Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Worse Than Obama's Kill List? American Support for It
- Scientists Confirm: Arctic Sea Ice 'Collapse' at Our Door
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Genetically Engineered Meat, Coming Soon to a Supermarket Near You
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
- Watch a City-Sized Glacier Collapse
- Nearly 50 Climate Activists Arrested Outside Obama's White House
- Around the World, A 'Billion Rise' to Fight Violence Against Women and Girls
- DOJ Kill List Memo Forces Many Dems Out of the Closet as Overtly Unprincipled Hacks
- Quinoa: To Buy or Not to Buy... Is This the Right Question?
Popular content
Today's Top News
Five Scriptures You Won’t Hear at Rick Perry’s Prayer Event
As a native Texan, I’m used to crazy religion and crazy politics. So, the announcement of Gov. Rick Perry’s plans for “The Response,” a prayer event scheduled for Aug. 6 at Houston’s Reliant Stadium, was not a surprise.
But as a Presbyterian minister and community organizer, it’s part of my job to stand up for my neighbors. The use of the governor’s office to promote one religion in a country with such rich religious diversity is obviously unhealthy politics, but -- if one takes the Christian and Jewish scriptures seriously -- it is also unhealthy religion. Here are five rather important verses of scripture you aren’t likely to hear at “The Response”:
Don’t make a show of prayer
“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray in public places to be seen by others… But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your heavenly parent, who is unseen.” (Matt. 6:5-6)
While Jesus never addressed the issues most important to some of this event’s co-sponsors, such as homosexuality and abortion, he did speak out against public displays of religion. Whatever Jesus meant by the word “prayer,” it seems to have been about the quiet and personal. The disciples had to ask Jesus how to pray, which is a pretty good indication that he wasn’t praying a lot publicly. What he did say about prayer carried a warning label: “Don’t rub it in other people’s faces.”
God doesn’t withhold rain because we’ve done something wrong
“God causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45)
Perry recently called Texans to pray for rain, which implies that God steers clouds toward the worthy. According to Right Wing Watch, one of the events co-sponsors has said the earthquake in Japan happened because the emperor had sex with the Sun Goddess. It may be a part of our lower nature to blame disasters on people we don’t like or understand, but Jesus taught that God sends rain on the just and unjust. Furthermore, he said our love should be equally nonselective.
I have chosen Christianity as my life’s religion, but when nonjudgmental love is taken out of its center, it becomes poisonous and predatory. The word “God” can be a helpful symbol for all the transcendentals of life, but the symbol becomes instantly pathological when used as a scientific explanation or political justification.
God doesn’t have favorites
Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism.” (Acts 10:34)
When the Bible says that God is not a “respecter of persons” it means that God doesn’t have a favorite country or religion. The idea that God wants Christians to be in charge of other people violates Jesus’ teaching that we are to take the lowest place. We are to change the world by humble persuasion and good example, not by messianic coercion. The assumption that Christianity and America are God’s two favorite things will be particularly ironic, as the prayer event falls on the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.
Worship by those who neglect the poor is offensive to God
“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me… Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream!” (Amos 5:21-24)
The prophet Amos chastised the religion of his day for praying to God while mistreating people. Texas leads the nation in citizens who are uninsured, who work for minimum wage, and who die from unsafe working conditions on construction sites. Our state has the widest gap between rich and poor of any in the union. If the governor wants to call us to repentance it should begin with our real sins against the poor not the imaginary sins dreamed up by his friends.
The heart of Christian ethics is being a good neighbor
When Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) it was to teach humility to a rich young zealot who thought he was approaching moral perfection. The Samaritans were the scapegoats of the day. The rich young ruler would consider Samarians heretics and immoral people. Jesus used a merciful Samaritan as the example of ethical perfection. It is a lesson many Christians have yet to learn.
One sponsor of the event, the American Family Association, is listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. The group’s director of analysis for government and policy is quoted by the SPLC as saying that Hitler was “an active homosexual” who sought out gays “because he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough.” He also said Muslims should not be allowed in the military or be allowed to build mosques in the United States.
None of this analysis springs from malice. In fact, I must confess that I have a soft spot for Rick Perry. When the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in Texas was passed, I had the honor of pushing the wheelchair of Byrd’s mother into the governor’s office for the signing. I privately thanked Perry for his courage in standing up to all the groups who had fought against the bill; I knew he might pay a political price for signing the bill. Tears came to his eyes, and he said, “It’s the right thing to do.”
I can’t know what is in Perry’s heart, of course, but I do know the problem isn’t one politician but rather a nation that has embraced an unhealthy political arrogance undergirded by even unhealthier religious hubris. The “prayer” that is most needed at this time is for each of us, believer or not, to go into our own heart and find the humility and empathy that is at the core of righteousness, political and spiritual.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
101 Comments so far
Show All"My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity."
"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race. I cannot, however, deny that it has made some contributions to civilization. It helped in early days to fix the calendar, and it caused Egyptian priests to chronicle eclipses with such care that in time they became able to predict them. These two services I am prepared to acknowledge, but I do not know of any others."
-- Bertrand Russell, British philosopher, pacifist, writer, Nobel Laureate, logician, mathematician
Going a step further, Russell also said:
"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it. I do not think this view can be held by anyone who has studied history. "
Thank you sheepherder. The quotation of Bertrand Russell that you cited is one of my favorites. Russell also famously said:
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
Humankind has either not adopted enough reason and science as our guidelines, or Russell was wrong. A number of polls conducted by Pew Research and other institutions have shown no decline in religiosity in the United States. Religious belief is declining in some Western European nations, but in the United States and other parts of the world belief in religion is thriving.
Reason and science, without the guidance of heart and soul, are exactly what has led this world to ecocide, and the fruit of its endless labors into elaborate ways to kill.
It is not surprising that one with your martial bona fides would deny the existence of a God. In this way, there is no higher authority to hold you accountable for whatever it is that you might have done during your soldier days.
As Dana Carvey's Saturday Night Live rendition of "Church Lady" would put it, "How convenient!"
I find your anti-spiritual, arrogant assertions to be morally vacuous. And just because Bertrand Russell didn't believe in a Creative Force, hardly makes it so. People with mind-sets like yours, fixed upon only what their senses could affirm to them, also once presumed the world to be flat. And woe unto Galileo when he made it known that the entire church-based cosmology was off... it is a task like that unto the camel endeavoring to pass through the eye of a needle, for a strict authoritarian to say they were wrong; or God forbid, be compelled to correct their theology or belief system.
The claim to reason is another testament to Mars rules, when it's only the human mind that presumes to know all that is to be known about life or existence. This level of arrogance would be funny, if the times were not so tragic.
Bogi: A millionaire whose beliefs match those of Rush Limbaugh offered me that same depiction. Sorry, no cookie. The meaning of the adage is clear, even if Calvinists make attempts to bend the allusion to suit their own preferred value system.
Interestingly, the word for camel was also a homonym of sorts for the word for ship's rope, so it could also be thought of as trying to put a rope through the eye of a needle and have the sewing metaphor as well as the gate. I like the cleverness of the use of language in that era to create such, well, puns, to put across an idea.
Siouxrose,
What has lead to ecocide is humankind's absence of reason and the misuse of science. It has nothing to do with the absence of guidance of heart and soul.
Your argument that with my martial bona fides that I would deny the existence of a God, since there is no higher authority to hold me accountable for whatever it is that I might have done during my soldier days is vacuous and fallacious.
I hold myself and society equally holds me accountable for whatever it is that I might have done during my soldier days.
Your suggestion that my anti-spiritual assertions are arrogant and morally vacuous reflects your ignorance of atheist belief. Atheists are as moral, or in fact are more moral, than theists and spiritualists such as you. One does not have to be a theist or spiritualist to be a moral agent.
The idea that morality comes from some higher authority that is supernatural is a canard. If you have never read it, I suggest that you read a dialogue of Plato titled "Euthyphro". Socrates poses the question:
"Do the gods choose what is good because it is good, or is the good good because the gods choose it?" Atheist and philosophers hold that the first option is true. The good is independent of the gods. Any laws of a God regarding morals will only be moral if they conform to moral principles that are independent of God.
Your ignorance of the history of science is also glaringly apparent. It was not people with mind-sets like mine, evidentialists and empericists, who fixed only upon what their senses could affirm to them that once presumed the world was flat. It was superstitious spiritualists and religionists with mind-sets like yours who cited holy writ rather use their senses who asserted that the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the Sun orbited the Earth. It was people with mind-sets such as mine who were rational evidentialists and empiricists who used their senses and determined that the Earth was spherical and that the Earth orbited the Sun.
Aristarchus (310 BCE – ca. 230 BCE) developed the first heliocentric theory that the Earth orbited the Sun. This was well before Copernicus presented his heliocentric theory.
Eratosthenes (276 BCE – ca. 195 BCE) knew that the Earth was round and calculated the circumference of the Earth with a margin of error of less than 2% with the use of geometry. Geometry was revealed to humankind by reason and mathematical proofs. It was not revealed to humankind by some supernatural being.
The Greeks had demonstrated that the Earth was round, and that the Earth orbited the Sun centuries before the time of Copernicus and Galileo. With the ascendancy of Christianity within the Roman Empire in the 5th century C.E, this ancient knowledge became lost to humankind. It was rediscovered by Arab and Muslim scholars in the 11th and 12th centuries. The Crusades reintroduced this lost ancient knowledge to the West.
It was the dogmatism and strict authoritarianism of religion that lead religious authorities to not accept the findings of Galileo that were confirmed by repeatable empirical observations. Religionists minds were so enslaved by religion that they refused to even look through Galileo's telescopes when he invited them to look at the moon and see that contrary to Aristotelian thought, heavenly bodies like the moon were not perfect spheres and that Jupiter had at least four moons that Galileo had demonstrated orbited the planet. Some of the religionists were so superstitious that they asserted that the images that Galileo saw through his telescope were not real but phantasms created by the Devil.
Just because people like you believe in a Creative Force hardly provides evidence for the existence of Creative Force. Since it is you who assert the existence of a Creative Force, the burden of proof is upon you to provide evidence for its existence. Since experience has shown no existence of a Creative Force independent of matter, and you have provided no evidence to support the existence of a Creative Force independent of matter, my position is disbelief in the existence of a Creative Force. Should you be capable of providing me with empirical evidence for the existence of a Creative Force independent of matter, I am willing to suspend my disbelief in a Creative Force independent of matter.
The claim to reason is a testament to humankind's capacity to be intelligent rational creatures. It is no testament to the mythical god Mars who exercises no influence on the affairs of humankind. Most of humankind, unlike you, suspended belief that the imaginary gods of the Greek and Roman pantheon had any influence upon the natural world centuries ago. The persistent superstitious belief in imaginary gods and metaphysical entities such as "spirit", "angels", "souls","heaven", "hell", "Creative Force", "demons", "devils", "the effects of celestial bodies upon human behavior and the natural world" would be funny, if the times were not so tragic.
"It was the dogmatism and strict authoritarianism of religion that lead religious authorities to not accept the findings of Galileo that were confirmed by repeatable empirical observations."
It was human nature. Dogma has been known to infect science as well as religion, because that's the way the human mind works. It prefers the comfortable illusion to unfamiliar change. It's worth noting that the Church inherited the views you decry from the ancients who were philosophers and scientists in their day, like Ptolemy the astronomer, a nonchristian thinker. In his day, he was part of the very club you tout as the bringers of the truth. I suspect he'd have been rather resistant to Galileo himself, as famous scientists tend to be when their favorite ideas are shattered ...
RVingRetiree,
The Church that accepted Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory, with its multiple epicycles, did not accept it purely based upon its scientific merit. The Church accepted Ptolemy's geocentric theory because it was consistent with received scripture that suggested that the Earth was special and that the Sun orbited the Earth.
Dogma has infected science. Many scientists believed in the Pholgiston theory. For many years after Michelson and Morley performed studies that were negative for the existence of the ephemeral ether, many scientists continued to hold belief in the ether.
Scientists are no less subject to the whims of emotion and the pull of cognitive biases that exist and act to shape and reshape our beliefs than are non-scientists.
Where science differs from religion is that science possess the best tools ever devised to determine whether or not our beliefs match reality. Science employs empiricism, evidence, and observational experiments. Science allows us to discriminate between true and false, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney, but we must always remember that we can be wrong.
Rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth, yet failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make a claim false. We must always keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out. Provisional truths are the best that we can do.
Religion unlike science espouses absolute truths based upon authority and revelation with no requirement that there be a provision of evidence to support the truth claims of religion. Religion is based upon faith or belief in the absence of evidence. Belief in the absence of evidence is irrational.
"The Church that accepted Claudius Ptolemy's geocentric theory, with its multiple epicycles, did not accept it purely based upon its scientific merit. The Church accepted Ptolemy's geocentric theory because it was consistent with received scripture that suggested that the Earth was special and that the Sun orbited the Earth."
The Church was little different from multiple civilizations and other institutions in accepting Ptolemaic ideas. Only someone who already had a Ptolemaic bias, or a bias against religion, would try to claim the Bible is Ptolemaic. Ptolemy was the dominant school at the time the Church formalized, not the other way around.
I think your attitudes about science and religion reflect a certain overly simplistic view of things, all around. Many schools in "science" harden into dogmas resembling little else but religions, and all the baloney about the scientific method can be little more than propaganda for outsiders in such cases. Erroneous doctrine can run on for thousands of years (Ptolemy for example, who was a scientist in spite of your attempts to tar religion for his ideas) ...
Photius:
Your response to Siouxrose hinges on expecting Siouxrose to provide evidence for the existence of a deity or deities. Theists cannot present empirical evidence acceptable to materialists. (Wittgenstein wrote: "judgments about what is good cannot even be expressed within the logical language [the language of science], since they transcend what can be pictured in thought. They aren't facts.”) So, asking a theist to present empirical evidence for the existence of God is asking for the impossible.
But there is an additional problem: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is ironic that this standard criticism of creationist blather about gaps in the fossil record also applies to confirmed atheists' critiques of theists.
Popper thought the hallmark of science is falsification, not verification. The hypothesis: "God exists" is not falsifiable; and, therefore, is not scientifically testable. It is quite true that theists cannot verify the existence of a deity, but this doesn't logically lead to the conclusion a deity doesn't exist. It is true that I have never observed a unicorn, but can I be certain a unicorn doesn't exist? The only way to be certain theism is false is to falsify the hypothesis that God exists. Since you can't do this anymore than a theist can verify the hypothesis God does exist, it is more reasonable to hold agnostic views than it is to hold the views of a confirmed atheist.
The best analysis of this distinction between science and religion can be found in "Rocks of Ages Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life" by Stephen Gould. Gould opines that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria (a magisterium is a domain of authority in teaching). Biology and Chemistry comprise different magisteria, but they overlap producing biochemistry. Because they overlap, one can critique the other and vice versa. Science and religion, since they are non-overlapping magisteria, are different in that one cannot critique the other and vice versa. Gould wrote the book to explain why the creationist attack on science is nonsense. You cannot use scripture (the magisterium of religion) to say anything at all about Darwin's theory of evolution (the magisterium of science). But it is also true that requiring empirical evidence for the existence of God is to use the magisterium of science to critique the magisterium of religion.
Scientists who are confirmed atheists bridle at the notion they can't use the scientific method to "prove" the nonsense of theism. But this reaction only makes me think more strongly that Gould has it right.
Theists make the a priori assumption that God exists, while confirmed atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, opine that the universe is a place of blind, pitiless indifference. But Dawkins is also making an a priori assumption about the universe. Both are really true believers as much as fundamentalist Christians and Muslims are true believers. Shakespeare said it best: "A plague on both your houses."
Boernke,
The logical positivist philosophers such as A.J. Ayer provide support for your and Wittgenstein's argument that "asking a theist to present empirical evidence for the existence of God is asking for the impossible". I have discussed Ayer's argument previously with Siouxrose.
Ayer contends that statements that mention entities such as "souls", "heaven", "purgatory", and "Gods" mention entities that are metaphysical. These entities are metaphysical and cannot be sensed, Thus the statements are not true or false but "nonsense"-in a very literal way. As you stated, since they transcend what can be pictured in thought, one cannot even imagine the kinds of experiences that would verify such entities.
I disagree with your assertion that the statement "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" applies to atheists critiques of theistic belief. While the assertion that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a logically correct statement, history and common experience provide many examples where ultimately, absence of evidence became evidence of absence. When we have no evidence or other reason for believing in an entity, we can be pretty sure that that entity does not exist. Such reasoning would be applicable to your example of a unicorn. You have seen no evidence of unicorns and have no reason to believe in the existence of unicorns. It is therefore reasonable for you to conclude that unicorns do not exist. This is a provisional statement. There is always the possibility that you might see a unicorn at sometime and thus should suspend your disbelief in the existence of unicorns.
We have no evidence for Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, or the Loch Ness Monster, so we do not believe they exist. If we have no evidence or other reason to believe in God, then we can be pretty sure that God does not exist.
Popper asserted that the existence of God cannot be empirically refuted because to do so would require making an existential statement applying to the whole universe (plus whatever lies beyond). Although we cannot refute the existence of a God somewhere outside of the universe, God is supposed to be omnipresent or everywhere. Thus, when we search for God, we should either find him, thus confirming his existence, or not find him, thus refuting his existence.
Despite the eminence of the late great paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and the prestigious US National Academy of Sciences who hold opinions that science and religion represent two non-over lapping magesteria "with science concerning itself with understanding the natural world while religions deals with issues of morality", many scientists and a number of theologians have criticized this view. This view of Gould and the US National Academy of Sciences amounts to a redefinition of religion as moral philosophy. In fact, most religions do more than simple moralizing. They often make basic pronouncements about nature that science is free to evaluate. Science can also consider moral issues which involve observable and sometimes quantifiable human behavior. Sam Harris makes this argument in his latest book titled "The Moral Landscape".
I disagree with your characterization of the position of atheist such as Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris as being as much fundamentalist as those of Christians and Muslims. These "New Atheists" hold strong beliefs but I believe it is incorrect to characterize them as fundamentalist.
Photius:
Arguments by atheists often boil down to: 1) there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God, therefore She doesn't exist (your argument); and 2) since religion has been responsible for tremendous suffering throughout history, it should be rejected (the argument of Harris and others). There are fundamental problems with both arguments. I have already written that, although it is true that theists cannot verify the existence of God, it is also true that atheists cannot falsify the existence of God, hence an agnostic position is more reasonable than either an atheist's or theist's position ("A plague on both your houses."). Harris's position is quite simply a non sequitur: no matter how bad religious people have behaved, this, in itself, tells you nothing about the existence of God.
Arguing that because Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster have never been observed, therefore they probably don't exist can also be used to refute the existence of God (i.e., God, since She has never been observed, also doesn't exist) is an example of Gilbert Ryle's category mistake. Ryle argued that attributing a property to a thing that it cannot possibly have is to make a category mistake (the Supreme Court's decision that money is speech is also a category mistake). Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster, it they exist, are material entities. No theist I know thinks God is a material entity. It is true that the ancient Norse and Roman Gods were similar to the character "Q" on the TV show "Star Trek the Next Generation": an omnipotent and omniscient being with very human characteristics (vengeful, jealous, etc.). But nobody I know believes in those Gods anymore. The physicist Alan Sokal (of "The Sokal Hoax") told me that he is an atheist with respect to the ancient Norse and Roman Gods in the same way he is an atheist with respect to Allah or Yahweh. A friend who is a philosopher and Methodist preacher observed that Sokal is setting up a straw man, because his concept of God is a "Sunday School" concept of God.
The logical positivists (e.g., Ayer) thought philosophy should get out of the business of metaphysics and confine itself to analysis of language. There are two problems with the position of the logical positivists: 1) Quine criticized the logical positivist program in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" (the most influential paper in philosophy in the 20'th century according to one philosopher); and, 2) since (as Wittgenstein wrote) the logical language of science is not available to ethics and esthetics, ethics reduces to emotivism (the view that murder is wrong is simply saying "I disapprove of murder, and you should as well"). Alasdair MacIntyre wrote a book, "After Virtue," rejecting the emotivist view of ethics. These are two very big strikes against logical positivism and the reason logical positivism has lost much of its standing among philosophers today. To me, Wittgenstein got it right when he wrote: “Everything else, everything about which we care, everything that might render the world meaningful, must reside elsewhere.” Questions of the good and beauty are far more important to me than the factual questions I dealt with as a biologist before I retired a few years ago.
There is another problem with the empiricist/logical positivist program in science. Einstein used no empirical evidence in formulating both the special and general theories of relativity (a physicist once said to me that these theories were the product of only his wonderful mind). So, was Einstein doing metaphysics, or was he doing science? The question was rendered moot because subsequent science demonstrated that Einstein was correct. Time dilation has been demonstrated using atomic clocks and an eclipse of the sun in 1919 was used to demonstrate that light is affected by gravity. After the eclipse experiment, a reporter asked Einstein what he would have done had the experiment not confirmed general relativity. Einstein's response: "Then I would have been sorry for the dear God in Heaven. It is true." (It is ironic that Einstein got his Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect--an observable phenomenon--not for his theory of relativity.)
Saying it is reasonable unicorns do not exist, or that you are making a provisional statement (do I detect some backpedaling from your statements to Siouxrose?), is very different from what a true believer would say: it is certain unicorns and/or God does not exist. I don't think you or Dawkins, or Harris or the many scientists I know who are certain God does not exist are fundamentalists. But confirmed theists and confirmed atheists are both true believers.
The fact many scientists and theologians disagree with Gould is what makes me think all the more that Gould has it right (and, more important, it doesn't mean Gould is wrong). When religions make pronouncements about nature they violate NOMA, just as when scientists make pronouncements about the existence of God they also violate NOMA. That is the beauty of NOMA. It also explains why both theists and atheists who are true believers both have problems with NOMA.
To say that moral issues are quantifiable in human behavior is to commit the naturalistic fallacy. Hume first said that an ought cannot be derived from an is (facts and values are fundamentally different). Moore refined this view into his naturalistic fallacy: no matter what is factually true about something, you can still ask the question: "Is it a good thing or a bad thing?" Since Moore was an analytic philosopher, he would say good is not the same thing as any natural property. This precludes science, since it deals with facts about the material universe, from making moral pronouncements.
Let me close with one more quote by Shakespeare: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Sioux Rose:
The basic rule of science is not to deny fellings or emotions, or a God. The basic rule was stated by Bertrand Russell as (this is a paraphrase)::
It is undesirable to believe something for which there is no evidence.
>>Reason and science, without the guidance of heart and soul, are exactly what has led this world to ecocide, and the fruit of its endless labors into elaborate ways to kill.
They deny a "god" in one breath and ridicule those that hold spiritual values and believe in the scared and in the next breath fall to their knees in the worship of "Men of reason and science".
I really see no difference in quoting Jesus Christ and pointing out the truths said sayings might reveal and quoting one Bertrand Russel.
Men of "reason" who can only believe what their own EYES can see and prove to them self are men that worship the self above all others.
I sat across from a "Man of reason" once who sat stuffing a pipe as he drank a beer. He claimed science showed that man and animal no different and that in order for a species to survive and thrive, the weaker and the less intelligent are eliminated. He saw no REASON man should not practice the same and improve its own stock my eliminating the Genetically inferior. He also did not see death camps as "Murder" or "Inhumane" as those were merely vanities of humans. Needless to say he was one of the Superior stock that should survive as the Scientific accomplishments of the German could not be denied. (Quotes and citations of men of Science soon followed all of them of good North European Stock)
I find it so very interesting that these men of "Science and reason" who chortle at "primitive beliefs and superstitions" can claim that Consciousness came about from matter. They know they as the "I" possesses it but can not prove by science that any other has it. It can not be measured. It can not be created in a lab. It just somehow came about . Indeed they can not even properly define what it is.
They claim it arises out of matter but then claim that Matter can not have any effect on it. They claim it arose out of matter and is simply a chemical reaction but dismiss out of hand the notion that any but man can have it.
It IS an arrogance just as "we are gods chosen people" is an arrogance. It is every bit as harmful.
As to the "Tea party" and others that claim themselves "Christian". To be perfectly honest, I do not think they have a spiritual bone in their bodies. They worship the SELF over all else and this in truth is not far divorced then what those men of "reason" do.
it is not THEM going to hell. They are Gods Chosen. THEY should not share their wealth as they deserve it as a reward from their god. Those poor and those hungry and people with skin not THEIR skin color are sinners and not favored by god.
How is that much different then that Atheist German stuffing his pipe and claiming HE the superior being because he was a man of reason and of greater intelligence and morals?
The "man of reason" you describe is an ass. He certainly is not a man of science. Perhaps he is analogous to the so-called Christians who are racists and homophobes, and those who call any attempt to help the poor "Socialism." They don't know anything about religion, just as your man of reason knows nothing about science.
He taught Physics in a University.
Thanks, GW. I am not in the mood to take this DOMINATOR on. Of 41 posts, he took 11... and while he has a definite grip of those facts that reinforce HIS particular paradigm, he cannot see anything outside of it. And that is where the greater truth lies. A warrior who quotes scripture, but doesn't believe in God... and one who needs to DOMINATE the discussion is not one open to any understanding outside of his already walled off, closed mind.
I realize how allegorical this interchange is... a mystic with a sworn to Mars warrior. AS IF we could find common ground.
Men of his ilk repulse me... they are so sure they are right; and they are exactly what has brought this world to the brink of extinction. It's the intellectual insistence that the white Aryan descended-from-Europe male has all the answers. That the voices, views, perspectives, and sentience of any outside that ilk--or those who refuse to lay homage to it in order to gain its acceptance--are irrelevant, and can be therefore cast off as merely superstitious. All these centuries their claims to knowledge and their arrogant hubris has turned the world against the living forces, precisely what is needed for the sustainability of the entire web.
Protius has precisely the kind of arrogance that BEGS for a metaphysical encounter. Will he lose his wits, or grow beyond his own self-professed confinement when the event happens that shakes his paradigm... from the inside out?
Hmm...
Isn't ironic that an article about pray and religion produces the longest comments by posters on Common Dreams and the most back biting? The mirror image rings true. This is truly humankind's down fall. Beliefs of God or no God should be kept in the heart, not blurted out like baby food from an infant.
If you going to make change in the world (if that is what you're really after), don't be like the rest of the world. The Ego of being Right is the weapon of destruction for our planet. Just my opinion.
Many poly-trickal hard-core so-called 'right'-wing GOP FOXes [IE: Gov Perry GW Bush & their ilk] like to wrap themselves in the mantle of the Bible [& the flag] as they rail on & on about the evils of socialism. But the reality is most of them are actually Social Darwinists- I don't care if they say they believe in Creationism or how much they hoop & holler about Jesus [generally that ain't nothing but poly-trickal posturing anyway]. But most so-called political leftists run from the Bible [as well as embrace Darwin's concept of evolution] so they're un-able to neutralize these fake FOX type holy-rollers w the BIBLE [fight fire w fire so to speak]. So here is a few more verses [in addition to the ones stated in this article] that might help:
I am my Brother's Keeper...- The greed for money [power & materialism] is the root of all Evil...- You shall protect & watch out for the fatherless, the widow & the old...-
[And when you harvest your fields- you shall not strip it completely bare- but leave some so that the poor, the needy & the sojourner don't go hungry...]
[The workman is worthy of his pay... {meaning the working class are to be paid a fair & living wage]
[And they {the Apostles} were not fixated on there own personal stuff - but rather shared all things in common - according to their needs...]
[And the Lord said: I was hungry but you refused to feed me..., I was homeless & out in the street but you refused to give me shelter..., I was sick but you denied me medical care..., I was unjustly imprisoned &/or treated unjustly in prison because you denied me justice... Verily I say... since you haven't looked out for the welfare of the least of [my people], then you have neglected & abused ME... And those who do so shall face condemnation...]
[And a rich-man came to Yeshua [aka: Jesus] saying- I believe in your teachings & I'm ready to get w what you're talking about. So Yeshua responded- That's Great - but I've got just one more thing to ask of you - Take all that excessive material stuff that you possess [but don't really need or even use] & give it to the poor & needy - who have far more need of it than you. And the rich-man left from him rather upset because he was very rich. Then Yeshua said to his apostles- It is easier for a camel to go thru the Needle's Eye than for the rich to get into the Kingdom that I'm talking about- {So what the heck did he mean by that- its impossible for a camel to go thru a sewing needle's eye - That seems like an utterly ridiculous statement}- EXCEPT- Old Jerusalem was a walled city w several main gates. But it also had a smaller passage way(s) which only 1 or 2 men could pass thru simultaneously- called Needle Eyes. So when traders w goods came to the city w only 1 or 2 camel loads instead of a whole caravan - instead of opening one of the main gates {especially at night or during conflict} they stripped the camel down {naked so to speak} of all that stuff it was carrying & made it hunch down on its belly so it could crawl thru this narrow opening(s) called the Needle Eye(s)... -SO- Most rich folks aren't going to be willing to share their wealth w nor see & treat ordinary folk as their equals - Now do you see his point...]
Now people often refer to these scriptures as a call to so-called 'Christian' charity - But- One could conclude they are a demand for a type of Socialist Society - except that the modern {Euro} concept of Socialism has removed the Spiritual [IE: Biblical] essence from that ideology. So faux holy-rollers FOX Noise types get to say so-called socialism = communism which is supposedly godless- Except - what they are pushing is Social Darwinism [disguised as so-called Free Market Capitalism, Disaster Capitalism, Neo-Liberal Global Free Trade, etc] which is just as godless [IE: cut-throat / dog-eat-dog]- if not more so. But because most so-called leftists avoid publicly talking about concepts of Faith - even to defend their own political positions - they lose in this arena by default... Rather They spend too much time {pseudo}intellectualizing against concepts of Spiritual-Truth or publicly lambasting People of Faith [because too many so-called 'liberal-leftists intellectuals hold a kind of intellectual contempt for the God-given Mother-Wit {common-sense} of most common folk]- But most people aren't that kind of faux intellectual.
I think Rev Dr ML King, Haitian Pres Aristide, & Arch Bishop Romero called it Liberation{for the masses}Theology.
Wonderful response, SiouxRose! Thank you!
Sioux Rose: " Just because Bertrand Russell didn't believe in a Creative Force doesn't make it so ". True. I would add that just because Einstein believed in a Creative Force doesn't make it so either. According to many Eastern religions, a Deity, A Creative Force, Brahma or whatever one calls it, cannot be understood through the intellect, because they claim that Spirit can only be understood individually through epiphany and only by very evolved souls, i.e. Budda,Krishna, Jesus, St. Francis and other Saints and prophets. To quote Jesus: " seeing they see not; hearing they hear not; neither do they understand ". Paul
I have 2 RELIGIOUS words for you
INQUISITION
CRUSADES
The Old Testament is a primitive book for primitive people and The Sermon on the Mount is a good blueprint for humanity. But to suggest that all people are born evil and need to "get religion" in order to attain heaven is ridiculous. Especially when your own Jesus, when asked where heaven was said, "Heaven is upon us". It can be here and now. It's up to us. He was always praying for his "Kingdom on earth".
I personally maintain that all babies are born pure and good. That Sodom and Gomorrah and Walls of Jericho shit where God kills every man woman and child and beast of burden - that's the god you worship? That's how your fashioning your life? You think that's humane?
INQUISITION
CRUSADES
If you believe it is either religion or science then perhaps you should read the book, "God is Not Dead" by Amitt Goswami. He uses quantum physics to prove the existence of God.
Amitt Goswami is a sophist solipsist.. He and physicists such as Fritjof Capra and New Age Guru charlatans such as Deepak Chopra have misused quantum physics to support the assertion of the existence of quantum spirituality. The charlatan Maharishi Mahesh Yogi of transcendental meditation fame was also a physicist.
New Age quantum spiritualists contend that consciousness tunes into a field of energy that pervades the universe. They also contend that our conscious minds are able to control reality. With the right thoughts, we can heal ourselves and delay aging. They assert that uncertainty, the probabilistic nature of the quantum physics, and particle wave duality are evidence for God.
Physicists Victor J. Stenger destroys what Nobel Prize winning physicist Murray Gell-Mann referred to as the "quantum flapdoodle" that is espoused by New Age Gurus like Amitt Goswami in his two books titled "Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness", and "God the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist".
So every creative mind that doesn't agree with you, or reinforce your materialistic worldview is a charlatan? What a bloated bag of hot air you are... and you evidently have no life outside the keyboard, sitting on this thread day in and out as if you were the final arbiter of truth. I wonder if you have any blood on your hands, warrior? Your closed heart and resistance to anything spiritual suggests you've got some serious ROT going on... and it's vigorously covered up via the veneer of a ready intellect with endless "facts" on hand, items intent on discrediting the far more broad experiences others have miraculously encountered. Not real to you because you want the majesty to conform to YOUR terms and metrics. So, you're not invited to the party...
And boy are you judgmental! "God: The Failed Hypthesis..." the title alone is grotesque! Imagine the sort of mind that looks out upon the vastness of the manifest Creation, and thinks IT alone can answer for the endless mysteries and marvels it beholds.
Wow. I am so glad that I see beyond this infantile conjecture. From the spiritually advanced perspective, these hypotheses are no better than infants playing with their own doo doo. "Only this I might believe in. Only this is real! I think I'll work on sculpting it like clay. I see that nothing else exists."
Sure.
Siouxrose,
You are extremely insecure. It is a rarity in this forum that you and I have an exchange in which you do not resort to ad hominem attacks against me because I have views on spirituality, mysticism,religion, and politics which may diverge from those of yours. You need to learn to make a distinction between an attack upon your and other's spiritual and religious beliefs and an attack upon your person. There is a clear distinction. My attack has been against certain beliefs that you hold and not upon you.
You demonstrate your hypocrisy in not emulating the virtues of wisdom, compassion, and temperance that you frequently espouse. It is you who sets yourself up as the final arbiter of truth on all things in this forum related to religion and spirituality. When you cannot defend the merits of your argument you go off on a tangent and resort to straw man arguments, misrepresent your opponents thought, or launch into ad hominem attacks.
If it gives you any sense of satisfaction, I will admit to you that I have blood on my hands. That in itself has no bearing on any of my arguments against religion and spirituality. I have no desire to know whether you have blood on your hands. It has no bearing on the merit of your arguments or my opposition to some of your arguments.
You again make an ignorant, insensitive and presumptions statement that I "evidently have no life outside the keyboard, sitting on this thread day in and out as if I were the final arbiter of truth." I enjoy an extremely rewarding life. I happen to now be on sabbatical. My mother died three weeks ago and I am in the process of handling matters related to her estate.
I have closed my heart to nothing. I am an evidentialist. I require that I see evidence of the spiritual before I suspend disbelief in things supernatural and spiritual. It has nothing to do with my having any "serious ROT going on.."
My resistance to belief in things supernatural and spiritual is not "vigorously covered up via the veneer of a ready intellect with endless "facts" on hand, items intent on discrediting the far more broad experiences others have miraculously encountered." I have a ready intellect with "endless facts on hand" because I am not intellectually lazy. It would be extremely arrogant on my part to criticize religion, mysticism, and spirituality in the absence of any knowledge on these subjects.
I have studied mysticism, spirituality, the Abrahamic religions and the major Eastern traditions, particularly Mahayana Buddhism. I have found these practices, religions and philosophies to be devoid of evidence that would support metaphysical claims that they assert. They are not real to me simply because in your words "they do not conform to my terms and metrics." They are unreal to me because I see no empirical reproducible evidence to support claims that they make on the nature of objective reality.
Your assertion that others have encountered broad miraculous experiences is again no evidence for the claims that religionists and spiritualists make.
It would serve you sometimes in your arguments if you actually were a bit more knowledgeable of the history of science, the history of the major religions and Eastern traditions, and the religious texts that you often comment upon in this forum. You clearly demonstrate that your knowledge base in many of these areas is quite limited.
You again demonstrate the shallow narrow mindedness that you frequently accuse me of by criticizing the work of Victor J. Stenger simply based upon its title when you have not read the work and have no knowledge of the merits of his arguments. I do not have preconceived notions on the merits of the works of authors that I have not read. The book of Amit Goswami that another thread participant commented on is a book that I own and have read. I therefore am in a position to express an opinion on what I found to be shortcomings of the work.
People like Yogi and Chopra are in my view charlatans because they made claims in the absence of evidence and bilked gullible adherents of their writings and teachings of millions of dollars. Yogi was also guilty of sexual improprieties with some of his female followers and financial improprieties. The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament both preach that you can know false prophets by their works.
Earlier in this thread you commented on the contributions that I have made in this thread. My intent is not to dominate the thread. The subject matter is of interest to me and I make contributions that I think may have worth. Like anyone else in this forum, you can exercise your right to not read or comment upon any contribution that I make to this forum.
Chopra disappeared from the public eye for a few years in the mid 1990's because of a scandal involving his tryst with a prostitute. She claimed Chopra was not the kind charmer that his public image portrayed. She had a credit card of his,just to verify her accounting of the incident. It was hushed up in short order, an out of court settlement without disclosing the terms. Chopra laid low for a few years, eventually re-emerging to pick up where he had left off. Swami Rama wrote some interesting books, easily comprehended. As with many Swami's he became enamored with western women until his death which may have been from aids for all anyone knows. He established the Himalayan Institute. his notoriety resulted from a study in which he participated. Swami could control his involuntary nervous system, thought to be impossible by western physicians until the study, conducted by the Mayo clinic I believe. Anyway he's a bit more believable than Chopra who really just recites his happy talk, psychobabble optimism without the sociopath-psychopathology that the pretend christians use in conjunction with their happy talk psychobabble give me money optimism.
I hope we don't have to pay for this war between Photius and Siouxrose too! It will push our economy over the brink. The stench of Egos clashing on this page is ugly and horrible. Use Napalm and Nukes already! Or smile and let it go. Don't we have bigger fish to fry with our energies?
Sad as it is, it is easier said than done to push for peace. To defeat authoritarianism is to not emulate it. To win the peace, it's not enough to be "anti-war". You have to be pro-peace and practice it. Verbal wars can be just as damaging as physical wars if not worse. Some of us try to keep it peaceful while others keep itching for more war with or without realizing it. True, we have bigger fish to fry and our energies should be directed towards just that. Rick Perry, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, etc... can only be blushing if they're reading all this.
Photius,
I'm absolutely, truly not going to get into this because I just don't have the time. It is a subject I know a little about. I don't know Amitt Goswami, so you may be right for all I know. Capra is a little too soft-minded for me; Chopra I don't read because from what I have heard of him. There is much more thought to spirituality and physics than you indicate in this post. It stems from Bohm and implicate orders and analysis of consciousness and nature in systems theory, not to mention quantum physics, of course. Also, the seemingly paradoxical nature of the subject/object categories on the most basic particle level *does* have spiritual implications (it has implications about everything). Only the most radical dualism would deny it and is, in fact, being slowly dragged to another level of understanding.
I have a very brilliant friend who is a physicist and was raised in a Hindu tradition. She is devoting her life to taking physics to another level of consciousness. (She is spending much of her time time on fractals, now. I keep saying what about...various other things, but she is adamant that she has to tackle fractals at this point.) I hope we all hear from her someday.
I want a cup of tea from that teapot.
It must be out of this world!
Sheepherder...you simply must meet Indy, my Border Collie friend:-)
On a serious note...I'm surprized that Perry spilled a tear for anyone. He most certainly didn't have the time to review the new forensics that proved the investigation into Todd WIlingham's arson/murder of his own daughters was faulty and in fact was "too busy" to even review the new evidence prior to Willinham's execution. He was innocent, suffered the loss of his two daughters, and the state comes marching in and murders him. Out of compassion of course.
Rick Perry, is quite frankly the evil he pretends to oppose. As are the rest of the nazi (republican) party. May he be the next recipient of Mother Earth when she decides to pass a little methane for the "awl" industry.
"Don’t make a show of prayer "
Man, have I been waiting for someone other then me to bring THIS one up. For the life of me, I don't understand how those who claim to have read and to follow the Bible IGNORE this one. How do they NOT see Pat Robertson and his hypocrisy circus as being a complete slap in the face to their religion? Or Schuller, who ignores Christ's own words about being wealthy to proclaim that God WANTS you to be rich, and if you're not, it's because you aren't worthy. Or the now thankfully dead Falwell, who along with Robertson, blamed Katrina on the gays. That kind of seems to fall into points two and three, doesn't it?
ANYONE who gets on TV and prays is a hypocrite. That is not MY call, it's from the book itself. And the fact that immediately afterward they beg for money should be a dead give away. They are NOT about faith, they are about money and power. Robertson owns diamond mines. Do you think Christ would approve of THAT? I would say not, if the Bible is any indication anymore of what he really said.
WJM: I've made this assertion at least twice before in this forum, and to my knowledge, no one responded. Maybe three's a charm? I believe that Pat Robertson, given his political ambitions, and deft use of the church flock to further a very narrow-minded political agenda, was a CIA plant.
Harper's Magazine did a story some time ago relating how the CIA funded authors and artists willing to weave anti-communist messages into their mediums. I also noticed that the film "True Lies" used Arabs as terrorists before 911 took place. IF the event was an inside job, then there's nothing like getting a prejudice in place to use as needed, in mustering fury towards an enemy to be established later.
Given the infiltration of Green groups, and the arts, why would religion be exempt? I mean where else is so fundamentalist a following a virtual guarantee? It was HARDLY a coincidence that the faith-based voted for Bush. Taught to focus primarily on the issue of abortion, as the full scope of the matter constituting "right to life," the problem of militarism and all those unfortunates cast to the winds of collateral damage could be placed aside. Why not a charismatic church leader to ease the pack towards war, and all the savages of the typical authoritarian (inverted totalitarian) state?
As its co-star, the media meanwhile pushed the YOY message, which found its "spiritual" counterpart in the new and improved, mass media approved version of Calvinism. Corporate capitalism without conscience goes so much more smoothly when everyone on the receiving end of its more than fiscal carnage is taught to believe they deserve to be where they are. Furthermore, if it's all (and only) about the individual proving his fealty by how effectively he can pull himself up by the proverbial boot-straps, then why should any humane organizations exist to fund or further the needs of the needy?
These influences help explain why a country imbued with such religiosity is so far behind the curve (compared to Europe) in the care of its own citizens. These forces wedded together created an ideological marriage between Mammon (the love of $) and Mars (war, along with the ubiquitous MIC), the most unholy of unions if ever there was one. And alas, the fruit of this alliance... its foul progeny is everywhere in sight.
If Jesus even existed, we don't know how much of what is attributed to him in the New Testament he actually said. The Canonical Gospels are pious fictions and frauds that were not written by eyewitnesses. They were not written as historical documents. They were written as propaganda to promote the theological agenda of their authors.
The Jesus Seminar, a group of distinguished New Testament scholars, examined the authenticity of the sayings in the New Testament that have been attributed to Jesus. The Jesus Seminar concluded that only 20% of Jesus' statements reported in the Canonical Gospels are likely to have been spoken by him.
I agree with everything that you wrote about the various huckster televangelists. You failed to mention their cohorts such as T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyers, Paula White, Crefalo Dollar, Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn, Joel Olsteen, Kenny Copeland, Jack Van Impe, etc.
Christopher Hitchens said the following of Jerry Falwell on his death:
"He was so full of shit that if you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox."
The same could be said for all of the televangelists charlatans.
Reverend Falwell is well fallen. In his next incarnation he will commit suicide in despair, after being turned away from a job as a lavatory touch-up boy in a gay bar.
Since Pastor Rigby brings up the parable of the Good Samaritan I would like to add something I heard a Rabbi talk about. There are really two parts to this story, the first that most people grasp is the act of compassion of one person reaching out to another annonymously and without seeking approval or thanks. An important enough lesson. But the second part of the story is one you will NOT hear much about especially from the so-called 'Christian' Right. In the parable the Samaritan takes the injued man to an Inn, bathes his wounds and then pays the Inn keeper for the man's care. Should the man need more or if more money is due the Samaritan will be back to pay the account. So...health care is provided just because someone needs it, the one who can afford to pay does so just because it is the right thing to do, there is no hint of repayment and total cost is not an issue. No hint that the injured man may in some way have brought the attack by 'bandits' on himself....the Samaritan does not ask any questions especially any related to the man's ability or otherwise to care for himself. No blaming the victim! A remarkable lesson for those who say one should be responsible for their own care and pay for it themselves etc etc. So I suppose Perry's 'prayerfest' will involve much preaching but no acts of mercy or charity in spite of what Jesus demanded. Nowhere in any of the 'healing parables' does Jesus ask for anything in return for His help.
Interesting observation marlborough. Additional scripture that Pastor Rigby failed to mention, and that the Pontifex Maximus of Texas Governor Rick Perry is not likely to mention at his 'prayerfest' that is consistent with your supposition that "Perry's 'prayerfest' will involve much preaching but no acts of mercy or charity in spite of what Jesus demanded, are James 2:24, and James 2:26.
"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James 2:24
"For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26
And if you type in 'saved by works or faith' into google you'll be able to find verses of the book of cut and paste that imply the opposite. That you're saved by faith alone is what they'll argue, and it's not just because they're the sort who'd be shooting the poor for sport if they thought they could...
Aaronica,
I don't disagree with you. When you examine the New Testament you can find passages to suggest that justification is by faith alone and not by works.
I believe that the most important passages in the New Testament attributed to Jesus that support that justification occurs by a combination of faith and works is Matthew 25:31-46 when Jesus speaks on the coming of the Son of Man. Jesus says that the Son of Man will gather before him all nations as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. Those who fed the hungry, gave water to the thirsty, took in the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and visited the imprisoned will inherit the kingdom prepared for them from the foundation of the world and have everlasting life. Those who did not perform these works shall go away into everlasting punishment.
" And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites for they love to pray in public places and be seen by others". Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson and too many others to name, are nothing but Bible thumping, hypocrites that use their church insanity to further their nefarious and ignorant goals. They are the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees that Jesus was calling hypocrites in the quote above. They love to parade their church insanity to dupe their ignorant acolytes. They never, never condemn America's egregious wars and the murders of thousands and thousands of innocent men, women and children because they have no conscience and know it will hurt their political ambitions, even though one of their main commandments is: THOU SHALT NOT KILL!
Paul Revere,
Governor Rick Perry, the Pontifex Maximus of Texas, has also signed death warrants that have resulted in the execution of numerous Texas death row inmates on his watch. Some of these men may have in fact been innocent.
The Gospel saying of Jesus that you quoted is one of the sayings of Jesus that the Jesus Seminar felt was likely to be inauthentic. The Pharisees were conservative clerics that in fact during the 1st century C.E were highly respected among the Jewish people for their piety. There is very little in Jesus' thought that is inconsistent with Pharisaic thought. Many Christian and Jewish scholars have in fact posited that Jesus, if he existed, may have in fact been a Pharisee.
The Canonical Gospels were written decades after the events that they record were supposed to have occurred. The authors of the Canonical Gospels are writing back in to the time that Jesus was believed to have lived the actual present day conflicts that they were experiencing with Jews.
Remember that all of the Canonical Gospels were written after the first Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruction of the Second Temple at Jerusalem. Christianity was becoming more of a Gentile movement rather than a Jewish movement. These Jewish Christians were in conflict with other Jews as Jews were struggling for their survival after their defeat at the hands of the Romans. Jewish Christians were becoming increasingly marginalized within their communities. Many Jewish Christians were expelled from the synagogues. This is the tension that was present at the time of the writing of the Canonical Gospels that is written back into the time of Jesus and reflected as the tension between Jesus and the Pharisees.
The commandment is actually not "Thou shall not kill". This is a transliteration of the Hebrew. In Hebrew the commandment is "Thou shall not murder". Remember that in the Torah execution is permissible for a number of offenses. That is why many Christians are able to reconcile state sponsored murder, with the commandment to not commit murder.
Paul Revere: I see it the way you do.
Marlborough: Excellent post.
The earthquake and tsunami did not happen because the Emperor had sex with the Sun Goddess. The disaster happened because he didn't satisfy the Sun Goddess. But seriously, one culture's imaginary friend does not trump another's. Rick Perry's deity/sub-deity combo is no better or worse than that of the House of Saud, Montezuma, or Shaka Zulu. The ancient Greeks didn't really take their pantheon seriously; when the Romans, who were superstitious to a fault, appropriated the Greek pantheon, that collection of deities, sub-deities, and all the various lackeys thereof, was made concrete via the Roman's preexisting mindset. These superstitions were readily employed once the Christians (Catholics until Martin Luther did his thing) filled the power gap after the Empire fell. When the American Empire falls, Rick Perry and those of his ilk will be ready to make the same move. Wow - Joel Osteen as Secretary of the Treasury!!
The forces of this universe in their entirety are as a speck of dust on an open hand compared to the Power Of Love in eternal act. Love is the power and the way. There is no other way.
Thanks Mr. Rigby, excellent article. I truly believe the fundies and right-wingers can only be made to see the error of their ways from the inside by enlightened Christians like yourself. That said, why don't you yourself listen to the "unwritten" maxim which would never make it into any bible..."put no faith in any single book that claims to be in my name". I can't imagine a god so magnificent being also so trivial as to want us lil specks of dust to care about this book or that. If we're all her children, why in the world would she favor any book, or prophet for that matter? How about do all the good things you do without the overhead of organized religion?
You raise for me what is a very important issue reagarding 'The Book'. I have come to believe that to a greater or lesser extent many people seem to 'worship' the Bible and to use it as a weapon to be hurled at those with whom they disagree. The Bible is not 'wrong', the Bible says this and that so THERE! They hurl Bible verses about like a child throws stones at a tin can hoping to knock it off a fence. This debases the Bible...we aren't supposed to 'use/abuse' the Bible in this way otherwise we use the Bible to justify what we do...hence it is used to justify anything we want from slavery, capital punishment and the subjugation of women to not eating shrimp! The Bible is more than that, as is the Koran, and other 'religious' works. The Almighty has not stopped 'revelation 'thus the more we have come to understand the spitituality of Native Americans, Eastern religions and philosophies for example the more we can understand the realtionship we have with the divine, each other and the earth and that each is is of equal importance.
I agree, Marlborough. Some folks worship the bible as though it were God. But I guess they must not actually be reading it. If they did, they would realized they are violating the number one sin in the top ten sin list, Idolatry.
Leland Mellott,
Paul echos your sentiments in one of the most beautiful chapters in the New Testament, 1st Corinthians Chapter 13. In many English translations of 1st Corinthians Chapter 13 the word "love" is replaced with the word "charity".
1st Corinthians Chapter 13 is recited at many weddings.
1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing.
4Love suffereth long, and is kind; love envieth not; love vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.