Religion IV: Deus vult!

[Sci-2]

How the Baha’i Faith became South Carolina’s second-largest religion

"Of Baha’i teachings, few are as sacred as the belief in the oneness of humanity, regardless of race or class or gender. In South Carolina, that oneness brought Baha’is together in a Jim Crow era, when blacks and whites couldn’t so much as drink from the same water fountain, much less worship in each other’s homes.

Yet, that is just what they did."

[Chiki]

Checkmate, atheists

What a moron.

[Game Of Thrones]

What a moron.

I actually feel sorry for him.

[Wise Fool]

A thing I've never understood about religions that claim that their religion is the only true religion, like Islam or Christianity:

Why would an omnipotent God allow people to worship false gods?

Why would a benevolent God not send morally good people who have never ever seen a Christian or a Muslim in their lives to Heaven? If He does send them to Heaven, what's the point of converting people if you can go to Heaven no matter what you believe in?

It's sort of like how you never knew you had a problem with gluten in your diet, until someone markets gluten-free foods to you. If you're morally good, but never get introduced to the idea of the One True Religion, you go to heaven, since you had no other choice or chance. BUT, if someone happens to introduce you to the concept, now you have to accept conversion since otherwise you're choosing to deny the Prophet/Savior etc and thus choosing to go to hell, no matter how morally good you are.

Or something. I don't know how it's supposed to work in that paradigm.

[Sci-2]

Religion and Press Freedom in the Digital Age – Part One: Information on Trial

On May 3, 2013, a group of journalists, press freedom advocates and members of the public, gathered to mark World Press Freedom Day at NYU’s journalism school, shared a poignant moment. As a panel discussion on global trends in press freedom got under way, Kassahun Yilma, an Ethiopian journalist living in exile in the U.S., paused as he began his presentation. “Before I start telling my story about Ethiopia,” he said quietly, “I would like a minute of silence.” As we stood and the room fell silent, he asked that we pray for Ethiopia, for journalist and blogger Eskinder Nega, and journalists around the world.

Just a day before, the Ethiopian Supreme Court upheld a sentence condemning Eskinder Nega to 18 years in jail on vague charges of terrorism. Nega is just one of more than 100 journalists worldwide who, at the close of 2012, were imprisoned on anti-state charges of terrorism, treason and subversion, often related to ideological and religious persecution. This alarming statistic emerged during one of the deadliest years for journalists on record, prompting Amnesty International, in collaboration with the NYU Center for Religion and Media, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, the Overseas Press Club, UNESCO and the Global and Joint Studies Program at NYU Journalism to convene a symposium to mark the 20^th Anniversary of World Press Freedom Day.

[Game Of Thrones]

It's sort of like how you never knew you had a problem with gluten in your diet, until someone markets gluten-free foods to you. If you're morally good, but never get introduced to the idea of the One True Religion, you go to heaven, since you had no other choice or chance. BUT, if someone happens to introduce you to the concept, now you have to accept conversion since otherwise you're choosing to deny the Prophet/Savior etc and thus choosing to go to hell, no matter how morally good you are.

So what's the point of religion, if you can go to Heaven no matter what you believe in?

[Sci-2]

So what's the point of religion, if you can go to Heaven no matter what you believe in?

I don't know if you can go to Heaven no matter what, at least where Christian doctrine was concerned. The idea of the Virtuous Pagan seemed to rather rare and limited. IIRC Dante put one in Purgatory and one in Paradise.

CS Lewis was more generous, saying that the virtuous believers can enter Paradise even if they worship the "wrong" gods. Granted that was in his Narnia books. I read Ode to Joy and I don't think he touched on non-believers at all there, save when discussing his own past atheism.

=-=-=

God enough: We should see the ceaseless creativity of nature as sacred, argues biologist Stuart Kauffman...

Biologist Stuart Kauffman has plenty of experience tilting at windmills. For years he’s questioned the Darwinian orthodoxy that natural selection is the sole principle of evolutionary biology. As he put it in his first book, “The Origins of Order,” “It is not that Darwin is wrong but that he got hold of only part of the truth.” In Kauffman’s view, there is another biological principle at work — what he calls “self-organization” — that “co-mingles” with natural selection in the evolutionary process.

A physician by training, Kaufmann is a widely admired biologist; in 1987, he was a recipient of a MacArthur “genius” award. He’s also one of the gurus of complexity theory, and for years was a fixture at the Santa Fe Institute, the renowned scientific research community. A few years ago, he moved to the University of Calgary to set up the Biocomplexity and Informatics Institute.

If this sounds heady, it is. And getting Kauffman to explain his theory of self-organization, “thermodynamic work cycles” and “autocatalysis” to a non-scientist is challenging. But Kauffman is at heart a philosopher who ranges over vast fields of inquiry, from the origins of life to the philosophy of mind. He’s a visionary thinker who’s not afraid to play with big ideas.

In his recent book, “Reinventing the Sacred,” Kauffman has launched an even more audacious project. He seeks to formulate a new scientific worldview and, in the process, reclaim God for nonbelievers. Kauffman argues that our modern scientific paradigm — reductionism — breaks down once we try to explain biology and human culture. And this has left us flailing in a sea of meaninglessness. So how do we steer clear of this empty void? By embracing the “ceaseless creativity” of nature itself, which in Kauffman’s view is the real meaning of God. It’s God without any supernatural tricks.

[L.T.'s Sexual Healing]

The cake is a lie, and so is religion!

[Gears of the Beast]

We can't act as if there is any kind of consistency within Christianity on the issue of who goes to heaven. I've seen many argue that the word of god is written on everyone's heart and it's impossible to be ignorant of god therefore anyone who is not a christian has rejected god's message - this has a fair amount of biblical support. Jesus says that you have to sell all your possessions and give to the poor in order to get to heaven, I don't see many Christians advocating that.... It's just another case of individuals injecting their personal preference into their man made religion.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

And Biblical support is important, how, for non-sola scriptura Churches like the Roman Catholics and Orthodox? The problem with doctrines like "limbo" and "purgatory" is that they outright stated the Church knows with certainty what will happen after death, they don't.

[Game Of Thrones]

The thing is, if God sends virtuous pagans to Hell, how on earth is He benevolent?

[Sci-2]

The thing is, if God sends virtuous pagans to Hell, how on earth is He benevolent?

He's not. Most salvation/damnation mechanics of Christianity/Islam, AFAICTell, lead to a deity that resembles Dr. Mengele sorting believers & unbelievers on the Day of Judgement.

Though Hell seems to be going out of style among younger Christians.

[Gears of the Beast]

GotB,

And Bibllical support is important, how, for non-sola scriptura Churches like the Roman Catholics and Orthodox?

Are you asking me how it's important or how important it is? Of course it's important, not advocating sola scriptura doesn't get rid of the fact that the bible is the sacred text of Christianity and the most authoritative piece of divine revelation.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

Doesn't that depend upon how the particular passage is treated by the church and its teachings given that while the Bible is important it is not, on its own, athoritative for Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians? For example the Book of Revelation is strongly disfavored among Orthodox circles and is never read from in any services. Given that fact does it make sense to claim inconsistencies in Revelation are problematic for Orthodox Christians?

Your example of the rich man told to sell all and take up his crows and follow Christ is a good one. In the Sola Scriptura tradition where everything in the Bible is taken literally this is a problem. How can a wealthy Christian who doesn't follow that example be justified. Heck, here's the full passage:

16And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. 18He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 20The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 21Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

23Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 25When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

The point of the story, depending on your tradition, may not be that the only way to be saved is to forsake your family and possessions in an effort to follow in the literal footsteps of Christ. In the Orthodox tradition the focus is on the last phrase of the passage. That through God all things are possible, even the salvation of a rich selfish person. The Bible isn't a laundry list of things that must be checked off to achieve salvation. It is a tool amongst many to help people find the path that best leads them to their own salvation.

But that subtly makes nitpicking the Bible and the stories therein much less fun because it acknowledges they are not to be taken literally. That they are metaphore and allagory and have been from the beginning.

Personally, I'm well into heresy with my own faith. I believe that all paths are there to lead us to salvation even the path where people do not believe in the existence of God. I think God is trying to teach us something with this life and that the path we walk is that lesson or multiplicity of lessons. The Bible and other works of this type are human made efforts to assist people in walking that path.

[Gears of the Beast]

Doesn't that depend upon how the particular passage is treated by the church and its teachings given that while the Bible is important it is not, on its own, athoritative for Roman Catholics or Orthodox Christians? For example the Book of Revelation is strongly disfavored among Orthodox circles and is never read from in any services. Given that fact does it make sense to claim inconsistencies in Revelation are problematic for Orthodox Christians?

Sure but I'm just saying the fact that an idea has biblical support is important - for any christian. Not that it then must be considered true by christians.

The point of the story, depending on your tradition, may not be that the only way to be saved is to forsake your family and possessions in an effort to follow in the literal footsteps of Christ. In the Orthodox tradition the focus is on the last phrase of the passage. That through God all things are possible, even the salvation of a rich selfish person. The Bible isn't a laundry list of things that must be checked off to achieve salvation. It is a tool amongst many to help people find the path that best leads them to their own salvation.

But that subtly makes nitpicking the Bible and the stories therein much less fun because it acknowledges they are not to be taken literally. That they are metaphore and allagory and have been from the beginning.

The problem is that it's something Jesus explicitly said, that a rich person cannot get into heaven. There's nothing allegorical or esoteric about that; he either said it or he didn't. I contend that what Christians are doing here is picking and choosing what they like from the bible and the rest can be rationalised with "oh well you know, we don't need to take that part very seriously". If I believed that the bible was the word of god I would approach it with a bit more intellectual seriousness and honesty than that.

Personally, I'm well into heresy with my own faith. I believe that all paths are there to lead us to salvation even the path where people do not believe in the existence of God. I think God is trying to teach us something with this life and that the path we walk is that lesson or multiplicity of lessons. The Bible and other works of this type are human made efforts to assist people in walking that path.

What are you basing that off? Because it appears to me one of those cases where "I would like to believe that..." and "I believe that...." have become the same thing.

Also just to clarify, when you say the bible is a 'human made effort to assist people' does that mean the humans that invented it were in effect making stuff up or actually just deluded?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

Yes.

And remember Christ explicitly said, in the next passage, "with God all things are possible".

[Born Yesterday]

The point of the story, depending on your tradition, may not be that the only way to be saved is to forsake your family and possessions in an effort to follow in the literal footsteps of Christ. In the Orthodox tradition the focus is on the last phrase of the passage. That through God all things are possible, even the salvation of a rich selfish person.

[i tried to write a comment, and ended up writing an essay. My apologies for being exceedingly verbose. Again.]

1) IN THE BEGINNING

I find it interesting that early Christianity was a pretty radical religion. That "give your belongings to the poor" thing was not considered metaphorical. In comparison, early Islam was quite moderate. It basically said "be pious, be good, give alms". Nothing that can't be done from the comfort of your home (and OK, you should do that pilgrimage to Mecca once in your life).

In contrast, new converts to Christianity were encouraged to change their lives completely. Many really did give away all their belongings. Some left their homes and lived in communes. Some withdrew from public life. Some took to the streets to preach, or traveled far away to spread the new religion. Some were eager to fight the authorities, religious or otherwise. In most places, asceticism was considered the highest form of piety. And by early asceticism, we don't mean "lead a humble life with other monks", we mean "go alone in the wilderness and eat locusts from now on".

It's remarkable how all that freaked out the Roman Empire to no end, leading to the persecutions. And it's remarkable how, in a very short time, Christianity got the upper hand and became the dominant religion. And in how little time the church became so rich and powerful, and transformed from an enemy of the state to a branch of the state. (And occasionally, THE state.)

Once that happened, once your typical christian was an upstanding citizen (and not a roamer or an outlaw), once the bishops became attached to territories corresponding to taxes (and not simply their flock), once the monasteries became chunks of cultivable land that nobody dared confiscate or conquer (and not places of isolation, self-sufficiency, and little means)... well, that's when the church stopped urging people to give away their belongings to the poor. It now urged them to give away their belongings to the church.

Soon after that, the divide between Western and Eastern church becomes important.

2) EAST

In the East, the Empire and what will become the Orthodox Church reach a stable agreement that will last for a thousand years. The persons on the thrones (Imperial and Patriarchal) come and go, and the adjective "byzantine" certainly fits the succession wars, but nobody challenges the basic concept: an Emperor and a Patriarch governing together, ruling the mundane and the spiritual respectively. When I say "spiritual", I mean "holy crap, this church is the biggest land-owner, and can incite a revolt every time the emperor displeases them". With that arrangement, the Orthodox church has a steady income, and not many expenses.

And so, in the Orthodox tradition, that "give all your belongings to the poor (meaning, give them to us, so we can give them to the poor)" thingy becomes unnecessary. The church has its lands and its taxes, guaranteed by the state, and doesn't need to chase people for more. Its ascetic tradition is different (and hardcore), but that's for very special people who seek enlightenment. Normally, it's perfectly compatible to be filthy rich and a pious Christian - that's what we do! And as a rule, this is considered natural.

The one thing that could challenge this notion (that it's perfectly OK for bishops to be drowned in riches, while their religion is based on someone who said "give all your stuff away"), would come much later, and it was the Enlightenment. However, by a quirk of history, when the Enlightenment reached Orthodox lands, they were mostly under the Ottomans. (Russia excluded, but Russian Orthodoxy is a category of its own). And the Orthodox Church, although still very privileged and wealthy and locally influential, didn't have political power any more. As a result, no serious secularist or anti-clerical movement developed around these lands. The part of the villain, the oppressor, was already taken: it was the Ottoman Empire.

And of course, in the 20th century, a large chunk of Orthodox churches found themselves under communist rule. Even disregarding the decidedly anti-communist stance of these churches before (which is an interesting subject actually, since they were virulently opposing a political system which, at least on paper, suspiciously resembled what's written in their holy book), it should come to no surprise that afterwards they displayed exactly zero interest in promoting the act of "giving your possessions away".

3) WEST

In the West, the Empire basically collapses, and what will become the Roman Catholic church struggles for power. In some ways, it's indistinguishable from this or that kingdom that vies for territory. And due to the mayhem, it has tremendous expenses, and enemies everywhere. Hence, a never-ending need for cash.

So chasing rich people to convince them to give (or at least bequeath) all their money to the church is not at all unheard of. The famous passage is not presented as a duty for all Christians, but it doesn't sound as something meant only for saints either. In addition, the need for cash led to unsavory techniques of persuasion, not limited towards rich people: "bribe us with gold, and your sins will be forgiven! refuse, and you will be damned for all eternity!" It worked wonders, too.

So there's a crapton of money "for salvation" changing hands in broad daylight (not that the Orthodox were incorruptible, but they were more subtle). There's now a surplus in the hands of the bishops, and some find it a good idea to become money-lenders (in a world where it is considered a heinous sin), ending up significantly richer. Simony is common practice. As the East declines and the West rises, the Catholic Church amasses enormous wealth. And indignation towards its riches becomes common. It takes only a charismatic preacher to incite the crowds: "those bishops, with their gold and their fat bellies while the people starve, how blasphemous they are! didn't our Lord say that we should give all our belongings to the poor?"

This dissonance (plus puritanism - in the wider sense) played a part in many revolts against the Catholic Church, from the Cathars to Savonarola and even the Reformation, all the way to the anti-clerical faction of the Enlightenment.

The church's power soared, among other things because it happened to be in the right place in the right time: Western Europe, age of sail and onwards. With its aggressive policy regarding conversions, it became a major tool for colonialism, and incidentally a recipient of the, well, loot. I can't resist quoting the obvious here: "When the whites came to Africa, we had the land and they had the Bible. They taught us to pray with our eyes closed, and when we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land".

So now there was another dissonance. It's one thing to gloss over the suggestion to give all your possessions to the poor. It's another thing to take all the possessions FROM the poor, if indirectly. Mull that over for a few centuries, and by the time of the 20th century, you have rebel bishops in South America siding with the leftist guerrillas, because god help them, they can't tolerate this injustice any more, the church fathers and landowners leading lush lives and the peasants starving to death. Of course, the official Catholic Church remained as anti-communist and pro-wealth (and in some unfortunate cases, pro-fascist) as it gets.

So basically, the same church which, when it was short of cash, highlighted the concept of giving away your belongings, embedded it to the public's conscience a little too successfully for its own good: it remained there long after the church had no use of it, and was in fact afraid of it.

4) TODAY

I think we now have all the relevant facts to trace the journey of an idea through the ages. Today, after all these years, neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Church ask from their flock to give away all their belongings. Much less the Protestants (see Weber on Protestantism and capitalism and all that). How could they? Even if they're not officially part of the state any more (in most cases - Ireland and Greece have yet to reach that stage, for example), they are certainly not against it. And the state, if you pardon the reduction, exists to protect property.

Typically, the phrase is used to inspire (be compassionate, make sacrifices for your fellow-men, don't be selfish, etc) rather than to be obeyed verbatim. However, remnants or derivations of its literal meaning do still exist, in specific cases.

In the Orthodox world, it survives in the tradition of asceticism. Hermits, who gave their stuff away and devoted their life to prayer, inspire nothing short of awe, especially if they eschew comfort as well as wealth. (Note that this tradition doesn't necessarily extend to monasteries and abbots. Many Greek Orthodox monasteries are rich as fuck. They have lands, they have capital which they invest in remarkably savvy ways, and you know what they don't have? Proper taxes, that's what.) However, nobody really complains about excessive wealth, or anything like that. And the priests who oppose the church hierarchy are more often on the other end of the spectrum: fascist-leaning, ultra-nationalists, fundamentalists, hardcore sexists (I mean beyond the sexism that's enshrined, if sometimes politely ignored, in the dogma), and other charming fellows.

In the Catholic world, there's a long tradition of indignation against excessive wealth (including the wealth of the church itself), expressed by individual priests or groups. The catholic church is richer than the orthodox by several orders of magnitude, and their savvy capital investments are a lot more known. Heck, they are a part of pop culture. (A famous mobster once wrote "the Mafia is the second most successful business in the world, after the Catholic Church".) This glaring dissonance still stirs some to take the passage more literally, or at least more seriously, and use it to show that the Church took the wrong turn somewhere. However, nowadays priests are more inclined to attempt change in matters of tolerance (that would include the current Pope, baby steps notwithstanding), and worry about declining church attendance.

The Protestant world is decidedly more fragmented, and I haven't studied it that much. From what I know, though, there's neither a strong tradition nor a current trend to take the passage very seriously. If anyone knows better, please let me know.

...And again, sorry for not knowing when to shut up. :blushing:

[/history of religion]

[Gears of the Beast]

And remember Christ explicitly said, in the next passage, "with God all things are possible".

So what? Are you saying there's a contradiction? Can every pronouncement jesus made be undone by that statement? Like when he said you "cannot work for God and for money", is he actually contradicting himself because he said all things are possible with god? I'm failing to see you point.

[Sci-2]

Taoism has always appealed to me. :)

You might like the aforementioned works of Freya Matthews - Why Has the West Failed to Embrace Panpsychism? and Panpsychism as Paradigm.

=-=-=

Don't think I posted the following? ->

The Spiritual Tradition at the Roots of Western Civilization

Parmenides [of Velia, a.k.a. Elea] wrote a poem.

It would be easy to imagine the father of philosophy producing very different things.

But he just wrote a poem.

He wrote it in the metre of the great epic poems of the past — poetry created under divine inspiration, revealing what humans on their own can never see or know, describing the world of gods and the world of humans and the meetings between humans and gods.

And he wrote it in three parts. The first part describes his journey to the goddess who has no name. The second describes what she taught him about reality. Then the last part starts with the goddess saying, 'Now I’m going to deceive you'; and she goes on to describe, in detail, the world we believe we live in.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

So what? Are you saying there's a contradiction? Can every pronouncement jesus made be undone by that statement? Like when he said you "cannot work for God and for money", is he actually contradicting himself because he said all things are possible with god? I'm failing to see you point.

That you miss the point surprises me not at all. The point of the story with the rich man is not that everyone needed to sell all they had and take up their cross the point of the story was that "through God all things are possible".

Your scriptural literalism (a very protestant position) means you've never looked at why the church fathers included this scripture in the Bible and why it is part of the Apostolic faith. You want the Bible and the stories therein to be taken purely at face value, because they are much easier to pick apart and deconstruct if they are not about implication and subtext.

Have fun, we aren't going to agree on this.