Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
Or, at least, that's what I'm going to try and do. There is nothing more than that. |
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:
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:
|
Quote:
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? |
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
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:
(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. :rolleyes: ) |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[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...... |
[QUOTE=littlemanpoet]
Quote:
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! |
Quote:
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. :D |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
That's all I can manage for now. Alatar, I'll respond to your post when I get a chance. |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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? |
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. |
Quote:
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! :eek: ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do. |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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)? |
Quote:
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:
:p |
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'). 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'. |
My sincerest apologies...
Quote:
However, the fact still remains that Paul was unsympathetic towards women, with no good reason. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, he says: Quote:
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:
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. :D |
Quote:
Dont get me wrong, im just suggesting here. Quote:
:) |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
:) |
Quote:
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.... :p |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(post 175 next), much hie me to bed..... |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Perhaps I can drag this back to Tolkien .... :p
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[/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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
'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:
|
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. |
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:
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!) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Good quote from Chesterton. In summary, ONE of the world views has be true. Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:57 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.