None of it is true - Does this bother anyone?

[slave2six]

"The empirical sciences will continue to unravel the miracle of matter for us, it will explain many unknowns, but by definition it is incapable of grasping that foundational "unknown" on which every thing stands. Religion, spirituality, these are the means by which we are given access to the fundamental and irreducible 'fact' which upholds everything."

I have NO idea what that statement is trying to say.

WHAT foundational unknown? If it is unknown then clearly you do NOT know what it is. How do you know, other than dogmatically, that it even EXISTS? And what is missing that this "fact" would explain? You don't know that either.

The universe is what it IS. The morning newspaper reports what IS, not what you would like. And from this you construct this ancient and evil "fall" from which your "faith" offers "salvation." But you are quick to brag how we have gotten "better" in the last few centuries. And period during which numbers of the "faithful" and their control of civil society has steadily declined.

What you believe is a hateful medieval myth that has none nothing useful and offers nothing but division and hate. The sooner we leave this idea of supernatural religion in the trash can of history the better off we ALL will be.

Exactly. Well stated.

 

[slave2six]

I've talked to many who felt that there were plenty of parts in the Bible which are NOT the Word of God, but of man.

Besides, with some exceptions, Christianity is ever-evolving, anyway. Sure, many refuse to change, but many do willingly and openly.

And this is where I have to draw a distinction. I know many Christians who are good people. I don't know many entrenched Christians who make their living by preaching it who are though. As an institution, it is irrational and as corrupt as any other institution and to my mind is a great evil as it preys on innocent hearts.

 

[slave2six]

This is funny.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The reason that we as humans see some behaviors as “bad” is not some universal moral imperative but because the society that we have created for ourselves is not solely based on physical superiority as is the case in other places in nature. Indeed, such morals are against our natural instinct. You define this as "sin" but all it is is nature. Does this mean that we are born amoral creatures? No. It means that we are natural creatures with intelligence enough to know how to coexist with one another in such a way that the species has become a six billion member tribe. It is precisely our ability to reason that makes “morality” an issue at all. Shouldn’t we, therefore, use our reason when determining what is morally good or bad rather than relying on religious pronouncements (which thus far have not made much of an impact on the matter except to incite people to more violence)?

Interesting. So reason beckons us to abandon a politic of pure power and contradict our nature in order to build human society up into a "six billion member tribe". In other words, nature itself is contrary (in some sense) to the moral imperatives derived from reason.

Where would you say reason leads us?

I think that would be quite Catholic. The Fall of man is precisely that his own natural instincts work against what he knows ought to be done for a peaceful co-existence. His very desire for a peaceful co-existence, for communion with his neighbors- his entire social impulse- is all part of what it means to be in the image of God.

 

[Riverwolf]

And this is where I have to draw a distinction. I know many Christians who are good people. I don't know many entrenched Christians who make their living by preaching it who are though. As an institution, it is irrational and as corrupt as any other institution and to my mind is a great evil as it preys on innocent hearts.

I see. Your beef is with organized religion.

While I disagree, that I can understand. Organized religion doesn't exactly have a very nice history.

MY beef is when religion tries to become political. Every time that's happened, there have been problems. (Tibetan Buddhism counts. I've nothing against the religion, and I have great respect for the Dalai Lama, but I am not comfortable with the way the followers blindly follow the him as if he were a god.)

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"How does one deal with the supposed collapse of modernity's ideals and the Enlightenment's notion of Reason in the face of "post-modernity"?"


By recognizing that we are continuing to move forward. Which process necessitates leaving behind certain older ideas. They may have, indeed DID, serve us well.

BUT

The times they are a'changin'.

(As they always do. And will continue to do. We hope.)

 

[Riverwolf]

"How does one deal with the supposed collapse of modernity's ideals and the Enlightenment's notion of Reason in the face of "post-modernity"?"


By recognizing that we are continuing to move forward. Which process necessitates leaving behind certain older ideas. They may have, indeed DID, serve us well.

BUT

The times they are a'changin'.

(As they always do. And will continue to do. We hope.)

Wow. Something we agree upon.

Frubals for that!

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"The Fall of man is precisely that his own natural instincts work against what he knows ought to be done for a peaceful co-existence. His very desire for a peaceful co-existence, for communion with his neighbors- his entire social impulse- is all part of what it means to be in the image of God."

This is just theological gobbledygook.


There was no "fall." The state of moral purity you long for NEVER was. And never will be - except in your imagination.

There is a rise. And even the most cursory examination of history will confirm that. We are now just emerging from a savage and brutal past that depended on red tooth and claw to survive. We leaned behaviors then that were both moral and useful. But things are changing. We have conquered SOME of the forces with which we formally had a life or death struggle. Our tasks now are different and we must learn and use different skills. A computer is more useful than a spear.


And reason freed from medieval superstition is our most important tool.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"MY beef is when religion tries to become political."

And when has it NOT?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The very notion of moral progress, the "rise", is itself a result of the digestion of the Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse and the doctrine of Incarnation. Admittedly, most of this occurred outside formal Church structures. It is not without co-incidence that modernity begins as a Western, Christian phenomenon.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

" It is not without co-incidence that modernity begins as a Western, Christian phenomenon."

Except that as noted above the most recent progress has occurred as that tradition has LOST influence.

Can it be that - finally-- we are beginning to outgrow supernatural religion?

Can "Childhoods End" be far off?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

But the very momentum on which it lost its influence was the result of processes within Christendom as well. The very idea of secularization presupposes distinctly Christian ideas. The religion itself posited the distinction between the secular and sacred spheres, albeit in a difference sense, and secularization/ modernity was in part the process of the gradual withdrawal of human thought and activity into a sphere which was created by the Christian imagination.

The notion of the incarnation, the idea that the divinity took up its residence in human finitude and individuality created the blue print for much of Western thought, even today. We might say that Pentecost came to be seen as the emptying of heaven into earth as the eschatology of Christianity was turned completely immanent.

It remains to be seen, I think, how much of the Enlightenment project has actually been contingent on Christian ideas- and in turn, how much Christianity must recognize its achievements as its legitimate child.

 

[themadhair]

But the very momentum on which it lost its influence was the result of processes within Christendom as well. The very idea of secularization presupposes distinctly Christian ideas.
....
It remains to be seen, I think, how much of the Enlightenment project has actually been contingent on Christian ideas- and in turn, how much Christianity must recognize its achievements as its legitimate child.

 

[rojse]

That's like having a manual for your car that gives detailed instructions on how it's put together and how to make it run properly and then appending a footnote stating

*Or maybe not.
​

It's actually like having manual for your car that gives detailed instructions on how it's put together and how to make it run properly and saying that the manufacturer might later come out with better advice than originally.

 

[slave2six]

The very notion of moral progress, the "rise", is itself a result of the digestion of the Judeo-Christian eschatological impulse and the doctrine of Incarnation. Admittedly, most of this occurred outside formal Church structures. It is not without co-incidence that modernity begins as a Western, Christian phenomenon.

And yet it was the ancient Egyptians who introduced gods becoming incarnate and the idea of three deities uniting in exactly the same way that Christians view the "trinity." The Greeks also had gods who became incarnate. Christianity simply borrowed from these other myths. It was certainly nothing new.

Additionally, the rise of Christianity is directly related to the introduction of the "Dark Ages." This is largely because a) the Church already had all the answers about life, the universe and everything and therefore was the final authority and b) the prevailing sentiment was that they were "living in the last days" and consequently the pursuit of knowledge about this present age was pointless since it was going to go bye-bye anyhow. Almost all knowledge of astronomy passed to the Arabs where the compilations of all current knowledge written by Ptolomy was held as vitally important and those works became known in the Arab world as The Almagest. It was from studying these works that Copernicus began his studies of the heavens and eventually discovered the heliocentric nature of our solar system. Galileo built upon this and the Church put him under house arrest for his troubles. The age of Enlightement did not mix well with the Dark Ages upon which Christianity thrived.

If you consider a millenium of building an entire society on superstition and ignorance "moral progress" then I suppose we can give credit to Chrisitanity for that.

 

[slave2six]

But the very momentum on which it lost its influence was the result of processes within Christendom as well. The very idea of secularization presupposes distinctly Christian ideas. The religion itself posited the distinction between the secular and sacred spheres, albeit in a difference sense, and secularization/ modernity was in part the process of the gradual withdrawal of human thought and activity into a sphere which was created by the Christian imagination.

The notion of the incarnation, the idea that the divinity took up its residence in human finitude and individuality created the blue print for much of Western thought, even today. We might say that Pentecost came to be seen as the emptying of heaven into earth as the eschatology of Christianity was turned completely immanent.

It remains to be seen, I think, how much of the Enlightenment project has actually been contingent on Christian ideas- and in turn, how much Christianity must recognize its achievements as its legitimate child.

Again, in this you are greatly mistaken. "the idea that the divinity took up its residence in human finitude and individuality" is in fact an Egyptian concept that was being practiced all over the Mediterranean for more than 1,500 years before the time of Christ and continued well into the sixth century. There is almost nothing about the Christian story that was not already being practiced in other cultures at the time that Christianity sprang up.

 

[slave2six]

But the very momentum on which it lost its influence was the result of processes within Christendom as well. The very idea of secularization presupposes distinctly Christian ideas. The religion itself posited the distinction between the secular and sacred spheres, albeit in a difference sense, and secularization/ modernity was in part the process of the gradual withdrawal of human thought and activity into a sphere which was created by the Christian imagination.

The notion of the incarnation, the idea that the divinity took up its residence in human finitude and individuality created the blue print for much of Western thought, even today. We might say that Pentecost came to be seen as the emptying of heaven into earth as the eschatology of Christianity was turned completely immanent.

It remains to be seen, I think, how much of the Enlightenment project has actually been contingent on Christian ideas- and in turn, how much Christianity must recognize its achievements as its legitimate child.

Again, in this you are greatly mistaken. "The idea that the divinity took up its residence in human finitude and individuality" is in fact an Egyptian concept that was being practiced all over the Mediterranean for more than 1,500 years before the time of Christ and continued well into the sixth century. There is almost nothing about the Christian story that was not already being practiced in other cultures at the time that Christianity sprang up.

 

[Riverwolf]

"MY beef is when religion tries to become political."

And when has it NOT?

Let's see... I don't think Zen ever became political, as feudal Japan was Confucian-inspired, from what I understand. Theravada Buddhism didn't become political, because Sanatana Dharma was India's national religion. I don't think Mahayana Buddhism became political, though I could be wrong.

Religion is not inherently political, but it has happened, quite often. I don't deny that.

Oh, yeah. I don't think early Christianity tried to become political. "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's," right? Though I wouldn't be surprised if some early Churches (by "early," I mean pre-Catholic) tried to become political.

 

[gzusfrk]

" It is not without co-incidence that modernity begins as a Western, Christian phenomenon."

Except that as noted above the most recent progress has occurred as that tradition has LOST influence.

Can it be that - finally-- we are beginning to outgrow supernatural religion?

Can "Childhoods End" be far off?

your dreamin!

 

[Alceste]

It's all the same big duck. I'll parse it down though. The "Fall of man" however you characterize it (a literal Adam/Eve or metaphorical) is the basis of the entire Judeo-Christian faith. That's seems simple enough. Take that away and none of the rest of it makes any sense. Right?

Book recommendation interlude:




Apparently it makes enough sense that the myth of the redeemer has been recycled hundreds of times in cultures all around the world - without the Adam and Eve schtick in every case but one.