So, for years and years now, I've thought that the worst thing that can happen to this world, as a whole, as an extended group of human beings, is a crisis of faith
( Read more... )
part one of my responsepseydtonneApril 9 2007, 02:29:19 UTC
Oh man, there are so many holes in this but I do not want to make you cry. Let me see how I can approach this...
Religions do not split simply because of a "crisis of faith". Religions split similar to how major scientific paradigms shift:
Someone gets a new understanding of the old meaning of some facet of the faith (e.g.: "Do we teach the children the Trinity before they can understand it?" or "If we're all children in the eyes of the Lord, why do I have to sit in the back of the church?");
That new understanding does not jive with the old enough to be coexistent in the same church house;
The person with the new understanding convinces some members of it while others stick to the previous tenet;
A house divided cannot stand, so a split is formalized.
No one comes up with the concept of a "house" and builds it. The Platonic concept of a thing is not what leads to instantiation. Instead people build structures to solve the problems of climate, the structures take on a significance because other attributes of the solution become benefits, and a cycle of improvement begins.
The recent issue in the Arab world (not the whole Muslim world -- go to Indonesia, the largest Islamic country by population, and you'll see everyone is faithful and building a Western technological power) is not a desire to leave Islam.
Arab culture had been getting more Western during the first half of the Twentieth century, with the peak being Egypt aligning itself with the Soviet Union and prompting the Suez Crisis of 1956. Arab states formed after World War One were attempting to merge and form power blocks but the blocks kept falling apart. The Six-Day War against Israel in 1967 cinched it for many Arabs: they got their asses handed to them in less than a week when they attempted to take some Israeli turf and Israel wound up doubling in size by taking the Sinai and Negev Peninsulas.
During the 1960s a new idea came into play. This was an attempt to galvanize people back into teaching their children about Islam. It seemed only slightly right-wing at the time but was far less secular than what had been going on. Thus the generation then in power wasn't interested but the youth really got into it. This evolved into the unfortunate theocratic thinking that gets mislabeled "jihad".
The first turnaround based on these readings was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1978. This was a right-wing rebellion: he was loosening too many things and the populace were tired of his puppetry to the United States. However it's important to note Iran is not an Arab nation: it's population is Persian. These are the Arian people from the nearby Caucasus Mountains. That's right: these are well-tanned honkies. Biologically they have more in common with Chechans than next-door Iraqis.
Thus if the problem were Arabs not being Muslim enough, we'd see something very different.
I wrote a lot more, so you'll see that in the next post.
part two of my responsepseydtonneApril 9 2007, 02:31:00 UTC
Let's look at the reasons many former Catholics aren't coming back. I have plenty of my own reasons as a former Catholic. I do not like the power structure of the Roman Church. Americans get to pick and choose what they accept about doctrine only because they give so much money to the Vatican. However, the Catholic Church can tell a proper follower what to eat, which prayers to say, and what things mean.
I have spent far too long studying god, God, spirituality and organizations to accept that crap voluntarily. I definitely cannot accept the central tenet, the Nicene Creed. "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." This is a hypnotizing statement on purpose, meant to punch the idea "you're not meant to figure this out so stop trying" deep into the victim's head. It was originally conceived to kick the Arians, Nestorians and other groups out of the now-official religion in the Fourth Century.
Do people need something to believe in? Sure. Why does it have to be a formal God, or any god? What's wrong with believing in open source software or the continuing advance of civilization, the growth of knowledge, the abolition of fear?
When you analyze the situation, Christ's death is actually a vengeance against the Mark of Cain. Cain was a farmer while Abel was a herder. Abel's sacrifices to God were bloody animals instead of wheat. Cain decided to make a bigger blood sacrifice and God said "well, okay, I should've laid out some more guidelines." Every Christian gets to kill Jesus to avoid any more animal sacrifices because he dies and comes back.
Why do you need to convince anyone that Christ has risen? It's redundant. It's a rerun. I would rather ask you: what is so bad about those of us who have had to leave our childhood religions? We see ourselves as being on new paths, making trails in a pursuit of knowledge. We were tired of wearing blinders, so we left. We didn't necessarily leave Christ (I did but I'm not the usual bird) when we left doctrinaire religions.
That was a lot at once, but I hope you will understand my concern. Please let me know.
Re: part two of my responseproudlyfallenApril 9 2007, 03:10:52 UTC
Alright... yes, that was a lot. I'm not sure I understand all of it, but I'll try to reply to what I do understand.
For the house thing... well, someone had to originally say "hey, we need shelter!" It didn't need to be the concept of a "house" persay... but there still needed to be the idea "we need shelter" and "let's build shelter away from caves."
Also, I never said it was a desire to leave Islam -- it's a split inside Islam. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites both profess to believe in Islam -- that is, that the Torah, New Testement, and Qua'ran are all books written by God, and that the Qua'ran is the latest and most pure, that the prophets including Abraham, Jesus, and Mohommed (peace be upon them) spoke the word of God, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with the 5 pillars of Islam. However, the two main sects of Islam cannot agree on interpretations of the religion, which was exactly what the Qua'ran was supposed to avoid. The Qua'ran is the law, and that law is the religion. For this reason, it's not allowed to be translated from the original Arabic. (side note -- I wonder which version of Arabic the Qua'ran is written in?)
Oh, and the jihad thing. I'm sure you know (I bow before your immense stores of knowledge, and hope some day to know half of what you do) but jihad refers to any fight for God. I wasn't sure that I wanted to go back to school, but it was the morally and socially correct thing to do; therefore, me going back to school can be considered a jihad. The theocratic thinking is not what gets mislabelled as a jihad, rather, it's the fight against Westernization (and by extension, the big bad USA), which is in direct opposition to the Qua'ran, and therefore, not a "true" jihad.
For the second part of your response... they're all good points. There's nothing I can say against any of that, except that I wasn't trying to imply that Catholics should stay good Catholics. If it works for someone, good, they should stay with that, because everyone needs a faith of some kind. Faith in the growth of knowledge? That works. It could be said that knowledge, as a collective entity, is what make the world go 'round, so to speak. Open source software I would have issues with, because it's not a higher power -- it's a tool, by the people, for the people. It's a brilliant idea, and something I think more people should use (I'm in love with AbiWord, and even have my mother using it) but it's not a faith.
You lost me with Christ's death being a vengeance. Could you explain that more?
I need to convince the people who claim "Christianity is bullshit, you're all idiots, you're believing in a fairy tale and only good Pagan religions are right." Christ rising from the dead is the same as any Pagan god growing -- that's where Easter came from. Ostara, the celebration of spring, and the growing ("rising" in power) God who was born again during Yule/Christmas. There is nothing bad about not believing in Christ, but you believe the spring is coming again, right? There is not a soul on this earth who honestly, truly, year after year, believes that eternal winter will cover the earth forever, that the tempurature will never rise above the freezing point again in the life of this world. If there was, canned and frozen goods would be much more in demand during the fall -- after all, by that belief, you'd need to store enough food to feed yourself, your family, and your future family, for all eternity.
- Religions do not split simply because of a "crisis of faith". Religions split similar to how major scientific paradigms shift:
- Someone gets a new understanding of the old meaning of some facet of the faith (e.g.: "Do we teach the children the Trinity before they can understand it?" or "If we're all children in the eyes of the Lord, why do I have to sit in the back of the church?");
- That new understanding does not jive with the old enough to be coexistent in the same church house;
- The person with the new understanding convinces some members of it while others stick to the previous tenet;
- A house divided cannot stand, so a split is formalized.
- No one comes up with the concept of a "house" and builds it. The Platonic concept of a thing is not what leads to instantiation. Instead people build structures to solve the problems of climate, the structures take on a significance because other attributes of the solution become benefits, and a cycle of improvement begins.
- The recent issue in the Arab world (not the whole Muslim world -- go to Indonesia, the largest Islamic country by population, and you'll see everyone is faithful and building a Western technological power) is not a desire to leave Islam.
I wrote a lot more, so you'll see that in the next post.Arab culture had been getting more Western during the first half of the Twentieth century, with the peak being Egypt aligning itself with the Soviet Union and prompting the Suez Crisis of 1956. Arab states formed after World War One were attempting to merge and form power blocks but the blocks kept falling apart. The Six-Day War against Israel in 1967 cinched it for many Arabs: they got their asses handed to them in less than a week when they attempted to take some Israeli turf and Israel wound up doubling in size by taking the Sinai and Negev Peninsulas.
During the 1960s a new idea came into play. This was an attempt to galvanize people back into teaching their children about Islam. It seemed only slightly right-wing at the time but was far less secular than what had been going on. Thus the generation then in power wasn't interested but the youth really got into it. This evolved into the unfortunate theocratic thinking that gets mislabeled "jihad".
The first turnaround based on these readings was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1978. This was a right-wing rebellion: he was loosening too many things and the populace were tired of his puppetry to the United States. However it's important to note Iran is not an Arab nation: it's population is Persian. These are the Arian people from the nearby Caucasus Mountains. That's right: these are well-tanned honkies. Biologically they have more in common with Chechans than next-door Iraqis.
Thus if the problem were Arabs not being Muslim enough, we'd see something very different.
Reply
I have spent far too long studying god, God, spirituality and organizations to accept that crap voluntarily. I definitely cannot accept the central tenet, the Nicene Creed. "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father." This is a hypnotizing statement on purpose, meant to punch the idea "you're not meant to figure this out so stop trying" deep into the victim's head. It was originally conceived to kick the Arians, Nestorians and other groups out of the now-official religion in the Fourth Century.
Do people need something to believe in? Sure. Why does it have to be a formal God, or any god? What's wrong with believing in open source software or the continuing advance of civilization, the growth of knowledge, the abolition of fear?
When you analyze the situation, Christ's death is actually a vengeance against the Mark of Cain. Cain was a farmer while Abel was a herder. Abel's sacrifices to God were bloody animals instead of wheat. Cain decided to make a bigger blood sacrifice and God said "well, okay, I should've laid out some more guidelines." Every Christian gets to kill Jesus to avoid any more animal sacrifices because he dies and comes back.
That was a lot at once, but I hope you will understand my concern. Please let me know.
Reply
For the house thing... well, someone had to originally say "hey, we need shelter!" It didn't need to be the concept of a "house" persay... but there still needed to be the idea "we need shelter" and "let's build shelter away from caves."
Also, I never said it was a desire to leave Islam -- it's a split inside Islam. The Sunnis and the Shi'ites both profess to believe in Islam -- that is, that the Torah, New Testement, and Qua'ran are all books written by God, and that the Qua'ran is the latest and most pure, that the prophets including Abraham, Jesus, and Mohommed (peace be upon them) spoke the word of God, etc. I'm sure you're familiar with the 5 pillars of Islam. However, the two main sects of Islam cannot agree on interpretations of the religion, which was exactly what the Qua'ran was supposed to avoid. The Qua'ran is the law, and that law is the religion. For this reason, it's not allowed to be translated from the original Arabic. (side note -- I wonder which version of Arabic the Qua'ran is written in?)
Oh, and the jihad thing. I'm sure you know (I bow before your immense stores of knowledge, and hope some day to know half of what you do) but jihad refers to any fight for God. I wasn't sure that I wanted to go back to school, but it was the morally and socially correct thing to do; therefore, me going back to school can be considered a jihad. The theocratic thinking is not what gets mislabelled as a jihad, rather, it's the fight against Westernization (and by extension, the big bad USA), which is in direct opposition to the Qua'ran, and therefore, not a "true" jihad.
For the second part of your response... they're all good points. There's nothing I can say against any of that, except that I wasn't trying to imply that Catholics should stay good Catholics. If it works for someone, good, they should stay with that, because everyone needs a faith of some kind. Faith in the growth of knowledge? That works. It could be said that knowledge, as a collective entity, is what make the world go 'round, so to speak. Open source software I would have issues with, because it's not a higher power -- it's a tool, by the people, for the people. It's a brilliant idea, and something I think more people should use (I'm in love with AbiWord, and even have my mother using it) but it's not a faith.
You lost me with Christ's death being a vengeance. Could you explain that more?
I need to convince the people who claim "Christianity is bullshit, you're all idiots, you're believing in a fairy tale and only good Pagan religions are right." Christ rising from the dead is the same as any Pagan god growing -- that's where Easter came from. Ostara, the celebration of spring, and the growing ("rising" in power) God who was born again during Yule/Christmas. There is nothing bad about not believing in Christ, but you believe the spring is coming again, right? There is not a soul on this earth who honestly, truly, year after year, believes that eternal winter will cover the earth forever, that the tempurature will never rise above the freezing point again in the life of this world. If there was, canned and frozen goods would be much more in demand during the fall -- after all, by that belief, you'd need to store enough food to feed yourself, your family, and your future family, for all eternity.
Reply
Leave a comment