Of another world

[davem]

Question: if G-d=Jesus, aren't we all sort of on the same page?

If we're reading the Bible, yes. I could just as well ask 'If Aragorn is the heir of Isildur, aren't we all sort of on the same page?'

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.

[Laitoste]

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:

I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is on me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honor my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised into life.

Christianity and Islam have the same base. The truly major differences between the religions are cultural, rather than religious. For example, the five pillars of Islam are: Shahada (confession), Salat (prayer), Zakat (almsgiving), Saum (fasting), and Hajj (pilgrimage). Similar ideas can be found in Christianity. However, you could claim that, historically, Muslims have been more intelligent about using their faith, despite the lack of any concept of a secular state. In the Pact of Umar from the 7th Century, a set of conditions for non-Muslims under Muslim rule, requires non-Muslims simply to not ostentatiously display their religions or impede the Muslims in any way. They are also required to pay slightly higher taxes. However, if you take a look at what happened during the aftermath of the 1st Crusade, when the Christians actually accomplished something (taking Jerusalem), they gave no thought to making political enemies or alienating the people who lived there first. It was a massacre. During the penitential pilgrimages that took place between the major Crusades, the knights just wanted to go, kill some “pagans”, and leave. This wreaked havoc on the Christian leaders who had set up kingdoms in the area.

(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. )

[alatar]

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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

And who can thwart the will of God?

Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

Originally Posted by alatar

Is the truth robust enough to handle a little shaking?

Yes.

Originally Posted by alatar

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.

While I'm not familiar with DaVinci Code (yet), there are many followers of Christ who are ruled by their fears; which is sad. Their faith is weak and they feel that they can be waylaid by such things (Harry Potter's another example ). Because fear rules them, they can't think very clearly. It's a shame.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Why a writing of clearly a lunatic, full of hate against anyone not being a) a male b) thinking the same way he did, was incorporated into the holy text preaching love and solidarity?).

Wow. You seem to have pretty much made up your mind about the man already. Are you talking about Paul the apostle? Could you provide examples of the hate?

Originally Posted by Nogrod

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!

Well. Matthew 8:12; 2 Thess. 1:9; Romans 2:1-10; 2 Peter 2:4; Matt. 10:15&28; Matt. 5:29,30.

Originally Posted by Formendacil

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".

This reminds me of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the Calormene who sought Tash but really sought Aslan, not knowing it. I've always been rather enamored of the idea. I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but it's attractive. I do agree with your point that God is the judge, not some organized church's set of doctrines. Oh! and regarding "paraphernalia": I have a higher view of the sacraments than that word may connote. God's grace is communicated to us through the sacraments and many other rituals of the church, even icons. It's important not to confuse the things with the source of the grace, of course.

(post 175 next), much hie me to bed.....

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

Anyone to whom God has given free will and chooses against Him. This is so because God does not take back this most fundamental of gifts; to do so would be to undo the very threads of human reality.

But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.

This is why intelligent followers of Christ like science; it's in touch with reality.

But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

But according to Christianity God does intervene. Miracles happen. The problem is that God will intervene quite eagerly sometimes & simply refuses to do so at others. If God never intervened it would not be a problem, but because He does intervene we have a right to ask why He doesn't bother in so many cases.

That's one of my issues with the paranormal, God and all things supernatural. If you cannot predict with even a little certainty what could happen, then how can you determine anything? For example, if one were to pray for a certain event, and if the event happens, then one would say that the prayer was answered. If, however, the event happened awry, then either the prayer did not work, was not received or the event was determined not to be God's will and so the prayer was heard and answered but in the negative. It's not easy to test the divine, but it's easy to say that the test was passed after the fact when any answer will do.

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.

Originally Posted by Frank Herbert

Religion begins where men seek to influence a god. The biblical scapegoat and Christian Redeemer are cast from the same ancient mould--the human subservient to an unpredictable universe (or unpredictable king) and seeking to rid himself of the guilt which brings down the wrath of the all-powerful.
--Raja Flattery, The Book of Ship

I thought that interesting.

But Genesis states the Universe was created in six days approximately 6,000 years ago while science tells us it was about 15,000, 000,000 years ago. Science tells us life evolved & that humans & modern apes share a common ancestor. It also tells us that people can't walk on water & that dead bodies cannot come back to life. Its not 'scientific' to accept science until it conflicts with some aspect of your belief & then say ' well, that's a miracle.' Science attempts to explain the Universe without recourse to miracles.

That's one of the problems with the religious science, as embodied in Intelligent Design. In ID, you have point A (i.e. Genesis) and point B and must to connect the two. In non-ID, you have point B and you attempt to work back to some point A. Are scientists free from already having a point A in mind which they desperately try to get to? I'll admit that that happens as well, but in that case one can argue with the person, whereas one cannot ask God for His notes etc.

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

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.

Robert Anton Wilson makes the point that you might as well say that the whole universe was created three minutes ago, including us & all our memories of it being older. Its not scientific, because it can't be disproven - I'd like to see anyone actually prove that Wilson's example is false. If you're going to bring an all powerful creator in as an explanation for things you can put forward any mad theory forward, but, hey, whatever lights your candle.

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

[drigel]

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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

We need to distinguish between how davem is using the phrases Tolkien coined, from how Tolkien used them. The difference is subtle but profound.

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.

Originally Posted by Laitoste

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).

Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appelation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Originally Posted by Formy

Let me be clear: I sincerely believe that Christianity is the BEST way to Heaven. It is the easiest way, the way deliberately outlined by God as the RIGHT way. It offers benefits and help that no other path has.

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

That's all I can manage for now. Alatar, I'll respond to your post when I get a chance.

[Formendacil]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Formendacil, are you sure this is what the Latin-rite Church believes? If so, it has sadly left the path of orthodoxy, accomodating itself to something it should not. I'd appreciate it if you could produce documentation, because I think you're incorrect.

You are, likely enough, right. What I'm trying to express is the idea that God is the final judge of who's going to get into Heaven or not- and that he's going to judge all of us individually- based on what we've done, not on what membership cards we've held.

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.

[davem]

Originally Posted by LMP

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.

Maybe you're right - should we start with you? From my perspective you are clearly 'delusional'. At the moment I'm happy for you to keep your beliefs, but if we can only have the one 'true' belief you better start putting up your barricades.

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?

[drigel]

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.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

Still, as long as we're both happy in our delusions, what's the problem?

Here's the problems:

• When I cannot speak of my secondary world for fear of retribution, and

• When belief in a secondary world kills.

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! ), gives a glimpse into why we do what we do.

[davem]

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.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by davem

If my model of the Primary does not match yours then effectively we do not inhabit the same, 'primary', reality, do we?

In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.

[davem]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

In brief, if you are Cartesian, then no. I'm not Cartesian. I don't exist in my head. I exist in reality. I'm pretty sure you do too. So regardless of what model is in your head, where you really are is still the primary world, even if you don't choose to believe it.

Define 'reality'. Is it where my body is, or where my mind is?

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)?

[alatar]

Originally Posted by davem

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.

I'm with you. I would just want these models to be not only explanatory but reliably predictive if they are used in certain arenas. If you always got rain after sacrificing a virgin to the volcano, then maybe you have something there I can use.

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.

Dagnabit, davem, quit spying on me! Engineering elven ears is hard enough without having Monday morning geneticists telling me that they're not pointy enough (or too pointy) or should look more like cabbage leaves. Shhh!

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.

I'm no philosopher or deep thinker, but think that we all work with a projection of the real world within our heads. You and I see the same wavelength of light and think 'orange' - even if I see it as grey and you see it more yellow than red. We have our own pretty little universes between our ears, and it's amazing that when they bump up against each other that there's any congruence. But we've worked that out for some things and not for others.

[Laitoste]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Thank you for kindly offering yourself as an exemplar of my contention that belief is a choice one makes. I am figuring that the pejorative appellation "jerk" is meant to be something that always is linked to "misogynistic", in which case we can dispense with it and concentrate on the main point. Note, first, though, that this is a psychological illness to which you are giving a moral valuation. In other words, what is being said here is that God is morally inferior to the one who refuses to believe because of the misogynist mouthpiece and the killing command. Now: (1) how is Paul a misogynist? (2) what are the facts of the case regarding the 31 kings? (3) How can a creature be morally superior to its creator?

Firstly, I'd like to apologize for my use of the term "jerk". It was inappropriate, and I had let my emotions run away with me. It is my gut reaction to Paul, for more reasons than just misogyny. So again, I apologize.

However, the fact still remains that Paul was unsympathetic towards women, with no good reason. In 1 Corinthians 14:34, he says:

As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

My marginal notes for this passage consist of: WHAT?!! Now, when we discussed Corinthians in my Romans and Early Christians class, many of my classmates wanted to simply forgive Paul for this clearly antifeminist text on the basis of history. Well, that doesn't work. People, in general, don't look at the Bible in a historical context. It has been abused, and is still being abused, to push political agendas (slavery, homophobia, etc). Furthermore, there is no Biblical precedent for this behavior. In fact, in the letter to the Romans, chapter 16, Phoebe, “our sister”, is listed as a deacon, and a Junia is mentioned as an apostle. According to the footnotes, in many translations, “Junia” is actually mentioned as “Junias”, a male Latin name that was not used among the Romans at that time. The earliest manuscript the editors used actually reads, “Julia.” If a woman was preaching the Gospel, how can Paul even imagine saying that “women should be silent in churches”? (Another good place to look for Paul’s attitudes about women is 1 Timothy; however, many scholars doubt the authenticity of this text.) To me, this obviously denotes a misogynist, and not a very observant one, either.

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:

So Joshua burned Ai, and made it forever a heap of ruins, as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. Joshua 8:28-29

There is even one passage where one of the Israelites takes a few ornaments from the treasure gathered from Jericho, causing “the anger of the Lord [to burn] against them” (Joshua 7:1). This causes the Israelites to lose their next battle, and eventually, “all Israel stoned him to death; they burned him with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Joshua 7:25). Now, in my class on Jihad and the Crusades, we were required to read this at the beginning of the term so as to understand where the medieval holy violence was coming from. They used texts like these to completely massacre various populations of “unbelievers” in Europe and the Levant. It is simply repulsive.

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.