form of belief, you must find out; you must have the vigor, the self-reliance, the initiative, so that for yourself you know what truth is, what God is."
"Belief will not give you anything; belief only corrupts, binds, darkens. The mind can only be free through vigor, through self-reliance."
- J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life (Paragraph breaks added).
"Is religion a matter of belief, a matter of knowledge of other people's experiences and assertions? Or is religion merely the following of morality? You know it is comparatively easy to be moral to do this and not to do that. Because it is easy, you can imitate a moral system. Behind that morality, lurks the self, growing, expanding, aggressive, dominating. But is that religion?"
"You have to find out what truth is because that is the only thing that matters, not whether you are rich or poor, not whether you are happily married and have children, because they all come to an end, there is always death. So, without any form of belief, you must find out; you must have the vigor, the self-reliance, the initiative, so that for yourself you know what truth is, what God is."
"Belief will not give you anything; belief only corrupts, binds, darkens. The mind can only be free through vigor, through self-reliance."
- J. Krishnamurti, The Book of Life (Paragraph breaks added).
How to Interpret the Bible: Sunstone's Authoritative Guide to Biblical Interpretation
As loyal, beloved readers of this blog might know, I am no authority on the Bible. That is, I know the Bible is the book everyone quotes and no one reads -- but that's about the extent of my knowledge.
So today's blog post might be a wee bit out of my league -- in much the same sense that my attempting to dog paddle across the Pacific Ocean might be a wee bit out of my league -- because I intend to discuss how the Bible should be interpreted.
Never mind that I don't know how the Bible should be interpreted. Never mind that I haven't even read the thing. And never mind that I only got it into my head a couple hours ago that I should have an opinion about how it should be interpreted. No, never mind any of that.
None of those things matter because I'm an American. And -- as even I know -- Americans, with a little help from the British, all but invented the custom of interpreting the Bible literally. At least, that's what my professors used to tell me. The notion the Bible should be interpreted literally was invented -- mostly by Americans -- during the 1800s. Before that, you have nearly 2000 years of Biblical scholarship in which almost no one with a brain seriously thought the Bible was to be taken literally.
But today, 3 in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God.
The above is proof Americans have da balls. No other people -- except for a few Brits (who probably don't count anyway, since they lost the Revolutionary War) -- have had the courage to tell their God that he simply cannot speak metaphorically or symbolically. Go us!
In other words, as an American, I come from a proud tradition of claiming I know all about how to interpret the Bible. And on the firm basis of that tradition, I feel confident that I have the sacred right to tell you and the world how the Bible is to be interpreted. How cool is that?
So, let's put the meat on the table: Should we or should we not interpret the Bible literally?
Well, you'll be relieved to know I have discovered -- after sheer minutes of research -- the one true answer to that question. As it happens, the one true answer is contained in Proverbs 12:19. Anyone who thinks through that passage will surely come to the same conclusion I have: Contra the American tradition, the Bible was not meant to always be taken literally.
The exciting passage reads: "Truthful lips endure forever, but a lying tongue lasts only a moment."
Ha! I say, "Ha!", because anyone with a lick of sense knows that passage is false if taken literally. It is only true -- if it is true at all -- if taken symbolically.
QED: I'm right. One hundred million Americans are wrong. The Bible is not always meant to be taken literally. The matter is settled.
Anyone who now wishes to show his or her appreciation for having an authoritative answer to the question, "Should we or should we not interpret the Bible literally?", may send a modest donation of $29.95 to Uncle Sunstone's Refuge for Wayward Dancing Girls. You can be confident your donation will help buy the g-strings those girls desperately need to stay warm at my place during the winter.
Raised Up Righteous
Neil was a mountain kid. Raised by artists up in the San Luis Valley. There are about 500 artists (according to Wiki) who live up in that valley, and both Neil's parents were artists.
One day, Neil told me this story. When he was growing up, his parents made him attend church every Sunday from about age six on. His parents themselves would never go to church, though. They'd just make Neil get dressed up, then send him off to church.
When he'd come home, they'd ask him how it went, what the sermon was about, and things like that. But Neil could tell they were just checking up on him to make sure he went -- they themselves weren't really interested in it.
By the time Neil was 13, he was fed up with it. So one Sunday, instead of going to church, he approached his parents, who were sitting in their kitchen, having coffee.
"Mom, Dad! I'm fed up with church. I don't believe a thing they say about god and I don't share many of their values. I'm a stranger there." blah, blah, blah. Neil went on for several minutes, all the time on the verge of tears, while his parents just watched and listened to him in silence.
Finally, his mother spoke, "Neil, your father and I are both atheists. But we knew if we just told you church wasn't for you, you'd wouldn't have believed us. So we sent you to church all these years so you could find out for yourself. You've done that, and you no longer have to go to church if you don't want to."
One day, Neil told me this story. When he was growing up, his parents made him attend church every Sunday from about age six on. His parents themselves would never go to church, though. They'd just make Neil get dressed up, then send him off to church.
When he'd come home, they'd ask him how it went, what the sermon was about, and things like that. But Neil could tell they were just checking up on him to make sure he went -- they themselves weren't really interested in it.
By the time Neil was 13, he was fed up with it. So one Sunday, instead of going to church, he approached his parents, who were sitting in their kitchen, having coffee.
"Mom, Dad! I'm fed up with church. I don't believe a thing they say about god and I don't share many of their values. I'm a stranger there." blah, blah, blah. Neil went on for several minutes, all the time on the verge of tears, while his parents just watched and listened to him in silence.
Finally, his mother spoke, "Neil, your father and I are both atheists. But we knew if we just told you church wasn't for you, you'd wouldn't have believed us. So we sent you to church all these years so you could find out for yourself. You've done that, and you no longer have to go to church if you don't want to."
Violence and Religion
"If we want to get rid of violence we have to get rid of human beings. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with us."It seems to me that Ramadan is largely right, but with this provision: Religion is a great enabler. In that respect, it is like dynamite. Dynamite is also an enabler.
--Tariq Ramadan
Sometimes dynamite is used for good, such as when it enables a farmer to efficiently remove a tree stump from his field. And sometimes dynamite is used for evil, such as when it enables a terrorist to efficiently blow up a school bus. In either case, dynamite enables more to be done than might otherwise be the case.
Religion is much the same: It is a great enabler that sometimes enables good, and sometimes enables evil. So, while I agree with Ramadan that the roots of violence are predominantly in human nature, rather than in religion, I believe that religion can -- under certain circumstances -- enable much greater violence than might otherwise be the case.
(H/T: Eruesso at A God-Sized Puzzle.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)