"Where is my Faith": Mother Teresa and Suffering
"This one came completely out of left field. I'm still taken aback by it."
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... y-fai.html
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
And she once told a man at her one of her hospices that his pain was "Jesus kissing him." (His reply: "Can you tell him to stop?") She saw human suffering as a gift from Christ, something that would bring people closer to him.
Satire/irony
Moderator: Mike Everman
-
larry cottrill
- Posts: 4140
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
- Contact:
Re: Satire/irony
If these and all the other claims in that post are true (I also read all the comments by others), it is a shame. Christ said that suffering was inevitable; he did not say it should be held forth as desirable. It is religion (man trying to get God to love him) that brings about these perversions.Mark wrote:"Where is my Faith": Mother Teresa and Suffering
"This one came completely out of left field. I'm still taken aback by it."
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta ... y-fai.html
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
50 years. There is no limit to what people will do if sufficiently motivated. Sometimes the motivation is surprising, sometimes even incomprehensible. That does not mean there can't be such a thing as noble causes that are worth giving your life to. For the believer, it is the "silences of God" that are the hardest thing, and every believer comes to know them. I think the only adult people who have never in any way been tormented souls must be utter fools.
From a Protestant perspective, the New Testament word "saint" is used for any believer, not a select few. It is like the Old Testament concept korban -- a thing set aside, separated out for holy use. In the strict sense, korban separation is an act of God or at least conferred in obedience to God's will, not just an arbitrary decision of man (although admittedly there is some variation in how the term is used). I recognize that this is somewhat different from the standard Catholic view of "sainthood", of course. Saint Nicholas and Saint Patrick are both known to have been real historical figures; Nicholas was an Orthodox believer who has nevertheless been canonized by the Catholic Church (renowned for his anonymous generosity); Patrick was apparently raised Catholic and, after being a slave for a decade or two, became a powerful missionary to Ireland, but has never been officially canonized. Go figure.
L Cottrill
Re: Satire/irony
"The Jewish leaders thought their scapegoat could hold all of the sins of Israel, but Christians insist that Jesus can hold all of the sins of the whole world, for all time! That makes Jesus a Super-Duper Scapegoat!
"But why does anyone have to atone or carry the “sins” of someone else? Why can’t we all just be responsible for our own actions? There are several theories that theologians have came up with to explain how this atonement idea works, but unfortunately, like the idea that a goat can in some way carry away someone’s “sins,” none of them make much sense."
"The most prevalent atonement theory about why Jesus had to die for your sins is the ransom theory. On this view, because of the fall of Adam, Satan had all of humanity trapped in sin and demanded Jesus as a ransom to pay for the sins. But why would God have to pay anyone a ransom? If God is sovereign, he could just decree that people don’t go to hell for their sins. And that’s the end of it. Does God have to do what Satan demands? Another atonement theory is the satisfaction theory, which is that God’s honor was insulted by sin and he demanded satisfaction. Since we could not satisfy his honor, he had his son die to satisfy his honor. This makes no sense either. Now you know where the idea that Jesus died for your sins came from. It came from the scapegoat. But why would we need Jesus to take away our sins when we have plenty of goats? "
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/scapegoat.shtml
See the first minute of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhpfg75rac&NR=1
"The Scapegoat" by William Holman Hunt
http://oncedelivered.files.wordpress.co ... anhunt.jpg
http://home.att.net/~revdak/spir243/scapegoat.htm
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoon ... cn120l.jpg
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/car ... 450299.JPG
http://www.biblicalmetaphors.com/Hannah ... oat019.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoon ... cn108l.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jkn0060l.jpg
The other day I was looking at a children's book on Pakistan, a little boy who was from there returned it. I told him I used to live in Pakistan too. The book mentioned this festival.
"Eid al-Adha (Arabic: عيد الأضحى ‘Īdu l-’Aḍḥā) "Festival of Sacrifice" is a religious festival celebrated by Muslims (including the Druze) worldwide to commemorate the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son Ishmael as an act of obedience to God. However, God provided a ram in place once Ibrahim demonstrated his willingness to follow God's commands."
"Muslims who can afford to do so sacrifice their best domestic animals (usually sheep, but also camels, cows and goats) as a symbol of Ibrahim's sacrifice. The sacrificed animals, called uḍiyyah (Arabic: أضحية, also known as "al-qurbāni"), have to meet certain age and quality standards or else the animal is considered an unacceptable sacrifice. Generally, these must be at least a year old."
"At the time of sacrifice, God's name is recited along with the offering statement and a supplication as Muhammad said. According to the Quran,[citation needed] the meat is divided into three shares, one share for the poor, one share for the relatives and neighbors and the last to keep to oneself. A large portion of the meat must be given towards the poor and hungry people so they can all join in the feast which is held on Eid al-Adha. The remainder is cooked for the family celebration meal in which relatives and friends are invited to share."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_ul-Adha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVGqzp- ... 1&index=46
Poor people are poor people -
And they don't understand
A man's got to make whatever he wants-
And take it with his own hands.
Poor people stay poor people -
And they never get to see
Someone's got to win in the human race-
If it isn't you, then it has to be me.
So smile while you're makin' it-
Laugh while you're takin' it-
Even though you're fakin' it-
Nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
It's no use mumbling.
It's no use grumbling.
Life just isn't fair-
There's no easy days
There's no easy ways
Just get out there and do it!
"And sing and they'll sing your song-
Laugh while you're getting on-
Smile and they'll string along-
And nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
And nobody's gonna know."
"But why does anyone have to atone or carry the “sins” of someone else? Why can’t we all just be responsible for our own actions? There are several theories that theologians have came up with to explain how this atonement idea works, but unfortunately, like the idea that a goat can in some way carry away someone’s “sins,” none of them make much sense."
"The most prevalent atonement theory about why Jesus had to die for your sins is the ransom theory. On this view, because of the fall of Adam, Satan had all of humanity trapped in sin and demanded Jesus as a ransom to pay for the sins. But why would God have to pay anyone a ransom? If God is sovereign, he could just decree that people don’t go to hell for their sins. And that’s the end of it. Does God have to do what Satan demands? Another atonement theory is the satisfaction theory, which is that God’s honor was insulted by sin and he demanded satisfaction. Since we could not satisfy his honor, he had his son die to satisfy his honor. This makes no sense either. Now you know where the idea that Jesus died for your sins came from. It came from the scapegoat. But why would we need Jesus to take away our sins when we have plenty of goats? "
http://fayfreethinkers.com/tracts/scapegoat.shtml
See the first minute of this clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhpfg75rac&NR=1
"The Scapegoat" by William Holman Hunt
http://oncedelivered.files.wordpress.co ... anhunt.jpg
http://home.att.net/~revdak/spir243/scapegoat.htm
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoon ... cn120l.jpg
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/car ... 450299.JPG
http://www.biblicalmetaphors.com/Hannah ... oat019.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoon ... cn108l.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jkn0060l.jpg
The other day I was looking at a children's book on Pakistan, a little boy who was from there returned it. I told him I used to live in Pakistan too. The book mentioned this festival.
"Eid al-Adha (Arabic: عيد الأضحى ‘Īdu l-’Aḍḥā) "Festival of Sacrifice" is a religious festival celebrated by Muslims (including the Druze) worldwide to commemorate the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son Ishmael as an act of obedience to God. However, God provided a ram in place once Ibrahim demonstrated his willingness to follow God's commands."
"Muslims who can afford to do so sacrifice their best domestic animals (usually sheep, but also camels, cows and goats) as a symbol of Ibrahim's sacrifice. The sacrificed animals, called uḍiyyah (Arabic: أضحية, also known as "al-qurbāni"), have to meet certain age and quality standards or else the animal is considered an unacceptable sacrifice. Generally, these must be at least a year old."
"At the time of sacrifice, God's name is recited along with the offering statement and a supplication as Muhammad said. According to the Quran,[citation needed] the meat is divided into three shares, one share for the poor, one share for the relatives and neighbors and the last to keep to oneself. A large portion of the meat must be given towards the poor and hungry people so they can all join in the feast which is held on Eid al-Adha. The remainder is cooked for the family celebration meal in which relatives and friends are invited to share."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eid_ul-Adha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVGqzp- ... 1&index=46
Poor people are poor people -
And they don't understand
A man's got to make whatever he wants-
And take it with his own hands.
Poor people stay poor people -
And they never get to see
Someone's got to win in the human race-
If it isn't you, then it has to be me.
So smile while you're makin' it-
Laugh while you're takin' it-
Even though you're fakin' it-
Nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
It's no use mumbling.
It's no use grumbling.
Life just isn't fair-
There's no easy days
There's no easy ways
Just get out there and do it!
"And sing and they'll sing your song-
Laugh while you're getting on-
Smile and they'll string along-
And nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
Nobody's gonna know.
And nobody's gonna know."
Presentation is Everything
-
larry cottrill
- Posts: 4140
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
- Contact:
Re: Satire/irony
Our modern use of the term 'scapegoat' is another perversion, or at least inaccurate. As in some of those cartoons, it always suggests deflecting blame from me onto someone else so that my involvement in the present catactrophe is hidden or diluted. It is a way of spreading the blame. This is far from the meaning of God's command to send out the scapegoat.
If you look at the Levitical directive on the sacrifices on or leading up to the Day of Atonement, what you see is that the acrifices were many and costly. Sin offerings always involved full confession of the willful acts of disobedience to the Holy Law. Note how different this is from the liturgical "confessions" of today, where a congregation mumbles some stock phrases in unison. In the ancient Hebrew culture, you would bring your sacrifice, have it inspected by the priests, pronounce the sins you were guilty of to them in very specific terms, watch as they killed and butchered the animal and then kindled it. Then, you would go your way making room for the next guy in line. The scapegoat came in as the last ceremony on the last day, the actual Day of Atonement. Symbolically, all the sins of the nation as a whole, including all those that had been confessed and sacrificed for, were laid on the animal. Then, the animal was prayed over, appealing to God to remove all those sins by divine intervention and to forgive all the wrong that the nation had willfully done during the preceding year. Finally, instead of being killed, the goat was led away into the wilderness, to become a feral animal or die trying.
The meaning is (at least by one interpretation) that the confessions and sin offerings were acts of sincere repentance (since the personal cost of the offerings was considerable), while the goat communicated to the nation that only God's intervention could remove the penalty for sin -- not any works that man could do to absolve himself of blame. Christians carry that idea forward with God's Mashiach being the fulfillment of these models: First, our Passover lamb, then the sin offering too costly for us to supply ourselves, and finally the scapegoat that separates us from the penalty of sin.
If man is basically good, and the ills and injustices he perpetrates are just "sicknesses" or "errors in judgment", there is no need for repentance and a sin offering. On the other hand, if man is authentically sinful, but is able by himself to somehow pay up the price of restitution that satisfies a holy Judge, there is no need for the scapegoat. In any such case, Jesus is an outright fraud or a deluded lunatic, not a great moral teacher persecuted and killed by people who misunderstood him (this point being elucidated by C. S. Lewis along with many other writers ancient and modern).
L Cottrill
If you look at the Levitical directive on the sacrifices on or leading up to the Day of Atonement, what you see is that the acrifices were many and costly. Sin offerings always involved full confession of the willful acts of disobedience to the Holy Law. Note how different this is from the liturgical "confessions" of today, where a congregation mumbles some stock phrases in unison. In the ancient Hebrew culture, you would bring your sacrifice, have it inspected by the priests, pronounce the sins you were guilty of to them in very specific terms, watch as they killed and butchered the animal and then kindled it. Then, you would go your way making room for the next guy in line. The scapegoat came in as the last ceremony on the last day, the actual Day of Atonement. Symbolically, all the sins of the nation as a whole, including all those that had been confessed and sacrificed for, were laid on the animal. Then, the animal was prayed over, appealing to God to remove all those sins by divine intervention and to forgive all the wrong that the nation had willfully done during the preceding year. Finally, instead of being killed, the goat was led away into the wilderness, to become a feral animal or die trying.
The meaning is (at least by one interpretation) that the confessions and sin offerings were acts of sincere repentance (since the personal cost of the offerings was considerable), while the goat communicated to the nation that only God's intervention could remove the penalty for sin -- not any works that man could do to absolve himself of blame. Christians carry that idea forward with God's Mashiach being the fulfillment of these models: First, our Passover lamb, then the sin offering too costly for us to supply ourselves, and finally the scapegoat that separates us from the penalty of sin.
If man is basically good, and the ills and injustices he perpetrates are just "sicknesses" or "errors in judgment", there is no need for repentance and a sin offering. On the other hand, if man is authentically sinful, but is able by himself to somehow pay up the price of restitution that satisfies a holy Judge, there is no need for the scapegoat. In any such case, Jesus is an outright fraud or a deluded lunatic, not a great moral teacher persecuted and killed by people who misunderstood him (this point being elucidated by C. S. Lewis along with many other writers ancient and modern).
L Cottrill
Re: Satire/irony
If man is basically good, and the ills and injustices he perpetrates are just "sicknesses" or "errors in judgment", there is no need for repentance and a sin offering. On the other hand, if man is authentically sinful, but is able by himself to somehow pay up the price of restitution that satisfies a holy Judge, there is no need for the scapegoat. In any such case, Jesus is an outright fraud or a deluded lunatic, not a great moral teacher persecuted and killed by people who misunderstood him (this point being elucidated by C. S. Lewis along with many other writers ancient and modern).
L Cottrill
Did you see Mark's post of the Jesus poster that says, "Love me or burn?" That's funny in a way, but only because it's so tragically "wrong way round." The real message of Jesus is "Accept my love for you (that I proved by my death) or burn." Billy Graham once said, "Jesus went to hell so you wouldn't have to." This is just another way of saying the scriptural passage, "He became sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God" (emphasis mine, of course).
Larry
I recall an old show I saw on TV. It was rather eerie and kind of parallels the topic at hand. Funny that I should recall it, I tried to find a clip on youtube, it had an intense ending for my sensitive/impressionable young mind. ha
This write-up describes the plot.
"One of my strongest memories from childhood is watching the Night Gallery episode about sin-eaters. In olden times, sin-eaters were wretches who would attend wakes, where food was placed around the recently deceased. The sin-eaters, for nourishment and a few coins, would absorb the deceased's sins through the food, thus absolving him and expediting his trip to heaven. Night Gallery featured Richard Thomas as the son of a sin-eater, who was forced by his mother to eat his deceased father's accumulated load, condemning poor John Boy Walton to a life filled with dread and death."
"It scared the bejeezus out of me."
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulebrea ... 010716.htm
"Interesting that 'sineaters' actually existed at one time- what religion can do..... the very thought that an individual would have to take on another person's sins to save their soul.... shudder."
"I just loved the story and what botherd me the most was his mother telling him it will be okay beczause he will have a son."
http://boards.nbcuni.com/chillertv/inde ... wtopic=923
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater
L Cottrill
Did you see Mark's post of the Jesus poster that says, "Love me or burn?" That's funny in a way, but only because it's so tragically "wrong way round." The real message of Jesus is "Accept my love for you (that I proved by my death) or burn." Billy Graham once said, "Jesus went to hell so you wouldn't have to." This is just another way of saying the scriptural passage, "He became sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God" (emphasis mine, of course).
Larry
I recall an old show I saw on TV. It was rather eerie and kind of parallels the topic at hand. Funny that I should recall it, I tried to find a clip on youtube, it had an intense ending for my sensitive/impressionable young mind. ha
This write-up describes the plot.
"One of my strongest memories from childhood is watching the Night Gallery episode about sin-eaters. In olden times, sin-eaters were wretches who would attend wakes, where food was placed around the recently deceased. The sin-eaters, for nourishment and a few coins, would absorb the deceased's sins through the food, thus absolving him and expediting his trip to heaven. Night Gallery featured Richard Thomas as the son of a sin-eater, who was forced by his mother to eat his deceased father's accumulated load, condemning poor John Boy Walton to a life filled with dread and death."
"It scared the bejeezus out of me."
http://www.fool.com/portfolios/rulebrea ... 010716.htm
"Interesting that 'sineaters' actually existed at one time- what religion can do..... the very thought that an individual would have to take on another person's sins to save their soul.... shudder."
"I just loved the story and what botherd me the most was his mother telling him it will be okay beczause he will have a son."
http://boards.nbcuni.com/chillertv/inde ... wtopic=923
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin-eater
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
I don't think we have to worry yet about not having enough people on earth, seems it's the other way around. Maybe we should ban gay lumberjacks though, just in case. ha
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rests.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... rests.html
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
A few viewer comments.
"Clearly Rick Warren and his wife are still being punished for the original sin. It was there and then that God decided that childbirth would be painful (Gen 3:16). The bible doesn't spell out how this was done but since it wasn't a problem before, I presume Eve was surgically and genetically modified on the spot to include an intentional design flaw."
"If Obama wants to have a preacher pray for him or his administration or the universe, he can do that like any citizen has the right to, at the church of his choosing. I'm sorry, but I don't see having a preacher as being "inclusive" of people who are not of the faith of that preacher."
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... irade.html
And in other news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opini ... .html?_r=1
"The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?
So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.
And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.
What on earth does this mean?"
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3467,n,n
I liked a couple of the viewer comments for provoking some questions.
The other day I was watching a clip/poetry reading and there was this line that went something like this.
"Faith is the denial of observation." The line has several angles to it.
"Clearly Rick Warren and his wife are still being punished for the original sin. It was there and then that God decided that childbirth would be painful (Gen 3:16). The bible doesn't spell out how this was done but since it wasn't a problem before, I presume Eve was surgically and genetically modified on the spot to include an intentional design flaw."
"If Obama wants to have a preacher pray for him or his administration or the universe, he can do that like any citizen has the right to, at the church of his choosing. I'm sorry, but I don't see having a preacher as being "inclusive" of people who are not of the faith of that preacher."
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... irade.html
And in other news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opini ... .html?_r=1
"The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?
So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.
And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.
What on earth does this mean?"
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3467,n,n
I liked a couple of the viewer comments for provoking some questions.
The other day I was watching a clip/poetry reading and there was this line that went something like this.
"Faith is the denial of observation." The line has several angles to it.
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra ... drug_compa
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezra ... drug_compa
Presentation is Everything
-
larry cottrill
- Posts: 4140
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:17 am
- Antipspambot question: 0
- Location: Mingo, Iowa USA
- Contact:
Re: Satire/irony
The (sadly) laughable part is: "We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven." That so many people believe crap like this simply offers proof that we are nothing short of a post-Christian culture. That, in my opinion, is the only "truth" that can be derived from such a belief. This is why the term "evangelical" is a joke today. Everybody hold hands now, and get ready to sing Kum Ba Ya as we all rise up together!Mark wrote:And in other news.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/27/opini ... .html?_r=1
"The evangelicals complained that people must not have understood the question. The respondents couldn’t actually believe what they were saying, could they?
So in August, Pew asked the question again. (They released the results last week.) Sixty-five percent of respondents said — again — that other religions could lead to eternal life. But this time, to clear up any confusion, Pew asked them to specify which religions. The respondents essentially said all of them.
And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.
What on earth does this mean?"
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3467,n,n
I liked a couple of the viewer comments for provoking some questions.
The other day I was watching a clip/poetry reading and there was this line that went something like this.
"Faith is the denial of observation." The line has several angles to it.
All these good folks will heartily assure you that they know Jesus was "a great teacher". No need to die for him -- he was just saying something "symbolic". He did that a lot, after all.
We should explain that to the House Church movement in China. And to the refugees raped, murdered, burned out and driven out of their homes in Iraq. And to thousands in slave huts and refugee camps in Africa. We in the hated "Christian West" are now sufficiently re-educated to have become idiots, at least collectively speaking.
L Cottrill
Re: Satire/irony
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely."
http://web.archive.org/web/200501051356 ... sagan.html
http://web.archive.org/web/200501051356 ... sagan.html
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
Points to ponder in these two videos.
http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.c ... heism.html
http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.c ... heism.html
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
The (sadly) laughable part is: "We are a multicultural society, and people expect this American life to continue the same way in heaven."
Everybody hold hands now, and get ready to sing Kum Ba Ya as we all rise up together!
L Cottrill
13. Comment #307690 by j.mills on December 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm
"Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.
...which suggests that a portion of those surveyed think that those with "no religious faith" are not "atheists".
The whole thing kinda devalues heaven, doncha think? If, ya know, just anybody can go? All kindsa riff-raff and trailer-trash and even the "intellectual elite"... Perhaps what this study shows most is that most believers don't take their religion at all seriously."
21. Comment #307747 by Paula Kirby on December 28, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Well, I don't mind people with no religious faith getting into heaven, but atheists? That's taking things a bit far, isn't it?
Oh no, wait ...
43. Comment #307872 by chuckgoecke on December 28, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I suspect most religious people have to deal with the number one inconsistency in religion, that God is loving and accepting, but that he is demanding and vengeful. The loving and accepting part just seems more dignified and likely for an all powerful deity.
45. Comment #307875 by Sonic on December 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm
A friend of mine went through an evangelical phase when she was younger. She would say: This is what you do to get into heaven, or else you go to hell. Then her mom asked her: Did she really think the * she knew were going to hell? Then my friend changed her views, because she couldn't visualize people she knew personally behaving well and going to hell. I mention her story to suggest it might represent some dynamics behind the survey results.
10. Comment #307672 by Sarmatae1 on December 28, 2008 at 11:38 am
"And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go."
This is kind of derogatory of you ask me. It's not as if the majority of atheists don't want an afterlife to be true. It's just that I see no rational reason to think there is one ...
Well that is unless they think the heaven that we will be dragged into is the eternal totalitarian state Hitchens uses to describe heaven. Then I probably would be kicking and screaming.
50. Comment #307917 by ridelo on December 29, 2008 at 1:29 am
Heaven is not such a dull place as some here believe. According to church-father Tertullian one of the main shows is watching the infidels suffer in hell. Kind of after-life gladiator games. Beats the Olympics.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3467,n,n
Everybody hold hands now, and get ready to sing Kum Ba Ya as we all rise up together!
L Cottrill
13. Comment #307690 by j.mills on December 28, 2008 at 12:17 pm
"Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go.
...which suggests that a portion of those surveyed think that those with "no religious faith" are not "atheists".
The whole thing kinda devalues heaven, doncha think? If, ya know, just anybody can go? All kindsa riff-raff and trailer-trash and even the "intellectual elite"... Perhaps what this study shows most is that most believers don't take their religion at all seriously."
21. Comment #307747 by Paula Kirby on December 28, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Well, I don't mind people with no religious faith getting into heaven, but atheists? That's taking things a bit far, isn't it?
Oh no, wait ...
43. Comment #307872 by chuckgoecke on December 28, 2008 at 6:25 pm
I suspect most religious people have to deal with the number one inconsistency in religion, that God is loving and accepting, but that he is demanding and vengeful. The loving and accepting part just seems more dignified and likely for an all powerful deity.
45. Comment #307875 by Sonic on December 28, 2008 at 6:44 pm
A friend of mine went through an evangelical phase when she was younger. She would say: This is what you do to get into heaven, or else you go to hell. Then her mom asked her: Did she really think the * she knew were going to hell? Then my friend changed her views, because she couldn't visualize people she knew personally behaving well and going to hell. I mention her story to suggest it might represent some dynamics behind the survey results.
10. Comment #307672 by Sarmatae1 on December 28, 2008 at 11:38 am
"And they didn’t stop there. Nearly half also thought that atheists could go to heaven — dragged there kicking and screaming, no doubt — and most thought that people with no religious faith also could go."
This is kind of derogatory of you ask me. It's not as if the majority of atheists don't want an afterlife to be true. It's just that I see no rational reason to think there is one ...
Well that is unless they think the heaven that we will be dragged into is the eternal totalitarian state Hitchens uses to describe heaven. Then I probably would be kicking and screaming.
50. Comment #307917 by ridelo on December 29, 2008 at 1:29 am
Heaven is not such a dull place as some here believe. According to church-father Tertullian one of the main shows is watching the infidels suffer in hell. Kind of after-life gladiator games. Beats the Olympics.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3467,n,n
Last edited by Mark on Sat Jan 03, 2009 3:53 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
All these good folks will heartily assure you that they know Jesus was "a great teacher". No need to die for him -- he was just saying something "symbolic". He did that a lot, after all.
L Cottrill
L Cottrill
- Attachments
-
Presentation is Everything
Re: Satire/irony
Having an "objective view of ourselves" is an utter self-delusion. It can't happen, regardless of the niceness of your technology. This picture "made history" in its way but couldn't change the way history plays out -- because we relate to one another subjectively, not objectively.
When it all comes down to dust,
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust,
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
Have mercy on our uniform,
Man of peace, man of war,
The peacock spreads his fan.
- Leonard Cohen
L Cottrill
I thought I would post/debate/humor a reply here instead of Nature's Children. I tried crunching the dialogue but I think it reads better spaced.
"For another, quite reasonable view of the Abraham/Isaac/God myth, the great biblical scholar Woody Allen wrote the following version of the Akeda which, although meant to be humorous, puts the humanist view quite succinctly:
[And Abraham awoke in the middle of the night and said to his only son, Isaac, "I have had a dream where the voice of the Lord sayeth that I must sacrifice my only son, so put your pants on." And Isaac trembled and said, "So what did you say? I mean when He brought this whole thing up?"
"What am I going to say?" Abraham said. "I'm standing there at two A.M. I'm in my underwear with the Creator of the Universe. Should I argue?"
"Well, did he say why he wants me sacrificed?" Isaac asked his father.
But Abraham said, "The faithful do not question. Now let's go because I have a heavy day tomorrow."
And Sarah who heard Abraham's plan grew vexed and said, "How doth thou know it was the Lord and not, say, thy friend who loveth practical jokes, for the Lord hateth practical jokes and whosoever shall pull one shall be delivered into the hands of his enemies whether they pay the delivery charge or not." And Abraham answered, "Because I know it was the Lord. It was a deep, resonant voice, well modulated, and nobody in the desert can get a rumble in it like that."
And Sarah said, "And thou art willing to carry out this senseless act?" But Abraham told her, "Frankly yes, for to question the Lord's word is one of the worst things a person can do, particularly with the economy in the state it's in."
And so he took Isaac to a certain place and prepared to sacrifice him but at the last minute the Lord stayed Abraham's hand and said, "How could thou doest such a thing?"
And Abraham said, "But thou said ---"
"Never mind what I said," the Lord spake. "Doth thou listen to every crazy idea that comes thy way?" And Abraham grew ashamed. "Er - not really … no."
"I jokingly suggest thou sacrifice Isaac and thou immediately runs out to do it."
And Abraham fell to his knees, "See, I never know when you're kidding."
And the Lord thundered, "No sense of humor. I can't believe it."
"But doth this not prove I love thee, that I was willing to donate mine only son on thy whim?"
And the Lord said, "It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice."
And with that, the Lord bid Abraham get some rest and check with him tomorrow.
(Woody Allen. Without Feathers Pp. 26-7)]
"Whoever made up the story of Abraham and Isaac would have changed the course of Jewish ritual and perhaps history if they had made Abraham a heroic figure who stood up to the voice in his head he thought was the voice of God and refused to kill his son, perhaps offering his own life instead. That would have been an Abraham I could be proud of. As it is, Abraham is not a hero to me."
http://www.hjnc.org/about_us/dvar-eckhaus.html
http://www.last.fm/music/Leonard+Cohen/ ... ac/+lyrics
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/popups/objectivity.htm
Funny the other day I was listening to "Suzanne" and I thought about these lyrics. One time I nearly drowned swimming in a remote area. The current of the Willamette River was unsuspectingly very strong, I barely made it back to shore. I almost gave up. But here I am.
And jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30egIKHT-pM
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ ... F0002649BC
When it all comes down to dust,
I will kill you if I must,
I will help you if I can.
When it all comes down to dust,
I will help you if I must,
I will kill you if I can.
Have mercy on our uniform,
Man of peace, man of war,
The peacock spreads his fan.
- Leonard Cohen
L Cottrill
I thought I would post/debate/humor a reply here instead of Nature's Children. I tried crunching the dialogue but I think it reads better spaced.
"For another, quite reasonable view of the Abraham/Isaac/God myth, the great biblical scholar Woody Allen wrote the following version of the Akeda which, although meant to be humorous, puts the humanist view quite succinctly:
[And Abraham awoke in the middle of the night and said to his only son, Isaac, "I have had a dream where the voice of the Lord sayeth that I must sacrifice my only son, so put your pants on." And Isaac trembled and said, "So what did you say? I mean when He brought this whole thing up?"
"What am I going to say?" Abraham said. "I'm standing there at two A.M. I'm in my underwear with the Creator of the Universe. Should I argue?"
"Well, did he say why he wants me sacrificed?" Isaac asked his father.
But Abraham said, "The faithful do not question. Now let's go because I have a heavy day tomorrow."
And Sarah who heard Abraham's plan grew vexed and said, "How doth thou know it was the Lord and not, say, thy friend who loveth practical jokes, for the Lord hateth practical jokes and whosoever shall pull one shall be delivered into the hands of his enemies whether they pay the delivery charge or not." And Abraham answered, "Because I know it was the Lord. It was a deep, resonant voice, well modulated, and nobody in the desert can get a rumble in it like that."
And Sarah said, "And thou art willing to carry out this senseless act?" But Abraham told her, "Frankly yes, for to question the Lord's word is one of the worst things a person can do, particularly with the economy in the state it's in."
And so he took Isaac to a certain place and prepared to sacrifice him but at the last minute the Lord stayed Abraham's hand and said, "How could thou doest such a thing?"
And Abraham said, "But thou said ---"
"Never mind what I said," the Lord spake. "Doth thou listen to every crazy idea that comes thy way?" And Abraham grew ashamed. "Er - not really … no."
"I jokingly suggest thou sacrifice Isaac and thou immediately runs out to do it."
And Abraham fell to his knees, "See, I never know when you're kidding."
And the Lord thundered, "No sense of humor. I can't believe it."
"But doth this not prove I love thee, that I was willing to donate mine only son on thy whim?"
And the Lord said, "It proves that some men will follow any order no matter how asinine as long as it comes from a resonant, well-modulated voice."
And with that, the Lord bid Abraham get some rest and check with him tomorrow.
(Woody Allen. Without Feathers Pp. 26-7)]
"Whoever made up the story of Abraham and Isaac would have changed the course of Jewish ritual and perhaps history if they had made Abraham a heroic figure who stood up to the voice in his head he thought was the voice of God and refused to kill his son, perhaps offering his own life instead. That would have been an Abraham I could be proud of. As it is, Abraham is not a hero to me."
http://www.hjnc.org/about_us/dvar-eckhaus.html
http://www.last.fm/music/Leonard+Cohen/ ... ac/+lyrics
http://www.englishbiz.co.uk/popups/objectivity.htm
Funny the other day I was listening to "Suzanne" and I thought about these lyrics. One time I nearly drowned swimming in a remote area. The current of the Willamette River was unsuspectingly very strong, I barely made it back to shore. I almost gave up. But here I am.
And jesus was a sailor
When he walked upon the water
And he spent a long time watching
From his lonely wooden tower
And when he knew for certain
Only drowning men could see him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30egIKHT-pM
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/ ... F0002649BC
Presentation is Everything