> Travis Edmunds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> <laughing> You know what this thread needs? An
> analogy or two...
Yet below you ask for slappage.... ;)
<massive snippage throughout>
> As you can see, I totally disagree with you. Of
> course you are correct in
> saying that if one professes beliefs that stem from
> ignorance and which are
> known generally to be false, then that person is
> misinformed and/or deluded.
> But it's still the very definition of hypocrisy.
>
> Perhaps we may never agree on this. But it's where I
> stand nonetheless.
I agree that we do not and may not ever agree about
hypocrisy in organized religion, but our positions
thereon have been spelled out in detail. ;)
> >I do
> >not assign malign intent to all or even most upper
> >echelon members in simplifying 'what a difference
> >an iota makes,'
> Data (referring to a very short amount of time) -
> "For an android sir, that is an eternity".
>
> Same premise Debbi. And I'd say that an 'iota' can
> potentially make a world of difference.
IIRC, the expression comes from two Greek words that
are literally different by one iota: one meant "of the
same [substance]," the other "of a similar
[substance]." Deciding between the two lead to one of
the early schisms in Christianity. <raises eyebrows
questioningly at Dan>
>Take transubstantiation as an example....
> No doubt that's true. But Iike you said, we
> disagree.
> <shrugs shoulders> So where do we go from here?
Since we seem to be circling, it's probably time to
get off the merry-go-round!
>....Yet at the end of the day I'm gonna argue
> vehemently that they're
> just not the same. A human is a human. A human is
> not a turtle...(feel free
> to slap me any time<friendly laugh>)
> >Messiness is an unavoidable facet of our complex
> >culture; there is always room for improvement, and
> >a need for those who call our attention to such
> >problems.
> Yes. Absolutely. And seeing as how religion is a
> human construct, one should
> downright expect messiness. That's fine with me. I
> just think that if this
> is true, then perhaps 'religion' should drop the
> 'divinity' stuff
> altogether. Wouldn't you say? There is after all a
> conflict of interest of sorts, is there not?
<groans as another analogy comes to mind>
Heck, the physicists can't figure out if things will
end with a big bang, a tired whimper, or endless
expansion...why should their thought-experiments try
to find out what will happen in 5 or 10 or 50 billion
years? It matters not an iota to their lifespan!
Yet they persist in looking for the beginning and the
end of all...
Because asking questions and figuring out answers is
one of the things that we humans do. We just don't
have the wherewithal to reach firm conclusions for a
lot of queries.
> It may seem like I'm taking a very 'black & white'
> approach to this.
> Personally, if it exists, I'd like you to enlighten
> me as to it's presence.
> Because I just don't see it. What I do see however,
> is a central theme that
> I spout, that seems to conflict in part with yours.
> What do you think?
Bingo!
> All I'm saying, is what you summed up nicely above -
> 'to choose a particular
> philosophical approach to life does negate, at least
> temporarily, some other approaches'....
We agree about something, at last. :)
> Within the confines of religion they tend to view
> the world through their
> god as opposed to *with* their god. They cannot seem
> to escape the nutshell
> of their particular religion, and to think
> critically as it were. However, I
> would argue that if one isn't fanatical about his or
> her religion, then they
> aren't being 'true' to their religion.
Yet all of my friends who profess an organized
religion as 'theirs' deny that they are - or 'ought to
be' - fanatical about it. They have found what makes
sense to them, and seems best to them, but are wise
enought to understand that one size does not fit all.
*You* want them to be fanatics, but what you desire is
irrelevent to their faiths and ways of following what
they believe.
> I personally disagree with what I just said of
> course. But seeing as how
> each and every religion is 'the way' so to speak,
> then not strictly adhering
> to all of it's principles does absolutely nothing
> for the religion itself.
Adapt or die. That is what all human social
constructs must do. Permanent rigidity in thought
will cause 'death' of the organization - look at frex
the Shakers.
> Russell Crowe fan?
He's a truly good actor, but in interviews comes off
as a real jerk of a person.
> I just can't seem to get myself to agree with your
> analogies.
That's because you aren't looking at them from my
perspective! <evil smile>
> .... But allow me an attempt at
> clarification. I don't demand perfection from
> structured religion. As you've
> said and as I fully understand - it's a human
> construct. Instead I *expect*
> perfection. For although it's a human construct,
> it's divinely inspired. You
> see what I'm getting at? It's that conflict of
> interest that I mentioned.
Mmm, not a conflict of _interest_, rather an attempt
to bridge the gulf between the knowable and the
unfathomable. Hence the parables, the stories, the
analogies that make perfect sense to one but not
another... What I think is frustrating to you (and
many of the rest of us!) is at the heart of belief in
a Divinity: if You're there, *gimme a clear sentence,
dang it!*
Don't hold your breath. <wry smile and sigh>
> And perhaps the main reason why I have no time for
> organized worship. It
> just seems pointless to me. Utterly without merit.
> Does God (see - Creator)
> exist? Maybe. Maybe not. Do I have anything to lose
> by worshipping a
> particular god (an old cliche there)? Certainly!
> Time, for one thing...<laughing>
>
> All I see is hypocrisy. Honestly.
<smile> All *I* see is a bunch of blind folk with a
fingertip on an elephant...or maybe a whale...
> ....So why would a god lay out principles to
> adhere to in the first place?
To keep the world from descending back into Chaos.
To test for obedience.
To keep people living harmoniously together.
I ask, 'who says these rules come from the Divine, and
what proof do they offer?' How much power does it
give an individual to say that er speaks for God, and
any who disagree must change their ways or be cast out
of the family of God? Coercion for a good cause is
still applied force, and I want to be able to choose
what I do for its own sake, not because I fear "hell."
To me, a world in which humans 'loved God, and loved
their neighbors as themselves' would mean that we
cared for each other and our world - the plants and
animals and very mountains - to the best of our
ability, which is great indeed.
As for an afterlife, if there is one, I have no
control over what it entails, and furthermore it is
irrelevant to what occurs here and now. I can only
influence what is around me _now_.
> I don't mean to come off child-like in they way I'm
> thinking here. It's just
> that I can't get my head around the fundamental
> premise of my little
> 'conflict of interest'. Frankly I never could, and
> perhaps never will.
I'm going to come off as an ageist here -again-
because I went through a long period in which I wanted
specific directions, clearly and unequivocally stated.
What I have had to adapt to is the silence of
uncertainty, despite the recurrent sense of a
Presence.
It is neither easy nor particularly reassuring, but it
is...exasperatingly hopeful.
(You have no idea how long it took me to find those
words, but now I think they are as accurate as I could
possibly be.)
Debbi
Perhaps A Giant Sequoia Instead Maru :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
