A Reason To Believe
Probably no one has coined as many memorable phrases about belief than GK Chesterton. His key insight was to observe that “human nature simply cannot subsist without a hope and aim of some kind”. Hope is like a drug which humanity can’t survive without. Therefore hope — and the faith that it will be fulfilled – is “as dangerous as fire.” The wisest treat it with caution because it can be twisted into a noose around their necks; but the most careless of humanity imagine themselves above it and fall into it more completely than those who see it from what it is. Chesterton wrote that “the modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that they are dogmas. It may be said even that the modern world, as a corporate body, holds certain dogmas so strongly that it does not know that they are dogmas.”
The history of secularization can be understood not as a replacement of belief by reason, but an exchange of one belief for another. The traditional monotheisms were hustled out of the way so that they could sell Lenin in the place left vacant by Jesus. Perhaps no other century has seen more god-men than the 20th. Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Saparmurat Niyazov, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il-Sung, Ayatollah Khomeini, Sukarno, and Kim Jong-Il promoted a cult of personality. And there’s a reason for that. The dictators could only sell the box of matches with their likeness on the cover if they could darken the sun of faith. “During the peak of their regimes, these leaders were presented as god-like and infallible. Their portraits were hung in homes and public buildings, with artists and poets legally required to produce only works that glorified the leader.” Maybe Chesterton was right when he predicted that “the first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything.”
But that hardly solves the problem. Caught between the need to believe and the danger of believing, what’s a society to do? For starters, it should be careful.
The most fascinating thing about cults in America, Western Europe and Japan is how ridiculous the objects of their veneration were. In 1973 a convict named Donald Defreeze, having failed to impress his fellow black prisoners, realized that the more educated the dupes, the better. Cons were allergic to cons. So he did the smart thing, went to Berkeley and he introduced himself as Field Marshal “Cinque” to the white middle class. His prospects improved immediately and DeFreeze proceeded to start the Symbionese Liberation Army, convert Patty Hearst and raise hopes for one tantalizing moment that he was going to lead the Revolution. If gunplay wasn’t your style, James Edward Baker who was the owner of a Sunset Strip health food restaurant before he renamed himself “Father Yod” or “Ya Ho Wa 13″ could offer you membership in the Source Family. He led this quintessential cult until he died after stepping off a 1,300 foot cliff in a hanglider he had not learned to fly.
If you were tired of mainline churches, there was David “Mo” Berg of the Children of God whose female followers used sex to attract new adherents into his fold. His conversion rate was said to approach 100%, proof if any were needed, that if there is something more attractive than faith it is faith plus sex. But he was small potatoes besides Jim Jones, the founder of the People’s Temple, who threw socialism and politics into the mix. Jones convinced his followers to establish a “socialist paradise” in the middle of a South American jungle where he persuaded 913 people to drink poisoned Kool-Aid served out of galvanized iron buckets. It was the greatest single loss of civilian American life until September 11. For style, no one could surpass Charles Manson. Manson was the apocalypse, plus murder, plus music all rolled into one. All he left out were the flying saucers. Facile and evil, Manson recruited a coterie of followers called the Family. Hunkered down in a California ranch against the outbreak of Helter-Skelter, a race war he predicted would be triggered by the denial of white women to black men, Manson sent his killers out to Hollywood to butcher his enemies in cinematic horror style.
Nor were the Europeans, even after their experience with Hitler and Stalin, totally immune from the attractions of the dark flame. There was Raelism, founded by a French race car driver, which is described as “the largest UFO religion in the world”. And even in Japan, where you would think the directions up and down were well known, some persons turned to venerating Shoko Asahara. Asahara would impress his devotees by supposedly levitating, a feat apparently achieved by twitching his buttocks and farting, a process reminiscent of the half-propeller, half-jet aircraft drive of the 1950s. Ashara ordered a nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995. People too sophisticated to believe in Jesus may have no trouble believing in Xenu — or Gaia.
So why do smart people believe in dumb things? The author Scott Peck claimed that intelligence was no defense against foolishness, especially where belief was concerned. The intelligent were perhaps even more vulnerable than the simple precisely because they believed themselves to be immune when in fact they were not. All a cult leader had to do was flash his neon sign in the middle of a spiritual night and the vainglorious moths would come in their thousands, beating their wings against the electrified screen. If you built it, they would come. And whether the goals of the belief joint were Helter-Skelter, alien abduction or the Workers Paradise, these temples of the night would do a land-office business and all be built in the same way. All of them would have:
1. A charismatic leader demanding total authority at their center. From him would radiate authority through an elect group of followers. This is inevitable since power does not spring from the institution, but rather from the personal divinity of the god at its center.
2. Controlling techniques harnessing shame, guilt and peer pressure to bring dissidents to heel. Within a cult are only hymns of praise and condemnations of the wicked. Deviation from dogma would be treated as a moral failing; sin or blasphemy against a sacred leader and his goals.
3. Self-isolation from the world. Cults constitute little universes unto themselves; closed hermetic societies, where the “us” faces out against the “them”.
4. Extremist or fanatical behavior. In a cult excess is normal. Activity is frenzied, every emotion is at the highest pitch. People act as if possessed because time is short. The long awaited moment is at hand.
5. Secrecy and deception. Routine documents are concealed. Inquiries are treated with suspicion. Associations, personal histories, financial records, decisions — all go behind a firewall. Nothing is transparent.
But even here, I think, Chesterton points the way. The key defense against fanaticism is to open our eyes to the “wild and wasted” virtues of the world. It is to laugh, not in the cynical and cruel way of what passes for modern comedy, but with the clean humor of a child. It is to accept the sacredness of the ordinary; to credit the possibility that ordinary moms and dads can be wiser than a political leader who is “a sort of god”.
The only lasting defense against the seductions of slavery is the conviction that you are not a slave; that at some fundamental level each person, however poorly educated, can know something of the truth without an interpreter; that you can walk into any congregation and yet the Small Still Voice you hear will not be your pastor’s. The neon signs are fine, but you don’t have to go there. And if they see far, then even the moths in the dark valley can flutter past the garish neon, and with their hearts beating turn up their eyes to stars beyond the reach of their wings and start to fly.
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt






And they are only half as eloquent as you, Wretchard. I’m thankful you choose to use your powers for good.
Happy Easter
Nicely put, Wretchard. It strikes me Obama and his crew have gone Manson one better: they have realized that an out-and-out cult would be unacceptable to a majority of Americans while a demi-cult would work. So he doesn’t promise the tides will move when he’s elected — oops! He did. Strike that analogy. Well at least he doesn’t pass gas and claim to levitate. Otherwise, his promises are only a little less ludicrous than those of many cult leaders, but at least only a few of his followers claim partial divinity.
The question then becomes, how to convince your average young voter (the cohort that seemed to tip the election his way) to look beyond his neon to the stars? The tea party movement has captured the vision of many seniors, but there’s no similar movement among college-age voters and minorities. Whoever steps into Karl Rove’s shoes needs to figure out the answer to that question.
P.S. — There are lots of cult leaders who could have made your list (Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire, for example), but the one who really should have is Fidel Castro.
F
“So why do smart people believe in dumb things?”
Maybe that’s the wrong way to frame the issue. What we need is a different definition of “smart.” Smart people are not necessarily those with extensive schooling, a talent for articulate expression, or possession of vast and diverse stores of knowledge.
You forgot one: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”
A little more pithy, but apropos.
Chesterton is well worth reading, even if you don’t subscribe to his orthodox Catholicism.
It is to accept the sacredness of the ordinary; to credit the possibility that ordinary moms and dads can be wiser than a political leader who is “a sort of god”.
And yet that seems to be the hardest thing in the world for many people to do because they want so badly to believe that they themselves transcend the ordinary. Common sense is scorned precisely because it is “common.” Believing in a strange political or cult leader or in outlandish conspiracy theories only serves to confirm the self-flattering belief that one has insight and sensitivity far beyond what the stupid masses are capable of understanding. And, in the West, at least, this contempt for the mundane has been reinforced for centuries by bohemian writers and artists, with their contempt for middle class manners and mores. Unfortunately, 21st century artists have run out of ways to epater la bourgeoisie; what can you possibly do to shock the middle classes when triple X movies are easily available to anybody with a cable hookup and the term “teabagging” is bandied about by snickering TV anchors?
I have met atheists who, of course, lump in belief in Jesus with belief in Jim Jones and Raelism. It’s all the same, they airily insist, all nonsense. Well, no. Leaving aside the substance of the beliefs, an essential question about a “community of believers” is: can you leave? Easy enough to walk away from the church or synagogue and take up another faith, or no faith. Not so easy when you’re in the jungle in Guyana with Jim Jones and you have a sudden revelation that he’s completely full of it.
Asahara would impress his devotees by supposedly levitating, a feat apparently achieved by twitching his buttocks and farting, a process reminiscent of the half-propeller, half-jet aircraft drive of the 1950s.
Every 12 year old boy in the world would love to know how to do this. An all bean and cabbage diet, I suppose.
A Happy Easter or Passover to all here. (If you don’t celebrate either holiday, well, have a good weekend then!)
Pithier is more pithy.
Great post, Mr. Fernandez. True Christian faith is not contained in cloisters and locked behind closed doors to only be unraveled by the initiated. It is so simple a child can understand it, so lovely it’s light diminishes the pretensions of worldly kings and philosophies. It is filled with laughter and “joy unspeakable and full of glory”. It is so valuable that a man “will sell all that he has to possess it”.Jesus’s call is not to hide from the terrors of the world and try to hold on to the end, but it is a call to like Paul and the early church “turn the world upside down” with glorious truth and love.
It is interesting you mention Manson and Cinque in your list of petty gods. I lived in Venice, California after getting out of the service and saw many young people like the Manson girls, the daughters of middle America turned into psychedelic loonies as they rejected their parents’ conventionalism and broke on through to the other side.
The case of Donald DeFreeze was kind of a “there but for the grace of God” moment for me. Defreeze recruited two disaffected Viet Nam vets named Ramiro and Little to murder the school superintendent of Oakland for some insane grievance. I think Dosteovsky’s statement, “God is dead, everything is permitted” characterized much of the mindset at that time. At the same time many of that lost hippie generation turned to Christ as they saw the radical power of authentic New Testament Christianity.
I have been a follower of Christ for 32 years now and am a happy , satisfied man. While I shudder at the damage that left is doing to our land , I believe “with God all things are possible” We can be renewed. The Soviets kept Lenin’s body on display doused in formeldehyde for decades while the inhabitant of that earthen vessel no doubt saw a worse Hell than the one he created in Russia. Meanwhile, for two milleniums, the risen Christ has been performing a genuine revolution in the hearts of all who will believe.Happy Easter!
A problem is guys like Chesterton and CS Lewis are so rare it’s alarming. Very few charasmatic, popular religious intellectuals who posses wisdom come around. Being a self-promoting shyster seems to be too much of a temptation.
And, when one does come around the leftists have the long knives at the ready. Here the Roman Catholic Church has strung together a couple historic popes, two very great and wise men, in John Paul II and Benedict, and look what’s happened. They become unhinged. Moscow actually shot John Paul and look at the circus they’re currently running now against Benedict. To be accepted as a religious leader you’ve got either to be demonstrably kooky or one committed to applying “transformative change” towards your given institution (i.e., undermining traditions). Those who might bend the other way are marked men.
Hooray, we have comments!
Shucks, just when I’m about to leave the house. Saturday errands and spring photography. Gotta take advantage of the sunshine!
Thanks for the Easter post, Richard. Back later.
bogie wheel
Hey wretchard, don’t forget Heaven’s Gate and Marshall Applewhite, the UFO cult that drank the kool-aid.
I’ve had a cascade of experiences over the past fifteen years or so, all in the direction you indicate here. People You Would Expect To Know Better. Rather than recite them, let me maunder through my conclusions. What it comes down to is there are very few people who can really deal with complex intellectual or scientific issues. Very, very few. Quite possibly nobody at all. 80%, 90%, 99% basically pretend, and are lucky to trip over a nut now and then, almost in spite of themselves. And this, we call life. Real progress, political, religious, or scientific, is mainly a matter of sticking with what works.
Insofar as this is true, what is really dangerous is faith, faith that you are right, because the odds are 80%, 90%, 99% that you are wrong. Perhaps you are most wrong where you depart from current positions – which are wrong, too, in an absolute sense, but are the devil we know, and things are probably worse in 80%, 90%, or 99% of all possible directions. So the real sin is – taking yourself all that seriously, and especially in bulling over the opposition because you know you are right. Back in the day, it was right up there with The Golden Rule, that you were NOT allowed to use any means to get to a good end, this was not only crude and boorish, but Wrong. Our president does not believe this, the Democratic leaders do not believe this, the MSM does not believe this, and I believe the public at large no longer believes this, either. It is not preached any more. The Communists had long held the opposite position, that they could do violence, if it lead to the Workers Paradise. Rousseau told us the people can do no wrong. Well, he was wrong, but that should be no surprise.
uh-oh, here come the avatars!
The question then becomes, how to convince your average young voter (the cohort that seemed to tip the election his way) to look beyond his neon to the stars? The tea party movement has captured the vision of many seniors, but there’s no similar movement among college-age voters and minorities. Whoever steps into Karl Rove’s shoes needs to figure out the answer to that question.
I have a 23 year old nephew who fashions himself an idealistic leftist, and pretty much fits the profile if you will of the type individual I think you’re referring to. He found a good job about two years ago that payed him (at the time) above his skill or education level. He’s since taken to the job, been promoted and is making even more money.
Long story short, my hope is that since I’m certain he’s gotten used to having a lot of extra cash in his pocket being young, single and back living with his parents, (Yeah, I know) when the tax-cuts expire along with the multitude of new taxes and fees he’s likely to have to pay, maybe he’ll wake up. He probably gets hit pretty hard right now based on his bracket and lack of dependents but he “hasn’t seen nothin’ yet.”
Then again, my brother and sister in law can now carry him on there insurance for another 3 years, right?
Nevermind. Ugh. Obama has us chasing our tails.
Obviously I don’t post often but Happy Easter to wretchard and everyone at BC. The commentary here is second to none and I spend far more time than I should trying to keep up with the comments.
elsewhere on PJM we see a related topic:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/sophisticated-incompetence-britains-new-national-characteristic/
trying out this here reply feature, even to meself …
ps – how do you register and set an avatar anyway? I guess I’ll have to set my security level down so I can grok all the add-ins or something.
Wrethchard/Richard – thanks for all you do.
Roughcoat “What we need is a different definition of “smart.” Smart people are not necessarily those with extensive schooling, a talent for articulate expression, or possession of vast and diverse stores of knowledge.”
Amen to that.
Also, not necessarily those who excel at abstract reasoning as measured by standardized tests. (BTW – I always did well on the verbal tests, but only so-so on the math. And it would be a mistake to ask me to repair any kind of machinery. So who’s “smart” and who isn’t?)
what is really dangerous is faith, faith that you are right,
Jesus gave only two commandments — Love God, and love each other. My religious faith has boiled down to those commandments.
Differences between dogmas are interesting, but mostly as manifestations of the infinite variety of human personality. But to attempt to let love guide your life — whether it’s in curbing impatience with a spouse or in the way you oppose pure evil — that’s the hardest part of “keeping the faith.”
Thank God Faith isn’t something only the “smart” have access to. If it were, then God would be known only by the intelligent. In fact your post seems to indicate otherwise – “smartness” can be inimical to knowledge of God, and even a qualifier for one’s own demise. Thank God Faith is not an aristocracy!
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” Matthew 11:25
But to attempt to let love guide your life — whether it’s in curbing impatience with a spouse or in the way you oppose pure evil — that’s the hardest part of “keeping the faith.”
Very true, and it’s something I fail miserably at most of the time. That is why I am always floored by facile assertions by militant atheists that religion represents an easy way out for weak-minded people. It is true that some churchgoers see their weekly attendance as a sort of “get out of jail free” card, and feel free to treat others shabbily the second they walk out of church, but if you are really trying to “let love guide your life” – well, there is nothing harder than being a genuine Christian. Like I said, I’m not very good at it, but it’s something worth striving for.
Oh, and I have not said it yet, but thank you, Mr. Fernandez, for a very fine blog. You are a marvelous writer. (Now, where did the tip jar go?)
On the subject of “belief” I’d like to reply to a final comment on a posting from April 1, since comments appear to be turned off there now….
What is that old adage? Better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and resolve all doubt.
It takes a certain special kind of fool to deliberately avert one’s eyes (and then obfuscate about it) to avoid seeing what’s right in front of his face — much like the dogmatic scholars of Galileo’s day who wouldn’t even look through his telescope at the mountains on the Moon, the phases of Venus, and the moons circling Jupiter — then threatened Galileo with torture (not the modern bugaboo of waterboarding, but the rack) unless he publicly repudiated his evidence-driven conclusions! (Even “doubting Thomas” was willing to actually see the evidence!)
As Galileo put it (in The Assayer): “True knowledge is written in this enormous book which is continuously opened before our eyes. I speak of the universe. But one can’t understand it unless first one learns to understand the language and recognize the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics.”
And contrary to Creationist arm-waving, it is possible to know, indeed to directly see, the past. In the case of outer space, for instance, all an astronomer needs do is unlimber his telescope and look at the light signals which emanated from distant stars and galaxies thousands, millions, or billions of years ago. In the case of paleontology, all one must do is dig up fossils — which are direct signals from out of the deep past into our eyes and instruments.
In the present instance, all one needs do is look at one of the very well preserved fossils of Microraptor (on display in this case at the American Museum of Natural History) — where one can easily see the pennaceous flight feathers extending from both top and bottom banks of wings as well as the creature’s bony tail. Note that the latter two features, along with finger claws on the top arm wings and teeth in the mouth, are characteristics that no modern bird possesses. Moreover, details of the animal’s skeleton clearly make him a member of the family of Dromaeosaurs, and a close relative of Velociraptor. Here’s a representation (also from AMNH) of what Microraptor likely looked like in flight.
One might note, too, that modern birds do still retain the (normally suppressed) genes for teeth, as the occasional occurrence as a birth defect of the proverbial “hen’s teeth” among them demonstrates.
THREE DAYS IN JERUSALEM
Down the stone laid street, past the jeering crowd
Whipped and scourged, thorn crowned and bloody browed
Prodded by soldiers, laughed at by some
Carrying his cross, His Father’s time come
On Calvary hill he laid the cross down
In the distance lay shining Jerusalem town
They nailed him by hands, a spike through his feet
Then raised the cross high in the afternoon heat
A legend was posted for all to peruse
Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews
The soldiers all laughed as the man hung his head
Casting lots for his clothes before he was dead
He asked for a drink and received a sharp spear
The blood and the water signaled death was quite near
His eyes raised to heaven, He cried out in pain
Oh Father, dear Father, I shall see you again
His ordeal was over, in tomb did He lay
While soldiers stood guard by night and by day
He lay there all day and the following night
But on Sunday morn, with the coming of light
He rose from the dead, His Father’s work done
And stepped from the tomb to greet the new sun
Announcing His presence to those he held dear
He told them His Father’s salvation was near
He ascended to Heaven, his earthly life through
Having died for our sins, and for me and for you
HAPPY EASTER
The subconscious desire to find a “father” and revert to childhood. To give up the responsibilities and duties that way an adult down. You’ll see the father figure and mother figure used in a lot of cults, religions, and ideologies.
Childhood has been extended in the Western World especially.
In sexual affairs it was common for powerful business men to seek prostitutes who would play the dominate. Now there is a trend in with powerful business women to seek men who will dominate them in the bedroom. They seek the release of surrendering the abdication of responsibility.
You’ll find those who fear the “real” world a lot in academics. They want power and influence without responsibility. Like children in many ways.
/reads Wretchard’s checklist of cult attributes
Sounds an awful lot like Islam to me.
I find it interesting that Mr. Fernandez and some of the posters seem to have the notion that there is a void of a sort, implied or otherwise, within a person, that must be filled by some external power or feeling, be it worldly or otherworldly. And there does appear to be a bias towards the Christian faiths (not a big deal), or in the least that a better spiritual choice is made by accepting a higher power, such as God. The worldly choices appear the have been chosen to demonstrate that those choices are not viable, and generally lead to the worst degradation.
In many conversations with believers, I find that this theme of the “void that must be there” usually appears, and this is the basis of the believer for determining that, for want of a better phrase, is “your life is incomplete”.
By now you probably have discerned that I am one of the “other”, and yes, I do not believe in the supernatural. Bear in mind, that like believers, non-believers come in many flavors. I don’t agree with the notion that because someone believes (or does not believe) in the supernatural, that they are somehow flawed. I respect their decisions and wish them well. That is a decision that should be wholly theirs. If that person finds meaning in their choice, then that is usually a good situation. I see this as, the spiritual being the realm of the individual, and that religion as it is commonly defined, as being political.
Certainly these decisions do have an effect on the wider community, they can be devastating as well as uplifting, or be simply mundane. But back to the void. I have not felt a void in a spiritual sense. So I don’t view it as something that needs to filled, because the emptiness is not there. Others who choose a different path do just that. We often take things into ours lives, things that we determine are worthwhile, a teaparty movement, an adoption, a belief system. I not trivializing here, this is simply for illustration of my viewpoint that belief in the supernatural is something that is received by the individual, and then brought into one’s consciousness much as other life defining experiences are. In short, I see the supernatural as being added to the whole.
Then the question becomes, “well, what do you believe in?” Many things. Quantum Mechanics… But that is a belief, that’s a human construct, you do believe! In something. True. I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow (as result of Quantum Mechanics!!??) and I will base my life on such propositions. Sophistry? No, just different. Labels only scratch the surface, and are distractions in many cases. Use them wisely.
Thanks, Richard Fernandez, for another engaging post. Chesterton is one of my dearest sources of wisdom, guidance and correction; timely even 100 years out. Of course, he drew from 2000 years out. Allow me to recommend the following website where readers may peruse all G.K.’s works:
http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/
Commenters all: thanks for your uplifting and similarly engaging words. Belmont Club is one of those rare things in the world. Walt, your verses are always “more pithier” than I feel are worthy to be buried in the comments section of a transitory blog post…but, perhaps they will “rise again.”
Faith has never been in conflict with reason. Our use of either is subject to abuse and violence. Any fair and balanced reading of scripture will convict us of the truth therein…but, as one of my dictums goes: morality dictates theology; that is, your own personal morality will govern your embrace or rejection of formal theological belief.
Thanks, Richard, for the Easter meditation.
The final image of the moth is an interesting one. I suspect that even the moth could become the center of a cult. Oh, wait, it already has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_of_Mothra
One of the reasons that Rene Girard is important is that he posits the work of Christ as proclaiming the end of mythologies, the end of powerful elites building cults of personality and engaging in scapegoating of rivals. Powerful leaders seek to mythologize themselves, and people seek strong leaders to mythologize since the people need someone who provides “a reason to believe.” “Someone like you” can be Uncle Joe, Chavez, The One . . . someone who can deliver psychological and monetary goods, and ideally take those goods from the rivals.
Jesus seems like just another mythologizing. Girard posits that the gospels present Jesus as the opposite, i.e., as the end of myth. All that we’re left with after Good Friday is the knowledge that people are like, well, what you see at the Good Friday trial and thereafter. God raises Jesus. And Christians (viz., the Grand Inquisitor) have built lots of triumphalist and comforting myths around Jesus. After all, human beings are mythologizing creatures. But Christ reveals the truth. We’re mythologizing, scapegoating creatures who seek to dominate and destroy our enemies. The risen Christ claims no earthly power. He gives a task to his followers, but gives the followers no earthly payoff. He gives his followers only the joy that comes from living in the truth of fellowship and renouncing of Satan’s scapegoating power. Which really, really ticks off the powers that be, because they don’t like that unmasking of their game.
Happy Easter!
Wonderfully written thread. As I read it I wondered just how much of humanity had ever been introduced to GK Chesterton or C.S. Lewis. Whether they had ever been translated into Arabic, Farsi, Urdu, or a host of other languages that are read and spoken by our adversaries in the marketplace of ideas, I haven’t a clue. But I would bet a fair amount of option money that it is small, so what is the efficacy of their writings when so few have read them and even fewer comprehend what they are saying.
The BC is a place where I would bet my home the average IQ is a minimum 30 points higher than the norm. We read and dissect each other’s presentations and learn from one another some topics that are so foreign to the average citizen that if you conversed with them the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) effect would immediate become apparent so one might as well be talking to the TV. (Don’t deny it, we’ve all done it)
There is little doubt in my mind that if the ideas of GK and CS were embraced by more people this world would be a better place. My experience tells me otherwise. Unfortunately in the world as currently composed one would do better with their time learning how to fire and clean an M-16, for I see no paucity of enemies arrayed against the western culture and the ideas of GK and CS.
A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are becoming.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Any power must be an enemy of mankind which enslaves the individual by terror and force, whether it arises under the Fascist or the Communist flag. All that is valuable in human society depends upon the opportunity for development accorded to the individual.
Albert Einstein
When we worship rebellion, we cease to be acting in the name of individuality. Almost never with integrity. And rarely with dignity. Rather, we become joiners in a cult bent to the whim of the false prophet. We become the consummate follower. This pathway is for those who wish to pretend to be individualistic. Often reveling in being the black sheep of their family, they are sheep nonetheless.
Conformists dressed up as non-conformists. When the costume falls at night, and the mask is removed, at the heart of it all…is a coward.
Smart people do foolish things…”
The adjective “smart” here isn’t so much = intelligence as fashionability. A big part of the liberal job description is being up to date with all the latest stuff our popular culture has on offer.
Michael McNeil
Is one of the secularist group who wants to continually remind us of the Church’s error with Galileo, and then smuggle in Creationists and stir all people of faith into one vat of ignorance. He is ignorant of the fact that Galileo is an exception and that there are a great number of priests and monks who, with the support of the Church, made significant contributions to science: Grosseteste, Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Copernicus, Mendel, and Lemaître to name a few. The Church does not support literalism (there are 4 creation narratives in the Bible), nor Concordism (which tries to reconcile the Genesis 1 account with current science), but acknowledges that the truth of biblical creation is spiritual, not scientific, reason.
This is the day of the Harrowing of Hell, a subject of great interest to our medieval brothers. It puts Christ in the mode of His driving the money-changers from the Temple, but in this case, He triumphs over our place of primal fear and ensures that all of the faithful from previous generations are Saved.
Happy Easter
The reason hardened cons reject con artists is simple: they exist in an environment of low-trust, where everyone tries to screw over every one else. They look for the angle, the catch, the strings, the betrayal, the knife. And find it.
The followers of Manson, Jim Jones, the Raelians, Asahara, the Branch Davidians, etc. existed in a HIGH TRUST ENVIRONMENT. They never had to, from little kids onwards, scheme and struggle to avoid being screwed over, by half-siblings, neighborhood kids, mom’s latest paramour, sometimes even Mom herself. They existed in a safe, clean, sheltered environment and like a domesticated animal, were unsuited for the wild.
Of course, safe, clean, high trust environments get things done. You can’t build nuclear reactors, moon launches, a world class auto industry, if your people are constantly looking for the knife in the back. On the other hand, denial of danger leads people not to see it, when it is staring you in the face in the guise of Manson.
I blogged quite some time ago about Obama’s likeliness to Jim Jones, what will happen when he runs out of room. I figured he’d be distributing the kool aide. I expect that will happen, fairly soon. He probably wants some sort of terrorist attack, so he can declare himself supreme leader and President for life (an effort, btw, doomed in the long run to fail, and fail miserably). Because he has nothing else.
Already btw Ed Driscoll here in Pajamas Media notes that everyone will be a Klansmen for 15 minutes, the media is in over-drive stepping up their hate of anyone who dislikes Obama. Which of course long-term simply erases the guilt, shame, or any other social control on the White Majority population. If everyone is racist the term and the accusation have ZILCH meaning. Who cares?
The “cure” or solution to being either a thug raised in something akin to Clockwork Orange meets Lord of the Flies, immune by nature and nurture to cons and schemes of God-Men, but who achieves nothing, or a naive trusting goof who can cooperate readily, is deep emotional attachment.
Not faith, really, but attachment, deep emotion, to a place, history, tradition, culture, and way of life. You don’t NEED or WANT a Man-God if your life, and place in it, has meaning and purpose within your society. This does not require the Pope, Archbishop, Imam, Synagoge, church, or anything else, though it can indeed be part of it.
You could airdrop Charles Manson into the Kalahari Bushmen, and he would not last a week. They have their own way of life, that has meaning. They are as they have always been (as they see it), and the rest of the world has no meaning or purpose. Manson would have had no followers either in the little England of 1910, or 1941. No purchase in America of 1944 either.
These guys are not the problem, but rather the symptom of the loss of faith, confidence, and sense of purpose that the only real lasting organizing principle of large groups of human beings have, in advanced industrial and post-industrial societies: NATIONALISM.
Nationalism does not mean, all the time, everywhere, marching storm troopers goose-stepping their way through the Low Countries. It can be, and mostly is, a deep emotional attachment almost everyone feels to their country, their ancestors, their purpose, their way of life, and their future. It does not mean utopia, or stasis, though that can degenerate into such traps. It means a continual, “good enough” sort of “home improvement” metaphor for building up the nation into a better place for the people who live there and have always lived there. It means loving ones’ parents and children, ancestors and descendants, and keeping faith. Finding meaning in Easter, Christmas, New Years, Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, the Flag, Baseball, Apple Pie, barbecues, the homely, loving, simple pleasures home and family. Of Vin Scully, the smell of charcoal smoke, and a beer as you cook hamburger and
chicken.
Who needs a God-Man when you have that?
[Asahara sounds like Howard Stern's "Fartman" who propelled himself through his own flatulence." Again only those who lost all faith in their purpose in society could find that anything other than a joke.]
Religion has been tried, as a central meaning, and fell apart sometime around the Reformation as a way to organize people in large groups. When you see an Aimee Semple McPherson, or a David Koresh, or a Charles Manson, or a Heaven’s Gate, you can be assured that there are enough people who have lost faith in your nation, people, and purpose that problems exist down the road.
cfbleachers
Quiry? Would this be true for the American Revolution?
Or did I miss the significance of the sentiment?
” When we worship rebellion, we cease to be acting in the name of individuality. Almost never with integrity. And rarely with dignity. Rather, we become joiners in a cult bent to the whim of the false prophet. We become the consummate follower. This pathway is for those who wish to pretend to be individualistic. Often reveling in being the black sheep of their family, they are sheep nonetheless.
Conformists dressed up as non-conformists. When the costume falls at night, and the mask is removed, at the heart of it all…is a coward.”
First off, Pajamas is upgrading its templates. So there will be some flux. The Tocque will be back when the dust settles, a little changed too.
I find it interesting that Mr. Fernandez and some of the posters seem to have the notion that there is a void of a sort, implied or otherwise, within a person,
Some people don’t feel a void. But most do. And that circumstance is ruthlessly exploited by inventors of religions and of political movements. Hope is the biggest industry in history. Soaring words, driving music, sex, many forms of extreme experience. All are poured into it.
Long ago I met a crazy man in a slum called Rio Hondo (in Zamboanga) who believed had harnessed occult powers from a rare manuscript. Only the manuscript was purchased by mail order from a magazine. He had a foil pyramid in which there was a piece of spam, which he believed the foil pyramid preserved. I’ve related the story of the man named ‘Toothpick’ who established a militia all of whom were equipped with a little bottle filled with oil that supposedly made them bulletproof. The revelation came to him inside a well, where he had been dropped after Islamic bandidos had killed his entire family and dropped him to leave him for dead. There, in the darkness, a tiny bottle of oil of wintergreen had begun to glow, just before rescuers found him. Then there was the group who believed bullets would not harm them if they adanced with Tony Orlando’s “Knock Three Times on the Ceiling” playing from a tape recorder.
You may laugh. I laughed. And then I remembered how the Japanese would strap themselves into the cockpit of an airplane to perform the kamikaze. More than quarter million Japanese soldiers died to a man in the Philippines, many more than all the Japanese in all the campaigns in all the battles in The Pacific did. “Meet you at the Yasakuni Shrine. I die in the name of the Emperor”. Sounds a lot better than Tony Orlando and Toothpick and his illiterate men. But is it really? Filipino cults are ridiculous because Filipinos are happy go-lucky and disorganized. But start up a cult in the West and they’ll do equally ridiculous things, only with white man efficiency. Gas chambers, incinerators, collectivization, eyeless cellars with rubber mats. Instead of Tony Orlando you get George Orwell.
DeFreeze and Yaweh-Bin-Yaweh (of Florida) were by comparison small time operators. Grifters limited by their imagination. They might have scratched their heads a little, perplexed that this actually works, but they too touched the spark. And whether the desire for the numinous is valid or plain bunk, Chesterton is right. It is like fire. And 95% of the world will be driven to seek it, most of the time at the behest of con-men, demagogues and sexual exploiters.
As a practical matter there is probably as little use in denying the faith impulse as there is in denying sex or hunger. Some may genuinely not have a “void”, but most of the world does. So the only alternative, I think, is to encourage people in wholesome ways. Some of the monotheisms have endured for millenia because they, despite their occasionally wicked servents, are at least a good first order approximation of how a real God, if He existed would sound. And since maybe He does, I’d rather listen to the Sermon on the Mount than the Speech in Nuremberg. If nothing else, it is out of the practical worry that a country without a relatively benign faith will soon get a dark and twisted one. Most people will believe in anything, rather than accept that there is nothing. And hence the market for Hope and the promise of Change must be modified by a fair degree of common sense because there is too great a risk it will be diverted to the purposes of Despair.
Mr. Fernandez;
Chesterton’s a tough act to follow, but I think you acquitted yourself nicely.
Happy Easter.
It seems that, in spite of ourselves, we’ve been saved.
And all of the pain, loss and suffering means something after all.
For you, the year is 2010. You celebrate this annually, on January 1st. For Jews, the year is 5770. Continuously. But only through a “chosen few.” Which tells interesting stories. You can go back to ancient Egyptian stories. They’re gone now. And, so, too are the Greeks. And, the Romans. Ancient Greek is a dead language. So, too, is Latin.
Hebrew on the other hand? Still spoken, though very ancient. It’s something of a miracle, too,that the Bible’s in English! (Jews didn’t write this. Jews had been tossed out of England’s shores in the 1200′s.) And, there became a belief, since the English were the first to adopt the Catholic faith as a road to monarchy; that there were those biblical stories that translated well.
While Jews, after the fall of the second temple, began using the “book” as a substitute. And, out, too, went the animal sacrifices. Along with the twelve tribes; where to be in the priesthood, meant you were born into it. Very few of the chosen, survive. But one man begins teaching the idea that you can find out what’s inside the bible, by interpreting its words. Jews use the Talmud. On the other hand? The Pilgrims came down hard, in England. Killing King Charles the 1st. And, putting in Cromwell. Who closed the theaters. When the monarchy comes back, the Pilgrims (a few), chose to climb on wooden boats. And, they settled on Plymouth Rock.
Meanwhile, one of the cultures that really laid claim to greatness, was Spain. You know their ships discovered America. But when you look to see the wealth; it basically goes under when the Catholics thought they’d defeat Queen Elizabeth the First. And, instead, the expensive Armada went underwater. And, all Elizabeth had were row boats. (The armada’s guns couldn’t be lowered enough to stop these vessels.) The rest, as they say, is history. Today, Spain is a 3rd world nation. One of the PIGS, going even further broke. Along with Portugal. Ireland. And, Greece.
Seems there’s a sense of humor at play. Not just dogma. While here, in the USA, we have an ongoing revolution; from a team that’s not all that popular. While RINOs get spit upon by the counter-revolutionaries; who are sure, with just the right twist, Christianity will bloom. And, the Jews will convert. Something that hasn’t happened in 5,770 years.
Oh, yeah. Napoleon promised Jews a homeland in Palestine. Even before the Balfour Declaration got the Brit’s to play. While the European Jews didn’t really listen! Before the Holocaust, very few Jews migrated to Israel. (And, as a side note. The land was so infertile, it was presumed you couldn’t even grow crops to feed six million people.)
Miracles happen. Bad times and good. And, only a few get to make the decisions that pass the torch, along.
This brings to mind an SF story of several years back in which a space exploration agency, mindful of the need to prevent harm to indigenous intelligent alien species, had developed a computer program that could translate any alien language into intelligent speech. Eventually, after multiple upgrades, it would translate ANYTHING into intelligent speech. The croaking of frogs became the wisdom of the ages. The mooing of cows became a discussion of Shakespeare. The patterns of the stars became dialog from Jackie Gleason in The Honeymooners.
Similarly, as we have had our thought processes “upgraded” with all kinds of PC beliefs we have come to see great wisdom in the ravings of a Rev Wright, revise our entire economy based on the illogical scribblings of a handful of pseudo-scientists, and decide that when it comes to the economy 2+2 =22 because it has to.
First off, Pajamas is upgrading its templates. So there will be some flux
But you see, that’s just what we’re talking about.
Time was, the idea that you present finished products only to the public was well understood and accepted. Famously, Detroit violated this idea, shipping cars to the dealers and public that were supposed to be finished in the field, often enough after dying on the highway. The Japanese came in and followed the rules better, and Detroit died. All we have now are a few ashes … though perhaps a phoenix may arise from it, given a few dozen billion in subsidies.
But back to our story. Look at the Obamacare legislation. There is barely a pretense that it was well-crafted. Like the PJM software. It will have to be fixed in the field. No embarassement about it at all. And, well, I understand, it is in the field of management and politics, that sometimes I agree, it is better to have begun something, than to have gotten it all right.
But this idea of diddling publicly used software in unannounced and unplanned ways, strikes me as a symptom of all our larger problems.
Of course I see it all over, from Yahoo to my last gig with Megabank. Faith? I’ll settle for a little more discipline, I doubt you can advance in any direction at all, without rather more of that than we tend to see nowadays.
The Jewish religious cycle is completing its key sequence that leads from The New Year of Rosh Hoshanana near the Autumn Equinox to the holiday of Passover near the Spring Equinox. This may be seen as a progression that leads from devotion to the Law through reminding God of the mutuality of the covenant, as in you love us and promise to protect us right?, past survival against ruthless and tempting authorities, in Hanukkah and Purim, to the assertion of national and individual freedom. The sequence is a little rough to me. Passover celebrates the triumph of the community enduring through faith and being bound closer to the Law, a return to the theme of the beginning at the New Year. Only at the start the topics of individual and group responsibility are explored in the religious sphere of the formal worship service and at the end it is the survival of the family, the individual’s closest support unit that is celebrated in the home. In between the lesson is to survive by rejecting those earthly cult leaders, of the Seleucids, the Persians and the Romans, who would draw them into becoming subjects of earthly power and vanity. These culminate in the triumph over Pharaoh and departure from his doomed tyranny.
The interesting thing here is that the rejection of rivals to God’s authority did not result in the replacement of foreign secular or religious establishments by the native Jewish alternative. While a Kingdom was established God warned that it was an imperfect form of government, to which he reluctantly assented, and sovereignty remained rooted in local communal identities. The priesthood while important never reduced the community to a simple theocracy, perhaps showing that the assent to the secular office of the King was part of a clever divine plan all along. After the fall of the Temple the religious office was filled by locally approved teachers or rabbis, who are not priests. Communities were essentially self governing and no earthly authority was seen as transcendent.
Cult like figures, such as Sabbattai Zevi, have arisen periodically but were always viewed as disreputable distractions. Most Jews 2,000 years ago probably viewed Paul’s efforts similarly.
wretchard,
Please get the comment numbers restored so the back links work.
Do not confuse data with conclusions:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125624463802402117.html
Thank you Walt.
Interchanging mind control, come let the
Revolution take its toll, if you could
Flick a switch and open your third eye, you’d see that
We should never be afraid to die, so come on
Rise up and take the power back, it’s time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end, we have to
Unify and watch our flag ascend, so come on
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious, so come on.
/muse, “uprising”
wonder what it means, for such a song to be written and played these days …
When one studies monotheism a few things become apparent.
We’re talking about a development a LONG time ago.
We’re talking about many various manifestations of it.
We’re talking about each manifestation created in the mind of man.
We’re talking about something akin to the party game where a circle of people sit and one begins whispering a saying to the next person. By the time it reaches the final participant it usually bears no resemblance to what was originated.
We are talking wholly about one issue. Faith. Is that enough? The answer for most of mankind is yes. Simply Faith which then begs, in what? What doctrine? What truth? Faith is never the same in all religions, but mankind has it in abundance. Wow.
Recommended it before, but will again as it is pertinent to this discussion. “Idols for Destruction” by Herbert Schlossberg. It talks about how societies become idolatrous when they reject God. The description of the idols in question greatly resembles the Obamacrats and the harm they’re doing.
Charles Manson and Donald DeFreeze were involved in a behavior modification experiment at Vacaville State Prison before their dirty deeds. The new shamen of modern psychotherapy managed to create master manipulative monsters out of plain old criminals. That’s what happens when men play God.
Well, of course one has faith. We have faith that what we learned yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. We have faith that the sun rises in the east, and food is good to eat, and water is wet. Even the worst empiricist has such faith. It is a subtle matter, after that, just what we know, and believe, and trust.
Michael McNeil
Is one of the secularist group who wants to continually remind us of the Church’s error with Galileo, and then smuggle in Creationists and stir all people of faith into one vat of ignorance.
No I don’t. I have no particular objection to the Church as it in the main exists to day, and I’m objecting only to the “turn a blind eye to the truth” deceptions of the radical Creationists. See the thread to which I was replying in the link provided earlier.
He is ignorant of the fact that Galileo is an exception and that there are a great number of priests and monks who, with the support of the Church, made significant contributions to science: Grosseteste, Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Copernicus, Mendel, and Lemaître to name a few. The Church does not support literalism (there are 4 creation narratives in the Bible), nor Concordism (which tries to reconcile the Genesis 1 account with current science), but acknowledges that the truth of biblical creation is spiritual, not scientific, reason.
I’m not at all ignorant of that fact, nor did I speak with reference to it in my posting.
Thank you Walt, and a blessed and peaceful wonderful life for you and yours.
And it should go without saying, but won’t, We wish the same for all of you here at BC and of course the strong and kind Richard, who runs this small island of reason and purpose.
Papa Ray
I have faith that man will continue killing one another.
In the name of his own religion.
My Avatar is the same all over the net and has been for ten years or so. One other guy had it too and I convinced him to give it up.
I upload it to various services and it appears to not only stick but sometimes carry over like it did (does) here.
In case your wondering how I came up with it, when Star Wars came out many of my friends equated me with this wise old master of “The Force”.
I never really found out why.
Papa Ray
During a school board meeting, I accused the board and the district’s teachers of wanting power and perks but no responsibility for the education of our children. Of course there then followed a long heated argument up to the point of myself being called out of order.
And asked to set down and shut up.
My retort was. “I will for now,but you can be sure that I and many others will never ever shut up and that we will fight for our children’s education down to your last drop of blood.”
You could (should?) have heard a “professional educator” reply to that, but there was none.
Papa Ray
Many don’t need a religion as such, much like the drug soldiers of the cartels in Mexico. Or maybe your right. Their jobs doing the bidding of the cartels may wind up being their only religion. I’m pretty sure that to get out of that job would require you moving somewhere very far away and hoping to not be found, kinda like the old Mafia rules.
BTW. In the next very few years there is going to have to be changes in the way we handle the cartels or they will wind up owning not only our cities but millions of Americans. It is bad now but nobody wants to acknowledge it nor actually do anything that will make a difference.
I have talked to many who have “escaped” their hellhole and came to Texas looking for safety and a life free of fear. They don’t think we can stop the cartels either, but will keep moving north ahead of them, that is all they know to do.
I didn’t have the heart to tell them that they are already in every city in America.
Papa Ray
As a side note:
Wrecthcard reminds me of how often the concept of becoming “bullet proof” shows up in cults and uhm extreme individuals.
The Ghost Dancer’s of the American Indians for example. Might be a good subject for paper that would languish in the stacks.
Yes Islam is a Cult. Maybe the oldest there is and of course the most dangerous to those outside of the cult.
Those who are true believers of Islam are blind deft and dumb to all outside of their cult. Their ignorance is only exceeded by their teaching of hate to those who are not “true believers”.
They start their teaching of hate with their children and grand children.
The world has a long war before them.
Papa Ray
It seems to me that, for believers and non-believers alike, great religious writers offer the kind of truth that’s hard to find anywhere else. Reading Chesterton, reading C.S. Lewis — it’s like food, it’s like a breath of pure air.
As if other writings are all about Flatland, and to hear about the third dimension, the true world of what it’s like to be human, you need to go to the Church’s wisest writers. In that dimension perpendicular to the quotidian ones, you recognize the “something more” that is the soul, metaphorical or not. And you reject all the reductionist “justs” that diminish us.
From “Death Comes for The Archbishop”
“Where there is great love there are always miracles….One might almost say that an apparition is human vision corrected by divine love. I do not see you as you really are, Joseph; I see you through my affection for you. The Miracles of the Church seem to me to rest not so much upon faces or voices or healing power coming suddenly near us from afar off, but upon our perceptions being made finer, so that for a moment our eyes can see and our ears can hear what is there about us always.”
I’m not much of a believer myself but I can accept that.
If you were to turn your excellent comment around and subsitut (exchange) believer in a higher power and a non believer, I would appaude that also.
Everybody has something that keeps them going and you and the liberals (not including you with them by any means) can believe or not, but…instead of belonging to some group like NOW, a liberal think tank or those pink idiots I much prefer belonging to my Church.
For more than just religion.
Like today. My grand daughters and myself spent 4 hours at our Church sponsored “Easter Egg Hunt”. Many denominations don’t believe in such a thing but ours does. It was a gathering of a couple of hundred adults and I have no idea how many kids, but it took five “hunts” in graduated age groups to run them all through.
Of course there was way too much food, music, a little too loud and pop for me but I survived and the kids got to “jump” or bounce in those air powered jumping houses and play on/in the city provided playground and park.
Much fellowship and such, much talking, laughing and serious discussions about a multitude of events, problems and dire suppositions.
A good thing as Martha would say, although I would bet she has never attended anything like what we had today.
Not saying that those who don’t believe don’t have the same. Different strokes and all that.
Just saying.
Papa Ray
Try to be perfect for a day.
Oh, heck, let’s lower the bar.
Try to be perfect for an HOUR.
And, no, you are not allowed to lock yourself in your closet for that hour, with no interruptions or distractions.
I mean, try to be perfect for an hour as you go about your everyday ordinary life.
I think you will soon find that Sartre was right in a sense: Hell is other people. That is, nothing can knock you off your quest for perfection like having to deal with other people. We human beings have this uncanny ability to bring out the worst in one another. (also the best, but I leave that for another discussion)
Here’s just a short version of my perfection checklist, which I have never managed to accomplish for even so much as an hour in daily life:
– Let every word that comes from your mouth be a truth that edifies.
– In every single word, deed, and thought, put the other person before yourself.
– Do not be so careworn or distracted that you miss the marvelously marvelous, or the marvelously ordinary, moment by moment by moment.
– Do not lose your temper, in word or deeds or thought.
– Be thankful. 99.99% of what you have, you did not earn.
– Be humble. 99.999999% of what there is to know, you do not know.
– In word, thought, or deed, never, ever use another human being to feel good about yourself.
Now, Michael McNeil may well be a far better person than I am. (There are plenty of them walking this planet.) Or maybe he’s just working off a different definition of what that “void” feels like.
I only know that I run up against my own brokenness (not just a failure to be perfect, but the rock-hard reality that I *cannot* *ever* be perfect, in and of my own efforts) constantly on a daily basis.
I honestly am unable to imagine what it’s like to feel “satisfied” and “complete” with/in myself, for the simple reason that I have never, ever lived without an awareness of my (for lack of a better term) shadow. I’ve been this way for as long as I can remember. Was it this restlessness, this hauntedness, this sense of mortal inadequacy, that led me to the foot of the cross and the grace of Jesus Christ? I happen to think & believe so. And I don’t say this to sound in any way smarter or more discerning than the next person. Because frankly I’m not *that* smart. I did not become a Christian because I somehow “figured out” who God is. It just came down to a choice between two ultimate paths: Christ or futility. Either the meaning of everything (Everything?) was and is bound up in Him (including all that stuff I’m too stoopid to understand), or it is not. And in the latter option I saw no center at all, nothing holding everything together.
You can say this is an intellectual weakness and/or a moral weakness, this need for meaning and at least a smidgeon of order for my mortal mind to hang on to. And perhaps you would be right. Perhaps it is cowardly to prefer sanity to the abyss.
I just know that sanity ain’t no picnic either. Following Him is the most difficult thing I have ever done. And I have to do it every single day. Moment by moment by moment.
***********
Apropros of nothing I just wrote above … April is a great month in Southwestern Pennsylvania because the temps are, at some point during that calendar month, temperate enough to throw all the windows in the house wide open. And to be able to leave them that way day and night for as long as two or three straight weeks.
Last night I slept with the windows open, just one blanket on me, with a mild wind kicking up every so often. I watched the moon glide in a falling arc behind a Nordmann fir in back of the house. Right around dawn the birds started up. We have an orchestra’s worth of birds in the woods behind the house. Because it was Saturday, I got to enjoy “sleeping in,” aka lying there in bed enjoying birds, trees, sky, fresh air, and just the wonderful springy goodness of Mr. Penn’s Woods.
April.
I’m not much on Easter, but the Transfiguration, another story altogether, for everyone. The early church really had little in art on the crucifixtion, look at the old frescoes, in Italy, being focused on the good shepherd, Jesus with the lamb on his back and the regaining of paradise, it changed in the middle ages, and got much more militant. A change of metaphor is a change of meaning, and has consequences.
“Maybe Chesterton was right when he predicted that “the first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything.”
Or perhaps, it’s that “the first effect of not believing in God is to believe, in whatever is offered to fill that void, that resonates with one’s personal psychology”
No one can sell you something you’re not ready to buy. There are many ‘brands of cars’ because what works for one person, doesn’t necessarily work for another.
“You may laugh. I laughed.”
I did laugh. Sometimes the line between the ludicrous and the deadly serious can be a fine line indeed.
“Most people will believe in
anythingsomething, rather than accept that there is nothing.”If there’s nothing, then how can we be here?
“I exist, therefore I am” and, if I and you and the world exists, then some’thing’ must be the source of that existence.
Can an effect have no cause?
Can something be created out of nothing?
Mr. Fernandez,
“a country without a relatively benign faith will soon get a dark and twisted one.”
Exactly. The Left has done its best to destroy the belief in Jesus of Nazareth once common to most in the West. They’ve succeeded all too well, and there will be a terrible price to be paid for their actions. Part of it is being paid now, but I’m deeply afraid it is going to be much, much worse. The Left will see the Devil round on them and when he does, there will be no trees to protect them because they long since cut them all down.
These days I find Tolkien often coming to mind. Most often is his statement that “in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty forever beyond its reach.”
Thanks for this blog. You’ve done an extraordinary job with it.
“Unfortunately in the world as currently composed one would do better with their time learning how to fire and clean an M-16, for I see no paucity of enemies arrayed against the western culture and the ideas of GK and CS.”
Unfortunately your right. In many countries, young kids are handed a AK or some type of long gun (or machete) and taught how to load and fire it. Unfortunately they can’t teach them how to die. Except for Muslims of course – that think that to die fighting the infidel guarantees them a place in “Heaven”, and the attentions of virgins. Or if not Muslim and no religion but superstition, threats and witchery they use fear to motivate and enable.
In a perverse and terrible way…to educate.
Many millions of kids and adults the world over can’t read or write in any language. They know their Koran by memorizing it by repeating phrases fed to them by others and by listening to their Imams, village elders, dictators, and others spout hatred and lies.
That is their education.
Papa Ray
HABU
There is a difference between being involved in a rebellion and worshipping the act of being rebellious.
In the former, one may not wish to be involved at all, but of necessity, one strives forward.
In the latter, it is the “faux” need to be rebellious…to “prove” one’s non-conformity that is the farce.
I hope this clears up my intended meaning, because I see a distinct difference.
bob – FWIW, a professor of mine back in college said that Christian iconography up through about 1200 was centered on the glory of Christ, i.e. His divinity and not His humanity. Acc. to my prof, Francis of Assisi (the first recorded stigmatic) was the signifier of the change. Christian art, post-Francis, developed a high consciousness (some would say obsession, I reckon) of the suffering and crucified Christ.
I have no idea whether my prof was on to something and, if so, just what the link was between St. Francis and the change in artistic focus. I just mention it as food for thought.
The intelligent were perhaps even more vulnerable than the simple precisely because they believed themselves to be immune when in fact they were not.
No. It is because they want to believe themselves to be immune when in fact they are not. Deep in their hearts, they may know very well they aren’t immune, but when such knowledge cuts against the very heart of their identity, they stifle their intuition.
As a rule, one does not believe a confidence artist. One suspends disbelief. One suspends disbelief because not to do so is to admit being a fool.
Fanaticism doesn’t come from belief. It comes from repressed agnosticism. A repressed agnostic will proclaim his belief loudly because he is trying desperately to believe; he will stifle dissent from others because such dissent may undermine his own illusion.
It is not so much intelligence that keeps someone from seeing through the con man. It is one’s own perceived intelligence, how much one’s identity hangs upon that perceived intelligence, and how much one’s own status depends upon that perceived intelligence. In essence, one’s lack of humility can become a Faustian bargain, where one will give up anything in one’s life – even one’s soul – just to keep the illusion of one’s own enlightenment intact.
When one’s status is dependent upon one’s perceived wisdom, intuition can be crushed under an appeal to authority. Most students care more about getting good grades than learning truth. Truth may come from the mouth of a foolish philosopher, but grades come from the hand of a professor. Who is to argue with the professor and his noble lie that he is the one who knows best when he is the one armed with a doctorate in philosophy and the grading pen?
So, of course, college students who care deeply about getting good grades and obtaining membership in a credentialed aristocracy will necessarily be more likely to succumb to an appeal to authority – any authority – any authority that proclaims itself as an authority. What is the intrinsic difference between the authority of the corporate boss or the college professor on the one hand and the cult leader on the other?
Is it better to be seen to be right or to be right? Is it better to be seen to be wise or to be wise? A true philosopher is willing to be a fool. Only someone willing to see one’s self as a fool or a mug or a sucker will be able – and I dare say willing – to see through confidence tricks arrayed against the unwary.
Religion has been tried, as a central meaning, and fell apart sometime around the Reformation as a way to organize people in large groups. When you see an Aimee Semple McPherson, or a David Koresh, or a Charles Manson, or a Heaven’s Gate, you can be assured that there are enough people who have lost faith in your nation, people, and purpose that problems exist down the road.
The great genius of putting the Creator at the cornerstone of legitimacy, even when we can’t specify who the Creator is, is that it forces the system open. The Founders put the all human governance in the framework of a metasystem in order, I think, to remove final authority from any group of men. After unsuccessfully trying to understand the rather ghostly role of the Crown in the Australian constitution, I realized that in some sense the Crown performed the same role as the Creator. It was the abstract something which stood above the fray that you had never get too close too. And so the British locked up their monarchs as avatars behind some gilded palace wall. Americans went one better and adopted a Creator.
But the correspondence was inexact, because if the Creator were anything, he would universal. That made him different from any mere King, however great. And that I think, despite the fact that I am Constitutional ignoramus, contributes to the militancy and universality of the American ideal. Maybe the Nazi could confidently declare the Jewish prisoner had no rights because the State granted him none. But to the American the Jew still operated under the Creator. And so the Nazi was going to hang, not under any German law, but because the Jew had inalienable rights given to him by the Creator the Nazi had transgressed.
This has the paradoxical effect of making a system under an unspecified Creator — a God that we will someday know — open source. On the other hand, any system built on men tends to be closed source; proprietary to the men-gods who design it. In a counterintuitive but natural way man finds himself free only when he creates an infinite sort of context. It’s raining now in Sydney as I get ready to go to Easter mass; and I wonder why I do it. Then suddenly I know. As Augustine said, I have to go out and seek. “My heart shall never rest, O Lord, until it rests in Thee.”
Agnostic theism is an interesting viewpoint.
Victor Frankl’s survival in Nazi concentration camps lead him to write Man’s Search for Meaning – 1946.
As a result he came up with logotherapy containing the following principles.
*Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
*Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
*We have inalienable freedom to find meaning.
*We can find meaning in life in three different ways:
-By creating a work or doing a deed;
-By experiencing something or encountering someone;
-By the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering.
Not quite a religion but assocaited with theistic agnosticism thus filling a void for a few to use when traditional faith fails their needs.
This is getting scary. Who is this “Mr. Fernandez” people are writing too and why is W answering them?
“Perhaps it is cowardly to prefer sanity to the abyss”
or not…at that point it’s just as easy to assert the opposite: that it’s cowardly to prefer the abyss. And as you correctly point out, sanity ain’t no picnic. Actually, the categories are not mutually exclusive. “…my God, why have you forsaken me?”, Sanity Incarnate cried.
Obama won on a hope and change platform, and the hordes of “sophisticates” ate it up.
Back on topic, Richard writes: Maybe Chesterton was right when he predicted that “the first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything.” Interestingly, this is a quote often mis-attributed to G.K. as explained at this site by another Richard (John Neuhaus)http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2005/12/rjn-123005-one-more-word
That being said, a few quotes from G.K. seem worthy of inclusion in this thread of comments:
“All the exaggerations are right, if they exaggerate the right thing.”
“Men invent new ideals because they dare not attempt old ideals. They look forward with enthusiasm, because they are afraid to look back.”
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around.”
“Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God.”
“Men are ruled, at this minute by the clock, by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern.”
These clips are from http://chesterton.org/acs/quotes.htm
a pearl in every one…
HABU
Agnostic theism is an interesting viewpoint.
Victor Frankl’s survival in Nazi concentration camps lead him to write Man’s Search for Meaning – 1946.
As a result he came up with logotherapy containing the following principles.
*Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
*Our main motivation for living is our will to find meaning in life.
*We have inalienable freedom to find meaning.
*We can find meaning in life in three different ways:
-By creating a work or doing a deed;
-By experiencing something or encountering someone;
-By the attitude we take toward unavoidable suffering.
Not quite a religion but assocaited with theistic agnosticism thus filling a void for a few to use when traditional faith fails their needs.
———-
Great post.
Everyone has a religion. Everyone. The ‘rats have moved to a point where they see the US Constitution as abject debased and distilled evil. Hmmm…
bob and bogie wheel: I have been reading Barbara Tuchman’s “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century.” Christian art certainly got much gorier during the time of the Black Death, which wiped out a third of Europe. At first that seemed like a strange reaction to me: don’t you think people surrounded by others dying in a hideous, terrifying and (to them) utterly incomprehensible way would prefer pretty pictures of angels and Christ in majesty rather than limbs twisted in agony on a cross?
No, they apparently took comfort in the thought of a God who had once been naked and grotesque and suffering like they were.
Ironically, reading about the 14th century makes me feel a bit more optimistic about the 21st. We’ve been through a lot worse and gotten through it.
Life has meaning under all circumstances, even the most miserable ones.
Truth, Habu. There is a reference in Joseph Campbell about the Apache Dog Shit Eating Ceremony. And that is the sense of that. Sometimes we got to eat dog shit. They acutally did this, to remind themselves, that when the divine has fled, and hid his head in the stars overhead, it’s still there, if you can remember it. Just like that scrawl by some Jewish person in a ghetto during WWII, you are gone, o divine, but still here. Same thought, exactly.
wretchard, you touch on an issue where I seem to stand alone and abandoned at this point, this “Creator” in regards to the US founding documents. Some today see the reference as proof of Christian roots, and even you seem to read it as the source of legitimacy. That’s not my understanding. I can’t see the deism of the founders ever appealing to a theological source for legitimacy, but I read this as a declaration by the founders of their secularism, and submission to neither a crown nor church. “Endowed by their Creator” is an observation, not an appeal to authority. I think it is the flavor of American protestantism to appeal to the heavens, not to draw anything from the heavens but what we have in ourselves. We neither believe any enemy who claims that God is on their side, nor do we claim it for ourselves. In the end days, perhaps, glory Hallelujah.
So what about grounding faith in a higher power? I don’t know. It’s a convenient myth, until and unless the deity Herself shows up to exercise it.
O/T except that the excellent G.K. wrote it:
God made the wicked grocer
For a mystery and a sign,
That men might shun the awful shops
And go to inns to dine;
Read it all if you like: http://www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/grocer.html
Happy Easter and Happy Spring to W and the BC. And thanks to all.
heh, the cheating grocer. I remember going to Albertson’s one time, and putting an exact weight, from the jeweler’s, an exact weight, on the electronic scales, in the vegie department, that I had from my wife for some reason, on the electronic scales, and it came up exactly 10% under. Tried it again, same result. So, I wrote a letter to the manager, and got a $100 hush money in a check back from the bastards. You can count on it.
the difference that a “Rael” has with a “Hitler” and or a “Lenin”, is that such a belief isn’t harmful for a society order. Though in France the Rael religious movement is condamned as a dangerous sect, and has no opened door. Besides many different churches that exist in the US, would be seen as churches deviance (abnormality) here, where we consider only the main cults such roman catholicism, protestantism, Jewish religin and Islam that have alll their centralised head representation. Even Buddism isn’t free to make proselithism. Secularity normality opposes to any different interpretation of these official cults definition. Thisn’t the case for EU, which acknoledges “sects” as free expression of beliefs. Now, as far as I am concerned, I ‘m backing our laic society and I’m glad that it avoids us silly religious utopies, we have enough to deal with the existant cults, that aren’t always on the same line as far as how our society should be governed, that requestion our republican values, and the equality of genres. I’m not religious, but not atheist for so, you don’t need to practice a religion to feel the “sacred” things of life.
Well tonight I sang the Hallelujah chorus from Handel’s Messiah for the first of five times this weekend. Four more times to go tomorrow. I need to get to bed now. Some will stay up late to watch the Duke game. I’m not a partisan. That’s not my alma mater or my game.
It is obvious why the left has had a primary goal of the expungement of religion from the public square. If the Creator is not the basis for the Law, then men are the basis for the Law. If men are the basis, then the only question is: Which men? The left’s problem is that only some people buy the idea that religion is somehow un-American. The numbers are large and growing but nowhere near the majority.
On topic an article from the WSJ last week:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704100604575145650372903676.html
There is a physiological reason we believe (at least most of us): it feels sweet to the brain.
The Firefox upgrade took my nifty edit toolbar.
“Smart” is a lot things, but foremost among those things, I think, is common sense.
Or, maybe it isn’t a lot of things. Maybe it’s just a few things, and simple things at that. But, again: common sense is one of the main things. Also, maybe, humility.
Oh, yes, and: Richard Fernandez is smart. Scary smart.
Charles:
I wish you the joy of that celebration.
WRT Duke, to some its like battling the debbil hissef. I am a skeptic in this regard because I know he lives in Tuscaloosa.
Hate to hit and run…do not have any time.
Let me throw this into the mix:
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2010/0319.html
Wretchard: Avatars? I feel like I am at Starbucks.
Really good salesmen don’t sell by using stunningly logical and rational arguments. They sell on “feelings”, If I was selling you something it might appear that I was looking you in the eye and giving you my full concern. Actually I’d be looking a bit to the side at something farther away preferably dimly lighted. My pupils would widen an the micro-clue you would pick up would say, he cares about you. “For just pennies a day” is not rational when you think about it. You don’t want your mark er customer to think about it. Often the super prepared customer walks away and wonders later, what happened? His feeling have been manipulated: greed, fear, sex, pride, and impatience have gotten tohim.
When I think about “belief,” having decades ago ceased to be a believing christian, I find myself thinking about not the need to believe something but the need to discover the unknown that one fears.
Note, I didn’t say “fear of the unknown,” because that is already a fear of a something. It’s just that the fearful person doesn’t know what it is or will be: god, or characters out of “The Night of the Living Dead.”
No, I said “the unknown that one fears.” To be less fey about my point, I will be blunt: what I find in liberals is a desire to find the one great (not “Good”) but the one great “Evil” to believe in.
Example 1: environmentalism is the descendent of a fear going back to Greek times that somehow human beings are not part of nature but rather its enemy: the natural world is only safe when human beings–by definition therefore not “natural”–disappear. Result? Everything that human beings do is “evil” because it destroys nature. One word for this belief is “primitivism.”
Example 2: Chaos, political or otherwise. The fear that one doesn’t control everything, which comes down to discovering that “everyone is a potential threat.” But some are more threatening than others, ergo settling upon a specific political group, or a particular culture, or a particularly someone in your neighborhood.
Example 3: Everyone is a potential enemy because everyone has the potential to dominate ones’ self, and that because everyone is focused on oneself: paranoia as a way of life. Dostoevsky’s Underground Man (he has no name) in his short novel that I find absolutely central to understanding modern western culture, “Notes from the Underground,” walks the streets of St. Petersburg, and believes that everyone is looking daggers at him. Even people who obviously ignore him, are ignoring him “deliberately” and therefore are fixated on him.
If we want to believe in the importance of beliefs in the context of Chesterton’s statement, we get something like some version of the above: the need to believe not in a great good, but in a “Great Evil.’ Find the great evil and kill it and then we will all be safe.
My suggestion is that the alternative to belief is, as Chesterton says, belief. If not in god, then necessarily in the devil.
Josh, apropos of the religious convictions of the founders:
http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm
You may have to reform your notions of their beliefs.
Most of them would be rather shocked to be thought “Deists”. This is mostly a bit of Leftist agiprop and a modern, 20th century conceit.
It is absurd to claim that either in terms of history, society or the internal life of the individual that America’s roots are those of anything other than that of a soundly Christian nation.
wretchard:
There is only one unambiguous reference to God in the Declaration of Independence.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to the separation.
Yet, this reference is slipperier than it looks. For one, it refers to both the “Laws of Nature” and the “Laws … of Nature’s God”, with the “Laws of Nature” coming first, not second. This phrasing could allow theists, deists, and atheists to sign on. Moreover, the term “Creator” is ambiguous, for it need not be theistic at all. “Creator” could just as easily mean the sum of all of the events that have happened before with no reference to God. Moreover, a Marxist interpretation may substitute the phrase “Laws of History” for “Creator”.
“Creator” could mean God. It could mean Brahma. It could mean Pachamama. It could mean Nature. It could mean the Laws of History. It could mean Tradition. It could mean “everything that has come before”.
The term “Creator” was an excellent political fudge to allow those who signed the Declaration of Independence to interpret the meaning of the word “Creator” in their own different ways. I think the term “Creator” was intended to be sufficiently ambiguous to give people space and more importantly prevent any one group from establishing the worship of its own deity as the state religion.
One should not assume that the phrase “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” is necessarily a reference to God-given rights. They may be cultural rights, traditional rights, basic rights toward which the State must always be subservient. I hold that the legitimacy of any State is dependent upon the extent to which it will defend the basic rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
In other words, I would suggest that the Rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence are inherent in the very nature of civilization. Now, if one takes the view that nature of civilization is God, then these Rights would be inherent in the very nature of God. Indeed, I do take the view that civilization has one origin, one nature, one essence, one basis for existence. I also take the view that tyranny is incompatible with the successful functioning of civilization and that defending the Rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness are essential to promoting the common good.
Although my personal views are theistic, I regard it as important to emphasize that the Declaration of Independence relies at least as much upon the Laws of Nature as upon any reference to God. As such, ours may be the first nation built upon a declaration of scientific principle. Ours may be the first nation built upon a direct refutation of the ideal of divine right.
Mongoose, that stuff entirely misses the point. I’ll even grant that the term “deist” may be a modern description and not their contemporary self-description, it’s a matter of the distance between the government they founded and the particular beliefs and practices of *any* of the denominations that existed at the time, and also the distance at which most of the American protestant denominations viewed their diety. The only *common* element that they held, much less the only common element that they employed in the formation of our government, was a very abstract one indeed. To the extent that they accepted this, crafted it, and were proud of it as a fundamental of the whole exercise, “deist” is the proper, if rather concise, explanation for the situation.
Herb, That devil in Tuscaloosa wouldn’t be named L’il Nicky would he?
You wouldn’t be a fan of the team from the loveliest village on the plains would you?
The order in the universe comes from a divine/all-knowing design. My preference is to believe in God. I read an interesting article on canine order and ethics. An unethical canine, one that does not obey pack rules, is killed or banished to ensure the survival of the rest. Dogs, in particular, consider members of their species who don’t play fair or violate other innate rules to be enemies.
That instinct is infused in us. But we can no longer act upon it because the moral law has been so diluted.
How did the natural order come about? Was it accidental? How has the Bible endured through the ages, telling us how to remain healthy, raise our children, run our businesses, manage our communities. Some things are so fundamentally sound that they should be left alone, the Constitution, Bible, natural law.
Bogie Wheel, it’s true that the character of devotion changes, along with the iconography, in the course of the Middle Ages, but not at the time your professor said. It begins in the second half of the 11th century, and is well advanced in the 12th. A different sense of nature and man’s place in it also develops at this time. St. Francis, in the 13th century, is sort of the full flower of 12th-century trends.
When I look at the universe, I see two things:
1) The corruption of entropy making war on all things;
2) The beauty of orderly systems not yet fully corrupted.
It is evident the universe is dying; it ultimately resolves to a state of maximum entropy, in which nothing can ever happen again, a state of dead time, dead space, dead matter: all utterly meaningless, incapable of containing any order or meaning.
One question logically follows, however: if that is the inevitable end of the universe, how could the universe have ever existed in any other state?
A reasonable supposition is that something stronger than entropy has been at work. Another way of describing such a thing is the word “incorruptible”.
Now, the concept of the incorruptible is an intriguing one indeed. The incorruptible is necessarily inexhaustible; it cannot wear out. It is maximum orderliness, for there is no entropy at all in it, and thus it must contain infinite meaning, infinite information. It thus must be maximum sentience, maximum consciousness, maximum intelligence. If there were anything worthy of being called God, it would be the Incorruptible. There can be nothing greater.
Thus, true religion, the real thing, may simply be called the quest of the Incorruptible. If a man finds the Incorruptible, he has found something of greater value than all else that may be desired, for all things human are subject to entropy:
All human love decays into hatred;
All human pleasures decay into emptiness;
All human peace decays into war;
All human interests decay into boredom;
All human morals decay into hypocrisy;
All human knowledge decays into forgetfulness;
All things human decay into vanity.
The human race is imprisoned by entropy, and we have no power to escape. We cannot save ourselves from the bondage of corruption. If there is any hope at all, it is not in human power, but in the Incorruptible.
The remarkable thing, therefore, is not that we should find corruption in the course of human affairs, but that we should ever find anything else, for incorruption is alien, not only to our planet, but also to our universe. The mark of incorruption seen in people such as George Washington, which sign was once known as the Divine spark, is perhaps the greatest evidence that there is a God.
Donna, there ‘s of that, but also the representations of Christ and his passion were inspired by the 4 gospels that began to be displayed among the educated classes of clerics and merchands, in latin and or german. Now, why there wasn’t icones of cruxificion in the first centuries (or very few) becuze crucifiction was still considered as the most infamous death penalty, and it wasn’t conceivable that the Christ, also “king” of the Jews would be represented in a last grade citizen position. Before Jesus had the appearance of a late teen or a young man, his attributs were the fish (the ralliement sign for the first Christians), then with a lamb on his shoulders, as the Herder, then with the letter PX
Christ in majesty appeared at the end of Middle-ages, when Greec and Latin texts became more available, Renaissance is based on humanism and cult of human figure.
Cruxifiction representations carried on until 20th century (ie Dali’s works)
I read that the founding fathers were freemasons (at least for certains, like Franklin, Jefferson, also friends of Voltaire, that advocated Deism as an alternative to an official religion)
The world of cult.
The cult of world.
Watch the box.
Pictures moving.
People stagnant.
Life interrupted
Unrealized indubitably.
TB68:
I was always told I needed no introduction.
I re idolatry (so as to remain at least tangentially On)I see where they are erecting a statue to old nicky. Seems a bit premature. That he hasnt gotten a better offer yet isnt a sign that he wont take one.
Hmm. Seems that PJM will not accept my comments now. And I never saw a register place.
Testing….. wretchard
Regarding the CULT of Islam what is also very telling is that the self same Green NAZIS , PC,MC left wing moonbats are also almost universally antisemitic Islamophiles too. I also include the left wing LBTG’s as well who are by a huge majority incredibly left wing and Islamophile too much like TURKEYS wishing for Thanksgiving or Xmas.
Hmm. Seems that PJM will not accept my comments now. And I never saw a register place.
Testing….. wretchard
Yup, I must now be ‘moderated’.
So much for the spirit of the internet.
It has been co-opted by small souls. Frightened sorts.
Hmmmmm,…. Is this Belmont Club or have I tripped and fell into a rabbit hole – Oh well, while I’m here, I’ll look aroung for Easter eggs.
RagnarD,
I am testing to see if I still exist also. Interesting, what?
The World the Flesh shapes and
The Flesh the World shapes and
that is good enough for me.
Why ?
Perhaps because I _Will_ have it so.
Do not over-think the question, people;
Next chance, go outside at night and
see how far up the stars are.
I comment, therefore I spam.
So very true. I love star-gazing. Somehow I feel tiny and insignificant and yet safe and protected all at the same time. Go figure?
Edit function is working now.
Green eggs and spam I am.
Thus, true religion, the real thing, may simply be called the quest of the Incorruptible.
Although I agree with you about the nature of true religion, real religion throughout history is quite the opposite.
In ancient Babylonian religion, the definition of the Incorruptible was a demon. To an ancient Mediterranean pagan, the gods could be corrupted; the gods could be bribed. The very venality of the gods was seen as hope. In contrast, demons could never be bribed, so they were looked upon with fear and horror.
The sacrifices in antiquity were tariffs for the gods. It was taken for granted that if the gods were bribed with enough offerings, the gods would be happy. It wasn’t about love; it was about paying the tariff to the deity before any sacred intimacy was considered.
The quest of the Incorruptible? In ancient Greek myth, that was Rhadamanthus.
Would it be the ultimate corruption of a democracy for the vote to become a votive offering to a deity who offers hope? Who is truly corrupted by such a bargain?
It may be that the Grim Reaper symbolizes true religion. Still, I think most people throughout the world would rather believe they could bribe their way into Heaven.
Yet, where is the decay? Hatred, emptiness, war, boredom, hypocrisy, forgetfulness, and vanity – they all existed in antiquity. They are nothing new. I would say that humanity is better off now than it was four thousand years ago. Technology has improved, and I dare say that religion and ethics have also improved over the same time period. I wouldn’t call it “progress”, but I would hardly regard modernity as worse in either physical or moral circumstance than in ancient civilizations from 2000 B.C. I wouldn’t call it decay.
Improvement is possible.
Delia,
Green eggs and spam, eh? Is that what eco-warriors eat before setting forth to do battle with the massed forces of Global Warming skeptics on the Internet?
[Quick Edit] Programmer looks at the above really lame attempt at humor, slaps his forehead in chagrin and slinks off to put more chocolate (there is never any such thing as enough chocolate) in the Easter basket for the grand kids tomorrow.
Programmer’s parting comment is to ask God’s blessings on all and sundry at Belmont Club.
Hmm. Good query, Programmer! Either that or a juicy cow burger:
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fight-global-warming-eat-a-cow.html
It actually changed quite a bit. There is a rather dense book called “The Crucified God in the Carolingian Era” that looks at the depictions of Jesus, particularly crucifixion scenes, and attempts to relate the changes back to theological movements. Christ Triumphant coexisted with the Suffering Christ throughout the period . Now, it may be that there is a broad trend towards one portrayal or another over the entire Medieval period – I haven’t studied the subject in any detail – but the sheer complexity of the carolingian evidence makes me skeptical of any sweeping generalization.
This vixen’s whelp says:
Mine heart inclines me towards the grand narrative, but mine head doth revel in complexities.
I believe that the phrase “Nature’s God” was actually a well recognized term usually understood to be the Christian God. It shows up in Bacon and Blackstone. i don’t have a good source for that right now, though.
What’s his name provided a link. Here’s a different one.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
Alexis seems to have elucidated the correct viewpoint, and noting the US as having a scientific basis from day 1 is a brilliant observation.
reechipeep — It is evident the universe is dying; it ultimately resolves to a state of maximum entropy, in which nothing can ever happen again, a state of dead time, dead space, dead matter: all utterly meaningless, incapable of containing any order or meaning.
Novelist Stephen Baxter knows a thing or two re string theory and multiverses and proposes in his ‘manifold’ trilogy that the purpose of life is to change this fate of the universe. Chesterton in comparison is mere navel gazing noodling; philosophy minus physics (understanding of objective reality) is rather pointless.
The Galileo points fail, too. It did not go down like that.
To say “I believe in quantum mechanics” is to say “I believe in some startling, hard to describe mathematical models best left to professionals.”
But, it sounds good, and safe, and wisely chosen.
Would, for your sake, that it were so.
The wind is old and still at play
While I must hurry upon my way,
For I am running to Paradise;
Yet never have I lit on a friend
To take my fancy like the wind
That nobody can buy or bind:
And there the king is but as the beggar.
“Running to Paradise,” by W. B. Yeats
Agreed — except for the point that the Church has nothing to apologize regarding Galileo. That she recently did anyway, conceding the point in an attempt to move on, really gained nothing.
Nobody does truth service by invoking the Galileo case in the typical way. That in itself is attempt to load the dice.
“Now Let God Arise”: the Russian Easter Overture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XId7e3IoNk&feature=PlayList&p=06D4FD39B1B0FE31&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=41
Happy Easter, everyone!
This is so true, Alexis.
The best con-men always start with flattery and a bit of obsequiousness. It’s the fastest path into the mark’s “confidence.”
I can assure you that the member of my family that fought in the First Marine Division during WWII (and Korea) did not do so out of religious faith. According to family lore, he had none. Considering the misery of his upbringing, not surprising. And there have been many Constitutions that had at their core an unknown creator, or stately entity. Most of them in the dustbin of history.
Why did the Romans suffer so much to remain Roman, and mostly free men, against Hannibal, and then rapidly thereafter succumb to a series of Emperors worse than the Carthaginians? In my view, because the Romans had a deep attachment to “smallness” of their land, people, traditions, and fought to retain them. When they no longer had this, one ruler was as good as another.
I just don’t see a Universal Christianity, or Islam, or Buddhism, or what have you as an organizing principle. And there have been many people who did not have it that behaved perfectly well.
Moreover, it is not just Messianic lunatics who organize mass murder. Rwandans, most of them illiterate, hacked to death or killed with stones about nearly 1 million people between April-June 1994. Most of them were self organized. Caesar and his legions killed about a million Gauls during the conquest of the same. Roman slaughter the way they built a road or a viaduct.
I think it is those without roots, values, a part of tradition, and attachment that fill themselves up with lunacy. A deep smallness, including the religion of the land, seems to me to be the historically proven way to avoid this idiocy. After all, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism were able to “solve” the issue of lunatic leaders, and folks like Wallenstein and Napoleon and even Gustavus Adolphus presaged the massacres of the 20th Century. All very much in the name of religion.
To those who have seen
The Child, however dimly, however incredulously,
The Time Being is, in a sense, the most trying time of all.
For the innocent children who whispered so excitedly
Outside the locked door where they knew the presents to be
Grew up when it opened. Now, recollecting that moment
We can repress the joy, but the guilt remains conscious;
Remembering the stable where, for once in our lives,
Everything became a You and nothing was an It.
And craving the sensation but ignoring the cause,
We look round for something, no matter what, to inhibit
Our self-reflection, and the obvious thing for that purpose
Would be some great suffering.
So, once we have met the Son,
We are tempted ever after to pray to the Father;
“Lead us into temptation and evil for our sake.”
They will come, all right, don’t worry; probably in a form
That we do not expect, and certainly with a force
More dreadful than we can imagine.
In the meantime
There are bills to be paid, machines to keep in repair,
Irregular verbs to learn, the Time Being to redeem
From insignificance. The happy morning is over,
The night of agony still to come; the time is noon:
When the Spirit must practice his scales of rejoicing
Without even a hostile audience, and the Soul endure
A silence that is neither for nor against her faith
That God’s Will will be done; That, in spite of her prayers,
God will cheat no one, not even the world of its triumph.
IV
CHORUS
He is the Way.
Follow Him through the Land of Unlikeness;
You will see rare beasts, and have unique adventures.
He is the Truth.
Seek Him in the Kingdom of Anxiety;
You will come to a great city that has expected your return for years.
He is the Life.
Love Him in the World of the Flesh;
And at your marriage all its occasions shall dance for joy.
– W. H. Auden
#include
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return access(“programmer”, F_OK);
}
interesting link
Bah. No, Mongoose is the one with the bead on this.
As the Medieval era began, the manner in which the Church transmitted its message to the faithful took a new turn. In the Roman Catholic Church of the 12th C, the Passion came to dominate the worship, and the story of the crucifixion of Jesus held special appeal in this evangelical culture, preoccupied with mysticism, death and demonic spirits.
The world opened even wider in the 13th and 14th C as expanded trade and universities spread humanistic ideals throughout society, and art followed suit in more accurately reflecting the physical world. Later, as the Black Death devastated the continent, artists’ focus on the cruel and gruesome aspects of the Passion may also have been an attempt by their Church patrons to connect and respond via Christ’s suffering to the collective trauma of the age
Toward the end of the Middle Ages, crucifixions become more literal about the violence suffered by Christ’s body. Artists also discovered the laws of perspective, which allowed painters to create three dimensional scenes and which became a basic tool in the early Renaissance as artists aimed to reproduce the world as it was designed. The Great Schism of the Catholic Church reduced its influence, and artists’ patrons were now increasingly drawn from wealthy noble and merchant classes, who allowed them greater freedom of expression. Finally, the late 14th C was a time of great progress in other arts and sciences. The rediscovery of ancient Greek and Roman texts and philosophies led directly to the spirit of intellectual inquiry and humanism of the Renaissance.
http://temperaworkshop.com/history/crucifixion.htm
Why the common confidence man fails against others of his kind, and must seek honest folk, exposes the general weakness of the confidence man. To a phallanx of honest folk, too, a con-man holds a losing hand. The popular conception of justice is like that meted out by a hero like Superman, the prototypical god-like defender of truth, justice and the American Way.
Superman, were he here among us today, would have little value. This is because the public enemies we face today are not the common and thuggish sort. The hero paradigm of Superman, which again is the paradigm along which the majority of Americans think, requires a populace that is generally good and a city hall which is generally good. Evil is easily identifiable under this rubric, the only question is marshalling and coordinating enough power against it to stop it.
We do not face cartoon villains. Would that we did face a Hitler, or a Joker, or some other such figure everybody could peg as malicious from a mile off.
Superman, Captain America, Indiana Jones, even Elliot Ness are not effective models of the kind of heroes we need today. A Chesterton, a CS Lewis or a Tolkein might be more along the proper lines, as each of them would be shocked to discover.
The Evil One is no longer some grim genius on the outskirts of society angling to take it down by some nefarious scheme hinging on one great action. Rather, he is inside our institutions conducting a broad erosion of them and he has consent to do it. He is also nameless. He is not Barack Obama, he is not even George Soros, even though these men might be doing his will wittingly or not.
We no longer face the problem of keeping the fly out of the ointment. He’s in the ointment.
The UFO cult ate the pudding. obamanations kool-aide drinkers think they what he pours out will give them life, when it reality it’s slow poisen to everyone. the pudding eaters knew they were going to die.
If the grocer underestimates the weight, isn’t he only cheating himself? It is overestimating the weight that defrauds the consumer.
You misunderstand. Here, incorruptible does not refer to morals, but to physical attributes. The Incorruptible does not decay, does not break up. There is nothing new under the sun, to be sure, for even the internet is but a scaled up version of things come before it, but entropy is ever building, as creation itself undergoes decay.
Excellent link, G.L.
Look, we could yammer on at length about the cultural versus religious aspects of this and that, and the secularizing spirit of the Enlightenment, and the Puritan aspects of Americans, work ethic and fairness, and the Christianity of the church versus the Christianity of Jesus and of historic Christian movements and yada yada. Much of this is true, and I for one am glad of it, compared to dar al-Islam and senile Europe.
Let me put it this way, in terms of the Christian heritage, would the founding fathers did with it was a new thing in the world.
… WHAT the founding fathers did with it was a new thing.
Regarding this matter of smart people being deceived, let me add another point: smart people are vulnerable to ideologies that puff up their ego, regardless of how utterly foolish or contrary to reality those beliefs may be. Do not leftists go around telling each other how smart they are? Why is that? It is because they are arrogant, and they love having their egos stroked.
No, it is you that miss the point, and absurdly so. Go back and reread it, and while you are at it go pick up a history book written before the 1940′s. Are we to imagine that they do not mean what they say? Your notion of colonial America is radically at odds with the actual reality of the times. You are just making up a fictitious country out of whole cloth merely to rock on a hobby-horse.
Evidently you still carry around a lot of unexamined left wing baggage from your early education. This consistently crops up with you. You also did not quite parse my English correctly: The notion of a “deist” was a not what I called a “modern conceit”, but rather that conceit is the notion that the founder were such a thing. They would well know what a “deist” was; what would have perturbed them would be the idea that they were anything other than good Protestants. To base the notion of human rights as based on the divine nature of man, and then to hold to deism is a theologically and philosophical contradiction. It is one that they could not have made. So here you are doubly obtuse.
America, certainly in the colonial era, and really up until the post WW2 era, could best be described as “politically non-sectarianism ” and “predominantly socially Protestant” rather than a “secular” nation. In particular, New England, the Dutch colonies and the Mid-Atlantic colonies foundations and cultures were deeply tied to religion. Social life revolved around the church. What proves how absurd this is is the complete lack of any real contemporaneous, mainstream commentary or discussions suggesting otherwise.
The Founders were not social radicals, they were people of their time and place and very much an expression of them.
In fact, in this period in “polite society” and the communities of the middle classes atheists were not tolerated any more than were unmarried couples. Josh, you are just imagining things.
As to the poster who posts that other link. He is just proving my point: This is a Left wing, modern construct and propaganda. That link cherry picks and takes words out of context. It also completely avoids history and tradition. The author’s intent as obviously polemical as is the dishonesty of his methods. In terms of the era, it is a most preposterous assertion, disproved by their own words and the political and social institutions of the times. If you have doubts go look at the original charters and political documents for the colonies or, for that matter, the founding charters of the older Universities and Colleges, almost all of the Ivies, and most certainly Harvard, were founded with clearly articulated and enumerated briefs for religious instruction.
Again, the founding and the living culture of America was profoundly Christian up until the ascendancy of the New Dealer Communists and socialists. To suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Wishes for a joyous Easter to one and all. Tis the season of renewal. Even here at the Belmont Club with its new look. (I vote to bring back the numbering of the posts. Just my two pennies).
Concerning the creator God, an airtight argument, it will not suffice, any more than the miracles of Jesus.
It is up to the hearer, who must receive the love of the truth, even if it is outside his comfort zone, costing a bit of ridicule, loss of friends, job, possibly arrest, imprisonment, torture, or death.
For the person who really wants to know, God has promised that he will make himself known.
Whiskey: After all, neither Catholicism nor Protestantism were able to “solve” the issue of lunatic leaders, and folks like Wallenstein and Napoleon and even Gustavus Adolphus presaged the massacres of the 20th Century. All very much in the name of religion.
So what does that prove? Did not Jesus say, “My kingdom is not of this world”? Seems the only conclusion here is that Wallenstein, Napolean, et. al. preferred to ignore (at least some of) the Master’s words.
Josh: wretchard, you touch on an issue where I seem to stand alone and abandoned at this point, this “Creator” in regards to the US founding documents. Some today see the reference as proof of Christian roots, and even you seem to read it as the source of legitimacy. That’s not my understanding.
Josh, (I mentioned this before) if you want to know why some people stubbornly insist on the Christian roots of USA, you really should read David Barton’s Original Intent: the Courts, the Constitution and Religion, which is chock full of original sources from the founding era. This is a book where the author, although a Christian, has the Founders speak for themselves, in contrast to so many authors who merely speak about the Founders. If you would only permit yourself to go directly to the original sources, you might have to, as Mongoose said, reform your notions of their beliefs.
Bogie wheel: It just came down to a choice between two ultimate paths: Christ or futility.
That’s it. That’s exactly what it comes down to. There is no other remedy.
One may say that there’s no need for an ultimate remedy, other than the human desire for one. But if there truly is no need for THE remedy, the answer, then there must be no problem. But people like Josh, or Michael McNeil, I don’t suppose would deny the existence of problems, (else they wouldn’t be found at BC where all we do is discuss problems).
So what is the problem? The problem is the evil that men do. Beyond that is the evil that nature wreaks in the form of natural disasters, illness, accidents. Never in all of our long history has man ever been able to solve either problem, and if at any time we begin to think we actually DO have the solution (for at least the “man-caused disasters”), we end up seeing the consequences (intended or not)… more evil.
Frankly, I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can grant all this and yet be satisfied to accept it. In effect, they’re saying, “We’re born, we suffer meaninglessly, then we die. Those are the facts and that’s all I need.” Victor Frankl decided the key was to invest one’s own meaning into the suffering. Fine, I guess, if one can do that, but what about the suffering of little children? How can they be expected to do this? Is Frankl’s solution only for adults? Then it’s not a solution.
I think, unless we get off the path we’re on, unsolvable problems are not going to remain a comfortable distance away for a lot of us and it strikes me that atheists and agnostics close themselves off from a real source of strength that may be sorely needed in the not-too-distant future. But if atheists and agnostics would be willing to challenge themselves to honestly and impartially examine the evidence, a good place to start might be Peter Kreeft’s and Ronald Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics, where reason and faith are allies and there is a lot for an intellectually-inclined person to sink his teeth into. The authors state 3 reasons for writing the book:
1. We are certain that the Christian faith is true.
2. We are only a little less certain that the very best thing we can possibly do for others is to persuade them of this truth, in which there is joy and peace and love incomparable in this world, and infinite and incomprehensible in the next.
3. We are a little less certain, but still confident, that honest reasoning can lead any open-minded person to this very same conclusion.
Atheists reject Christianity, and all other religions too of course, but in the case of Christianity, without really knowing what it is that is being thrown away.
Oh, and Trangbang’s suggestion of Schlossberg’s Idols For Destruction is right on. Lots of interesting stuff to ruminate on in that book.
Well….Yes, you don’t have to be a religious nutter to be a nutter. Like the chocolates in Forrest Grump’s box, nutters come in all sizes and flavors.
“Whatever is, is; and that is extension and thought. These two are all that is; and besides these there is nought. But these two are one; they are attributes of the single substance (that which, for its existence, stands in need of nothing else), very God, in whom, then, all individual things and all individual ideas (modes of extension those, of thought these) are comprehended and take place”
-Benedict Spinoza
As a believer in Pantheism, I see no reason to anthropomorphize what is and what will always be. Putting a human face on the Universe strikes me as somewhat silly. For those that have problems conceptualizing it is necessary. Whatever works for them. I just prefer to be left alone with my belief. If the god squads would just lighten up, everything would be better.
http://www.fromoldbooks.org/Wood-NuttallEncyclopaedia/p/pantheism.html
I detest Monotheism. It divisive and illogical. If there was only one god, why are there so many different one god religions? ‘Splain that to me. Monotheism is a scam.
We are all balancing between the ideal and the world that exists. Is God the manifestation to a flawed and bounded human perception of the principle of the incorruptible that exists outside? That is almost a tautology in that it could be used to bind together and justify every theology from Hinduism to Christianity to Modern Physics. It can even leave you open to manipulation by the cultist who offers themselves as “the Incorruptible” channel to a Divine Being. Does Reepicheep worship Robespierre?
He is really correct. The Universe as it is is governed by the principles of Entropy and Inertia. That means that things tend to go to Hell and stay there. In most Jewish and Christian theologies the Earth is claimed by Satan as his Kingdom. This is where the two great principles operate. God is largely abstracted in a perfect place but can has and will again intervene.
The differences between that and Judaism, except for the most obvious as to the “has intervened” part, are subtle. In the Jewish tradition God is not competing with a Devil that is of his same substance. Satan is a far lesser being that may be a projection either of material creation around us or as I see it from within us of our limited and flawed abilities to perceive the world as it. He is not an independent actor from outside. God also is not solely outside in the perfect place but here and retains perfect knowledge. However God limits his infinite capacity to act for reasons that ultimately we cannot comprehend. We hope that he does so due to his love of his creation. That grants us Free Will, the capacity to make errors and discover truths. To repeat, little of this is incompatible with most of Christianity.
Such manifestations in Jewish or Christian beliefs would be viewed as heretical. For example Medieval beliefs in vampirism lead to the mutilation of corpses to prevent satanic spirits from taking possession and to free the spirit. The idea that a physical act could bind a spiritual, even if diabolic, act is a cult like superstition. God as such is though never seen as being limited even under those conditions. He sees the soul not the body. The use of ritual in Judaism is more an engine to remind the humans of the truth then to remind God. The religion survived the loss of the ritual based temple sacrifice. God still sees and can act even without the physical acts but we remember those acts as a means to open a window within us. Ultimately though there are limits to my distinction. Christianity depends on sacraments, to a believer the presence of flesh and blood in the Eucharist is real. However Christians repeatedly claim that the act is, like the Jewish reading of the Temple sacrifice, a method of opening within the believer the capacity to receive a spiritual communication. Protestantism reduced and simplified the sacraments to make this point clear.
In other religious traditions God as the manifestation of principles of good, reason and order is more present in the world. In Hinduism the world is a temporary presence in an infinite stream and the principles of Creation, Preservation and Destruction are in tenuous balance. While Brahman is infinite and abstract his manifestations and their avatars are not. In Gnostic or Dualist faiths such as Manichaeism or Mandaeism the struggle between forces that are equal, or who humans lack the capacity to judge between, takes place in the physical world.
In Islam god is almost entirely abstract from the world. The world may not even really exist except as a transient dream. Allah is both malevolent and unfathomable yet given to a peculiar incapacity that makes him unable to know and act effectively due to physical conditions. For example the idea that a physical mutilation could limit God’s ability to know the truth and control the granting of rewards after death is peculiar to Islam. Islam as a communal force both violently reacted against Gnosticism and as a belief system shows the influence of Gnostic, Nestorian and Manichaen beliefs.
To be blogged under the title “Incorruptibility Chaos and Inertia.”
folks like Wallenstein and Napoleon and even Gustavus Adolphus presaged the massacres of the 20th Century. All very much in the name of religion.
The Napoleonic Wars were religious crusades? That’s news to me. Napoleon used the Church, but his prime motivation was power. He was not acting “in the name of religion.”
To me, there is a kind of a self centered arrogance about Atheism.
For most atheists I know, there can be no higher authority than themselves, for they are the center of their own universe. They are the true children of our spoiled brat culture, where submission to a higher being is just not possible for their little self absorbed minds. The Atheist exalts himself. He is the determinant of his own morality. He cannot conceive of following a set of commandants handed down by others, much less God .
Every Athiest belief system: Rationalism, Environmentalism, whatever, must be able to be manipulated by them. Every “ism” they profess is ultimately interpreted through their own eyes. They must be in control.
Atheism is thus the preferred belief vehicle for our activist busy bodies that have so plagued our society. They aspire to be part of the elite who had down the commandments from which the rest of us must live.
One final thought. Atheists are some of the most unhappy people I know. These grim joyless people love only themselves and rarely find the joy of loving others. To love God, or to love thy neighbor as one’s self is not in the cards.
On this Easter Sunday, I can only hope that some of these Atheist find the joy and love in the peace of Christ.
Blast the editing error on my part. The paragraph on Islam should come before the one that starts “Such manifestations in Jewish or Christian beliefs…” The last sentence of the paragraph about Islam should read “Islam as a communal force both violently reacted against Gnosticism and as a belief system shows the influence of Gnostic, Nestorian and Manichaen beliefs as discussed below.”
Hopefully that way it makes sense.
“she had finally given up all hope.”
…-
“The Man in the Watchtower
By Clarice Feldman”
[...]
“Decades before, I was engaged as a lawyer with the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Investigations hunting Nazi war criminals. I mentioned that when I interviewed survivors, I was struck by how often their stories involved the almost miraculous and certainly inexplicable intervention of a mysterious stranger at a point critical to the narrators’ survival.
Lauren’s mother looked at me and put down her drink. She seemed taken aback by that.
“It’s odd you should say that,” she said. “Something like that happened to my mother, too.
“She was alone in the camp, freezing and starving, and she had contracted typhus. It’s a horrible way to die, typhus, and she had finally given up all hope. There were electrified fences around the camp, and prisoners who had given up all hope would just walk up to them and lean against them to commit suicide.
“My mother decided that’s what she would do. She used her last strength to approach the fence. Suddenly, a man in the watchtower who guarded the camp, yelled out, ‘Halt!’ startling her into compliance. He yelled to someone in charge — maybe a capo — to bring her a blanket and warm milk, and his order was followed. Somehow she recovered and survived until liberation.”
Who was this person? Why did one of the thousands of suffering prisoners touch him and compel him to act to save her life? Could he ever have imagined — could she ever have imagined — the outcome of that act of inexplicable charity? Of the children and grandchildren who live along with her because of it?
But there we were on a beautiful summer day, watching the whitecaps on Lake Michigan, our hearts full of silent thanks to the man in the watchtower.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_man_in_the_watchtower.html
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/04/04/squaring-the-circle-of-catholic-trust/#comment-78874
Any religion that attempts to achieve the incorruptible by means of corruptible power (that is, energy subject to entropy), is counterfeit.
Or, as Jesus said,
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.” (John 18:36)
I echo what everybody else said except for a nuanced difference and I disagree with the incorrect comments. For something pithier I’d add some sort of irony here.
Cowboy,
Thanks for the Ack. Happy Easter and may you find an abundance of chocolate on this blessed day when Jesus demonstrated that there exists at least one in the set of all those who have died and then arose again.
For those who believe AND are programmers, it is apparent that Jesus IS the message. He demonstrates a round trip connection with God. So, the hardware layer is in place. We just have to work on getting our software protocols in place and working.
Happy Easter to the Belmont crew and to our generous host, Wretchard.
As I said above to Alexis, attempting to achieve the incorruptible by means of corruptible power is a counterfeit. The idea that one may use corruptible power to be like God is the father of all lies; it is the reason Lucifer fell and became Satan:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart…I will be like the most High.” (from Isaiah 14:12-15)
To put it another way, evil is simply the counterfeit of good. No one has tried harder than Satan to set up a kingdom like God’s on the earth. Thus, those men who have striven to set up such a kingdom with force- whether they were or claimed to be Muslim, or Catholic, or Puritan, or Calvinist, or Protestant, or any other religion- were actually furthering Satan’s kingdom.
God’s kingdom cannot be earned or imitated, nor can it be imposed, but it can and ought to be received.
“Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” (Luke 12:32)
By the way, I wrote on this in more detail here:
http://higherthanthey.blogspot.com/2007/01/kingdom-of-satan.html
In the Jewish tradition God is not competing with a Devil that is of his same substance.
LOTM, if you are implying that that is true in Christianity, you are deeply mistaken.
In Christian doctrine, God and the devil are absolutely not of the same substance. The devil is a creature as much as men are creatures. The fight against Manichaean heresies was tireless, and no orthodox doctrine ever held such a thing. Really the Cathars espoused not so much a Christian heresy as a different religion altogether.
OK – What is the trick with the Avatars? Also, It looks like sooner or later I am goint to forget to unselect the subscription request. Great.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_h8EM343xS_c/S7ilBE5-hMI/AAAAAAAAAAM/sRMq3RxRXsA/S220-h/AM2006Color.jpg
Getting back to Wretchard’s thesis … under the larger umbrella of this need for belief is a sub-need I find pretty fascinating, because it’s actually a pair of sub-needs which are in tension: the need for boundaries, and the simultaneous need to test boundaries.
I’m no philosopher or linguist or neurologist, but it seems to me that the need for boundaries is part of the essential groundwork of sanity. The brain categorizes automatically and constantly: “that is A, that is non-A.” Categorizing and sorting produce understood boundaries, lines that cannot be crossed, things that cannot be mixed because they are fundamentally irreconcilable.
At the same time, doesn’t the challenging of boundaries also seem to be an intrinsic part of the human experience? Isn’t this urge and need to challenge, to explore and to question, consistent with what some would term “free will”?
Any belief system that is worth more than a plug nickel of your time spent to consider it is going to have to account for this tension between freedom and control; between law and the violation of law; between choice and consequences. In the movie “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray’s character makes the inevitable psychological transition from hedonism to nihilism when he discovers that his actions have no *apparent* consequences … that “no consequences” = “no purpose” and therefore, “what’s the point?” The dead end, the futility of an existence where actions are detached from effects, leads him to all those futile suicide attempts. (Of course, one could argue that the change of his own consciousness is itself a consequence of his actions, hence the qualifier “apparent” … if there had truly been NO consequence to his actions, then his final phase of altruism would not have “worked” either and he would have remained forever stuck in Groundhog Day … or something like that …)
Anyhoo.
IMO one of the appeals of cults is that they fulfill both these very real human needs — freedom and restraint — at the same time. On the one hand a cult challenges the mainstream order, while OTOH setting forth its own brand of demands and regulations. Whatever guilt it may invoke in a person who ditches the traditional/mainstream/established beliefs, it assuages by rewarding that person for adherence to the cult’s rules. Which of course it positions as “higher” or “newer” or “more authentic” than the traditional/mainstream/established that has been rejected. Thus offering yet another relief from the guilt (you’re doing it for a greater good) while appealing to the person’s need for significance (you can see the truth while your family & friends can’t because you’re more enlightened).
I could go on, but you get the picture. Cults — the semi- and successful ones, anyway … the outright flops, we never hear about — work because they cleverly counterfeit authentic human awakening to and interaction with the divine.
Counterfeiting is pernicious not only because it tricks people into subscribing to a false currency but because it also debases the real one. Those who are not tricked become super-skeptical.
As it is with belief and money, so it is with all sorts of arenas of human relationships. Co-dependency, for example, is such an excellent counterfeit of *healthy* habitual selflessness that only in its extreme stages does the real motivation of the co-dependent become clear. The healthy unselfish person gives from abundance, i.e. they are “filled” inside and give from their inner riches. What appears to be “giving” on the part of the co-dependent is really a desperate grasping to fill a voracious inner emptiness; the co-dependent lacks a healthy sense of his or her own significance and thus tries to “prove” it by playing the super-saint towards someone else (usually an addict).
It is, of course, unsustainable, because it can result in only one thing — an escalating cycle of exploitation and self-abasement, until the craziness explodes on some sort of visible platform for all to see.
Again, Jesus was right: “By their fruits shall you know them.” It’s just that when you are talking about a really, really clever or subtle counterfeit, those (poisonous) fruits can take a long time to ripen.
And one final thought:
If there were no authentic currency, there would be no need to counterfeit.
Unsk’s slapdown of atheists seems to apply equally to pantheist friend Rosinande. God is in everything, and God is in nothing. According to Jesus, the worst scam of all is to scam yourself.
Matthew 6:22-23- The light of the body is the eye, if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
But if thine eye be evil thy whole body shall be full of darkness.If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!
This Easter I’m reminded of a story about the power of the risen Christ to change lives. A converted drunk was questioned by a skeptic named Josh (just kidding) The skeptic asked him if he really believed that Jesus turned water into wine. The convert replied “I don’t know about that, but in my house He turned beer into furniture”
He lives! Happy Easter.
I make the point pretty explicitly that on this issue non-heretical Christianity is as I see it within the Jewish tradition.
ABC This Week had on Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan this morning. Summers is a cipher, he says nothing of content in his appearances. He is (or has been) an intelligent man, so this is his “political” face, and it is utterly worthless. Greenspan is the devil incarnate. In trying to be creative, he has made the greatest mistakes in US economic history, and I presumed he was effectively senile. Googling, he is “only” 84″ Hmm. Well, he was actually sharp and cogent – from a self-serving, 1980′s point of view. He now admits he “failed to see a certain technical kind of risk”, him and everyone he knows failed … heh, him and everyone he knows WERE THAT RISK, in my view. His “solution” is that institutions hold more capital. WRONG. He is still working the system, not standing outside the system and viewing its purposes.
Jake Tapper, not bad but not great, asks Greenspan, “Doesn’t the current crisis show that capitalism is wrong, that Ayn Rand was wrong?” Jake, babe, Rand was a novelist. Of course Greenspan said no.
But Greenspan still has his faith (marginal connection to current topic) in the model. Thus he sees the only solution in the model. Ask me, and I’ll tell ya, the solution is in the prison system, and in other forms of direct action against the criminality, venality, and fraud that caused the systemic collapse. Including, in his innocent idolatry of the model if not the dollar, that of Mr. Greenspan himself.
Reepicheep,
to set up such a kingdom with force … furthering Satan’s kingdom
Merely existing in the world means confronting challenges and causing some damage that can increase the amount of entropy. Simply eating and procreating can involve some degree of at least sublimated force. Leftists are fixated by the realization that every transaction involves a power relation. That gives the world an inescapable aura of evil that they try to expiate, often with blood. Religious communities that have tried to eliminate all traces of force from their lives, such as Jains who carry their respect for life to its logical conclusion and Shakers who avoided the corrupting influence of sexual relations, have remained at best isolated sub-groups or have failed altogether. The problem then is one of degree and how one uses a belief system to relate to others. Some belief systems stress force within the world and some refute it and some seek a balance.
Robespierre claimed to be the mildest of men and began by condemning the death penalty. His effort to bring Virtue to earth showed how any system, even one based on Reason and the Rights of Man can degenerate into the Terror. The guillotine itself was designed as a more humane and logical way to execute justice. The problem was that in this irrational world even the most sincere and best intentioned methods to place people in communication with the incorruptible ideal faces resistance or rivalry from other equally sincere systems.
You are correct that the more one tries to rely on force to compel conformity with perfection the more one increases disorder. That can be called the Devil’s work. Perfection being to hard to attain and to complex to understand those who rely on controlling force usually settle for reducing the complexity of the world to a simplicity that they can at least comprehend. That is partly why both Socialism and Islam result in not just material poverty but intellectual poverty as well.
Some capacity to use force is still needed as long as we live in this world. The forces of Islam mustered the use of force more effectively than the Christians of Constantinople could. When the Emperor went to the Patriarch and the Metropolitans and begged for a doctrine that could compete with the Islamic promise of Paradise in the Koran that inspired the Muslim warriors he was refused.
I thought that I spent 600 words in making clear that the point is how man relates to the abstract perfection outside and the entropy within the world. Different religions use different mechanisms to address this. While these beliefs are distinct they are also related both because of the nature of humans who are drawn to study these issues, some of these patterns may be hard wired in us, and also due to historical transfers of concepts. Later religions are both syncretic in taking from their predecessors and also reactive in developing to stress their distinctiveness and reject potential rivals. Some are more successful than others. If you are asserting that you find one approach correct in resolving the problem of Job of how a perfect God tolerates evil in the world then I congratulate you and wish you well. If you are claiming that all other religions are not even aware of the issue or are all agents of that entropic force known as Satan then I would disagree with you.
—-
OT,
Add to the wish list the ability to view a thread with comment replies either as sub threads or with all in time sequence, so you do not miss the latest.
Okay. It was unclear to me in it its context:
In most Jewish and Christian theologies the Earth is claimed by Satan as his Kingdom. This is where the two great principles operate. God is largely abstracted in a perfect place but can has and will again intervene.
The differences between that and Judaism, except for the most obvious as to the “has intervened” part, are subtle. In the Jewish tradition God is not competing with a Devil that is of his same substance.
What the “that” refers to is unclear (in “the differnces between that and Judaism”).
In Re: Entropy
Life violates entropy. Life creates more complex systems from less complex components. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are not mocked: Life consumes more energy than it effectively uses, but Life does reduce the entropy in the Universe by increasing the amount of order and decreasing chaos.
Coincidentally, on a far simpler scale, so does crystallization of minerals, which show no evidence of being alive.
If Life was not created, why does all life that we know share the same DNA/RNA process? Why is there only one coding system for all living creatures? Why not evidence of life arising more than once employing different coding schemes over Deep Time?
Always look at the inverse of the proposition, as well.
Life violates entropy. Life creates more complex systems from less complex components. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics are not mocked: Life consumes more energy than it effectively uses, but Life does reduce the entropy in the Universe by increasing the amount of order and decreasing chaos.
Well, make up your mind, the three laws of thermodynamics define entropy, are they violated or not? Also, “chaos” these days is not a good synonym for disorder, “chaotic” systems as in “deterministic chaos” are very ordered but very sensitive. And maybe that’s just how the whole universe is and always has been. Even stars forming out of gas clouds are creating order of out, um, disorder, and nobody entirely understands the why’s of that, either.
It’s a very fine universe, and we are unlikely to ever understand where it came from or why things are what they are. Maybe we are here just to work out the puzzles of the what, and that should keep us busy for the next few millions years, if we don’t blow ourselves out of it first.
Josh, I think we’re getting them from Gravatar.com or WordPress.com.
I do not think evil is limited to being the counterfeit of goodness. Rather, I regard evil as using good to destroy good. Although that includes using the appearance of good to destroy good, I don’t regard counterfeit goodness as the only manifestation of evil. I regard evil as derivative of good, and justice as derivative of evil. Without evil, there would be no need for justice and thus no need for the State. The State exists for the purpose of justice, which could be described in eighteenth century vernacular as the defense of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
For the sake of discussion, I will hold dogmatically that it is possible for the incorruptible to show itself in corrupt form and substance, that it may be possible for the divine to manifest itself as the most corrupted substance imaginable. Milan Kundera commented on this in The Unbearable Lightness of Being. God and manure.
Can God be found in manure? Perhaps He can. Think about it. Most Christians accept it as gospel truth that the Word was made flesh. Yet, if Jesus Christ were truly the incarnation of God, wouldn’t that mean the manure resting within his rectum was also divine? Wouldn’t the urine within his bladder be divine too? Or was it merely the words he uttered that became divine once they found their way into the Christian canon?
How could an incorruptible being create a corrupt universe? How would God not be corrupted by the very act of creating a corrupt universe? Even would even the existence of Satan not be God’s creation? If God has a throne, why can’t He have a toilet?
Yet, leaving that aside, I find the Christian custom of eating God to be very interesting. Perhaps people eat God so they can become part of Him and He becomes part of them. And what better time to consider this than Easter?
How is not the communion of corruptible beings eating and drinking corruptible material using the power of the corruptible universe to commune with the incorruptible? Given the corrupt state of the universe, how would the incorruptible communicate with the corrupt without the message getting corrupted in the minds of the corrupt? How could a corrupted person in a corrupted universe ever be sure if the message he received were not corrupted?
I doubt these questions can be truly answered within the confines of the universe we live in. To me, true religion comes not from knowing the right answers but rather from asking the right questions. Perhaps prayer is not so much about talking to God or making demands upon Him as if one were an infant, but taking time out and listening.
herb
four down. One to go. The way to get the notes right for
Messiah is to stand between a couple guys who know the music cold.
You should read some Jefferson and Washington. In particular the Jefferson Bible and Washington’s letters.
You know, if you hadn’t been moderated, I could have replied about this.
Annoy Mouse,
Go here to set up a free gravatar account (with the email you use here on PJM):
http://en.gravatar.com/
Yeah, I think the ‘subscribe’ should NOT be automatically ‘checked’ if you don’t want to subscribe to the Daily Digest. Hopefully that ‘feature’ will be ironed out.
It’s puzzling how a person can become that which they so fervently hate.
One can only hope that Unsk will find the joy and love in the peace of Christ. On any day.
It is not a question of the flesh, but of the soul. It is impossible to do good deeds out of a psyche subject to entropy; the heart cannot be made good by corruptible deeds. Rather, the corruptible psyche must be first be replaced with one incorruptible, and then the deeds may follow.
As Jesus said,
“For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.” (Luke 9 :24).
The Greek word translated life in that passage is psuche, which means soul, and our English word psyche is derived from that Greek word. Therefore the passage in Luke might be phrased thusly:
“And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. For whosoever will save his psyche shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his psyche for my sake, the same shall save it.”
Jesus was describing the daily process whereby God takes a human psyche subject to entropy and replaces it with an incorruptible psyche, so that in the end the person might be translated into an incorruptible universe as a suitable companion of the Incorruptible God. The kingdom of God is within you, Jesus said; it is not a political kingdom of this world. For here we seek no continuing city, but we seek one to come, as the scripture also says.
Any attempt to use human power to accomplish Utopia, on whatever scale, whether cult or kingdom, will inevitably result in destruction.
Makes me think we should consider resurrecting the crucifixion to deal with some of these people.
Agreed about Summers. Game Face firmly and carefully applied. (Which is why I like Joe Kernen on CNBC’s Squawk Box who is very good at interviewing (charming pit bull comes to mind) – Summers, though, is probably fixed in amber. Also fascinating to watch the Democratic and Republican sides line up over regulatory reform issues (see CNBC for brief review of what’s on deck). Be very hard to duck this one without revealing your true colors.)
The Easter Week story of the death and resurrection of the Christ is so outrageously beyond the bounds of daily human existence that when you confront it with all your reason and intellect that you must either run screaming from the room despaired of any hope that if even one person could say it were true that other human beings can never be worthy of even the tiniest amount of trust, or, heaven forbid, that something so strange and wonderful happened 2,000 years ago that you are irrevocably bound to pledge the limits of your existence to understanding it and incorporating it into the core of your life.
See my reply to Lifeofthemind above!
Also, as to this:
“How could an incorruptible being create a corrupt universe?”
He didn’t. He created one with the potential for corruption, for a very specific purpose. God desired to create an incorruptible universe in which every inhabitant had chosen to be there, but he couldn’t do that first. First had to be a staging universe, as it were, a place where one might choose to be with God, or be without him. Genesis reveals that it was not good for God to be alone, which is why he created Man. For Man to be a suitable companion for God, God gave Man the choice to be with him or not, and when Man chose not, the universe was subjected to corruption, for outside the Incorruptible there can only be corruption.
In this universe, therefore, we may witness two things: the first being the intrinsic beauty of intricacy, galaxies and roses and coral reefs and life and diamonds, which are but the shadow of the incorruptible, and second being the horror of an all-destroying corruption and death and meaninglessness, as scientifically enumerated in the law of entropy.
Jesus endured death to conquer death, to redeem Man from entropy, corruption, and death. He knows what it feels like to be mortal, to be tempted by all things corruption. Jesus was not powerful in the corruptible flesh, but by the incorruptible power of the Father he conquered entropy in all of its forms. Indeed, everywhere he went, he conquered entropy: healing, feeding the five thousand, raising the dead, miracle after miracle.
As to eating God, that is a very interesting subject. Consider the contrast between Satan, who as a roaring lion seeks to devour people, and God, who seeks to be eaten by people. Yet Satan diminishes, because entropy is destroying him; every predator must inevitably be destroyed. And God increases by being eaten, not in the flesh, as Jesus said, for the flesh profits nothing, but in the Spirit: the words he spake were Spirit and Life. Thus God increases by replicating incorruptible information into those who will receive it. For one may give information away, and still have it, and the information increases. As the scripture describes it, so mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
That also is the literal meaning of conscience: parallel knowledge, having the incorruptible information of God in us, incorruptible seed, incorruptible DNA of an incorruptible spirit and psyche, so that one might experience incorruptible joy, incorruptible peace, an incorruptible universe with God.
We do not anthropomorphize God. Rather, God deimorphized man by creating us in His image and likeness. If we bear His image and likeness, it logically follows that we also bear some of His traits. As to why there are so many monotheistic religions, it is because of deception. Rabinic Judaism arose out of the apostasy of the Pharisees, and their heretical doctrine of salvation by works according to the Law. The other deceptions are the Devil’s counterfeit of Christianity, of which, Islam is chief.
The second function of the new cult well reflects the carrot-and-stick nature of Robespierre’s thought. On the one hand, the decree of the Convention by implication made religious skepticism punishable under the law. On the other hand, the new deity appeared in its prophet’s own presentation as a utilitarian fiction: “[I]f the existence of God, if the immortality of the soul were but dreams, they would still be the finest of all the conceptions of human intelligence . . . . In the eyes of the legislator, truth is all that is useful and of practical good to the world.” Mathiez then adds a highly revealing comment to these words: “Robespierre held to the idea of God; but he did so because this idea has a social value .”[49] The crucial question here reads as follows: What was the social value of the Supreme Being?
The inauguration of the Cult of the Supreme Being was meant to be the festivity of a covenant between the Supreme Being and the Republic of Virtue which, ironically, bore strong resemblances to a commercial contract with ironclad guarantees for the this-worldly partner. This combination of devotion and benefits had eminent pragmatic advantages. It provided the answer to the difficulties stemming from Robespierre’s anthropological pessimism combined with political activism. Insofar as human beings, with the exception of a saintly minority, are irredeemably egoistic, the new religion can “imbue their hearts with virtues” if, and only if, it guarantees rewards for a virtuous life. There must be a mirror symmetry between “the only right to goodness” (which is, in actual fact, an imperative beyond appeal) and the absolute guarantee of the rewards of goodness, else the tyranny of goodness would become unbearable. The Supreme Being thus appeared as the god of distributive and retributive justice. What Foucault termed a “pastoral state” negotiated here a full circle: state-guaranteed rights and state-imposed penalties (actually, only one kind of penalty) appeared in a perfect metaphysical symmetry. The only loser was moral and political freedom.
The great political metaphysician solved a serious internal tension of his own vision of the world via the third function of the Cult of the Supreme Being. Put in the language of a later age that learned its lesson from him, the inauguration of the new cult meant the “end of prehistory,” the onset of the
It is not civil religion (whose best-known champion in the French Revolution was, typically, an American, Thomas Paine) that is at issue here, but the religious underpinning of the Revolution in the face of the destructive atomization by an unrestrained free market, which erodes all republican virtues and leaves only sheer, and in bad times ferocious, egoism in the arena. The common feature in Robespierre and Madame de Staël is that they both drew a surprisingly similar conclusion from the rationalizing fiasco of political reason as well as from the new problems unleashed by the very process of the Revolution. Both gradually came to realize that tinkering with new editions of the old religion is futile. Both believed therefore that, in contrast to the mere change of the forms of monarchy, what they called the “Republic” needed a change of religion. However, both knew that the free state is in reality linked with the free market, that the citizen is also an egoistic man. Will the Republic be anything else but the constant battlefield of egoistic interests if reason, whose other name is calculation, is the sole guide? Are egoists, ordinarily full of contempt for “spiritual powers” and “higher principles,” capable of sacrifice, devotion, justice? Both asked the question, and they answered it in the negative. In addition, neither believed, for different reasons, that egoistic man can be altogether eliminated from the social arena. At this point, because Robespierre added the power of the terroristic state as a restrictive—protective measure against the uncontrollable fury of unrestrained egoism, whereas de Staël remained for her entire life a passionate enemy of the Terror, their ways parted. But their dilemma remained valid for the whole lifetime of the French Revolution as well as for other revolutions and for “republics” functioning in “normal” times. Their fundamental and irreconcilable difference on “the socially useful function of the salutary terror” had the further consequence that while de Staël made efforts to devise a new religion for the Republic, but one which operates in the private sphere, Robespierre decided that the terroristic state is the adequate locus for a “religious revolution from above.”
Lynn Hunt, the French revolution
http://tinyurl.com/ydjmlde
her whole book can be read there.
Robespierre, indeed, wasn’t atheist, his new cult of the supreme being derivated from the worshipping of the “raison”, and in the context was necessary to establish a new cult for replacing the old catholic dogmas and infrastructures, to avoid anarchy, but it failed for the reasons evocated above, men selfishness
If you’d had a camera there, could you have photographed it? Eating fish, and walking through a wall, is quite an accomplishment, after all. By the power of God. Or, did a group of people have visionary experiences, and make a culture out of it?
Yet, if Jesus Christ were truly the incarnation of God, wouldn’t that mean the manure resting within his rectum was also divine? Wouldn’t the urine within his bladder be divine too?
Alexis – I think you misunderstand what the Incarnation is (claimed to be). “Fully God and fully man” is the orthodox phraseology, behind which words a lot of theological brains far greater than mine or yours or Kundera’s wrestled with the vast implications and, at some point, admitted that we cannot grasp *all* the implications.
But I feel pretty safe in saying that His feces, urine, saliva, hair, and toenail clippings are all items that fall under the “fully man” part of the equation.
Further, there is no need for anyone to be impudent with regard to imagining the manner of God’s degradation in submitting Himself to the status of mortal flesh. The crucifixion is not only a sufficient example of His degradation, but is a more complete and profound example than feces or urine could ever be.
Just my opinion.
Your Aquinas may vary.
You must decide those things for yourself, bob.
Either hundreds of the first Christians lived and died for a delusion or they learned something that radically changed their lives from the time they spent with the Christ.
Larr Summers learned to say nothing after he got lynched at Harvard. Ever since he has been a dead man walking
thanks for the tip
Walt,
Thank you.
Wretchard,
Thank YOU.
and a Joyous Resurrection Day to all -
be seeing you on the Fourth Day
I go with the visionary experiences, because I can’t understand it any other way. That seems as real to me as the other way of understanding, and more believable. But, of course, I may be wrong. Anyway, Happy Easter, which is a real thing.
Read this today and thought I would share:
New adversary in U.S. drug war: Contract killers for Mexican cartels
So. Not only are our prisons turning out converts to Islam but more soldiers for the Mexican Cartels. Seeing as how we have more individuals incarcerated than any country in the world, it seems that we are aiding and abetting our enemies and all on our dime.
When we look at illegal immigration we should be able to see that Something is wrong here.
America seems like the poster child of a world that just can’t seem to help themselves or in many cases want to.
Papa Ray
Reepicheep wrote: “It is evident the universe is dying; it ultimately resolves to a state of maximum entropy, in which nothing can ever happen again”
For those who might be interested, let me recommend a recent book — “From Eternity to Here” (Dutton, 2010), by Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at CalTech.
The implication of Reepicheep’s observation is that the Universe started at the time of the Big Bang in a very highly ordered state, with minimum entropy. That is a little uncomfortable — all the mass/energy of the entire Universe squeezed into a singularity, and yet it must have been highly ordered? Carroll’s book is a musing on this topic of increasing entropy, which is intimately related to the question of why time is irreversible even though the macroscopic Laws of Physics are fully reversible. Interesting detours, too, into such topics as why Black Holes must die.
Let me add — this is a qualified recommendation. While the topic is fascinating, like most academics of the current generation, Carroll really needed a good editor; someone to red-line the places where he sounds as condescending as a PBS Special.
Most welcome, MC. *smooch*
NYT, the last book review “CHRISTIANITY
“The First Three Thousand Years”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/books/review/Meacham-t.html?pagewanted=1&ref=review
While we are on the subject of the psychology of belief and its expression, AND given that it is Easter weekend … I would like to ask Wretchard, if he will indulge me, something I have long wondered about.
What’s with the Filipino crucifixion rituals?
Are there other countries that do this, or is it uniquely Filipino? If so, any thoughts as to why it took root in the Philippines (former Spanish Catholic colony) and not, say, Vietnam (former French Catholic colony), or South America (former Spanish and Portuguese colonies, and in certain locations no stranger to blood rituals)?
I know you said that Filipinos are happy-go-lucky people, and I have no reason to doubt your excellent judgment … but this particular ritual is, well, pretty obsessive and extreme for an otherwise laid-back populace.
Would appreciate any insight you have on this. And apologies if you have written about it before on BC and I somehow missed it.
I doubt they’d believe it if they read them. The idea the nation was not founded as what they’d consider to be a Christian nation is too abhorrent to them.
Let me make a point that goes to the crux of this issue:
To be a 21st century theist and at the same time a believer in Darwinian evolution and a purposeless cosmology (not to be confused with a “theistic” approach to Cosmological and Human development) is logically inconsistent and incompatible.
A great deal of the current social/cultural/political conundrum is precisely hinged on this fundamental logical error.
For the sake of discussion, I will hold dogmatically that the incorruptible manifests itself as corrupt. Put in other words, the Word neither became like flesh nor merely understood what it is like to be flesh, but rather the Word became flesh.
Let’s consider the Eucharist. Catholics, Lutherans, and Calvinists hold different ideas about eating God – transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and symbolic interpretation of a central ritual. Yet, regardless of whether it is the digestive or metaphoric essence of God that is ingested, I would suggest that it would be nonetheless real on all counts.
Is it really the human nature of Christ that Christians eat? If so, ancient accusations toward Christians of ritual cannibalism would be true. If it is the divine nature of Christ that is eaten, then it would be anthropomorphism to suggest that ritual cannibalism is taking place. What is Christ? Perhaps Christ is at the interface of the human and divine, no less God than the manifestations Christians call the “Father” and “Holy Ghost”.
Muslims refer to Christian belief in the Trinity as Tritheism. Although I don’t agree with that accusation per se, I do think that accusation is correct for many Christians. Yet, at the risk of sounding like a Patripassionist, is it necessary to presume that God has multiple personalities? If God is truly one, isn’t it odd to talk of the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost as if they were three different deities?
Mormons openly celebrate their polytheism and regard the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be separate deities. Brigham Young even advocated God-Adam theology, proposing that the Son is the biological son of the Father who is also Adam. Although most contemporary Mormons reject God-Adam theology, it remains as one of the best examples of how a literal reading of Christian texts can lead to interesting conclusions.
I would suggest that it should be possible to be Trinitarian while also being monotheist, yet one needs to be clear about what one means, perhaps clearer than the Nicene Creed can seem at times. To talk of the Son sacrificed to the Father is child sacrifice, and while I do understand that a symbolic form of child sacrifice would be preferable to the literal pagan variety, I find such theology objectionable on many different levels.
So, at the risk of sounding like a heretic by Nicene standards, perhaps it would be better to talk of the Eucharist as the body and blood of God, rather than of merely the Son, and certainly not the ingestion of the human nature of Christ!
Dogmatically speaking, I am concerned that an unwillingness to consider the possibility that God not only takes the form but also the substance of flesh undermines incarnational theology in general, not only for Christianity but also Judaism. And yes, Islam. In many religions, God can be seen to take the form and substance of ink; in Christianity, God is seen to take the form and substance of blood.
Scary and apt addiition to the discussion. I have snipped some of Mongoose’s link:
” This is an extraordinary and accurate statement of our situation today, insofar as nothing has changed since the mid-twentieth century, but only worsened in this regard. Nietzsche had written, in the nineteenth century, that newspapers represented a kind of corruption of human thought and sensibility. The medium of television purges thought altogether, replacing it with seductive imagery. The process by which Hitler took power in Germany has become, in itself, a medium for alleged discourse (which is, to be sure, nothing of the kind). “A society of this kind,” warned Roepke, “has lost the inner and organic character of the genuine and spontaneous community, and the more it is lacking in a firm homogeneity the more it will be held rigidly together by the rivets of the modern bureaucrat and centralist state.”
The coming together of man and woman, as the basis of the family unit, is what Roepke called “the original and imperishable basis of every higher community.” Authority itself is grounded on parental authority. If you want to destroy society, destroy the connection between man and women; then watch as parental authority crumbles to nothing, dissolving into what we now call “family court” and its predatory legion of attorneys, head-shrinkers and attending child welfare agents. Here authority has become merely functional, under the auspices of functionaries. It is unreal, and thoroughly evil. Such is merely coordination, for the purposes of “divide and conquer.” The resulting loot is afterwards redistributed, including the children. The larger community is helpless to prevent this ongoing destruction of lives, but averts its gaze and promptly changes the channel. The structure of society itself is being dissolved, so that the soul of the child never experiences genuine authority. What prevails on all sides is a usurped authority that basis itself upon common fraud and mass delusion. The child grows without inner rules, tyrannized by the gibberish of a bureaucracy that pretends to care.”
As I wrote the other day, when hard times come the family, friends and like minded individuals will be all you really have to survive.
Papa Ray
I’ve never watched on of those crucifixions, though they are not as bad as you might think, according to a friend who has watched, due to the precautions taken. But the larger context is set by the idea that you can atone for your sins, which may in the Philippine underworld be considerable, by emulating the sufferings of Jesus around Lent.
This can take mild forms, such as walking the 42 km from Manila to Antipolo Church on Good Friday, something which used to be harder than it is, given all the air-conditioned fast-foot joints you can cool your heels at now along the way. Or you could walk on your knees in, preferably with a few mung beans strewn along the way, from the door of a church to the Communion Rail, back when there were communion rails.
Then the syncretism between Christian and nativist traditions which manifests itself in the idea of visiting the “magic mountain”, Mount Banahaw, in Laguna. There’s actually a cross up there on Good Friday and thousands make the trip. On the trail you will pass grottos and caverns, some of them leading down into the depths of the mountain in dizzying descent, with rope handholds and candles burning at intervals, with pig latin inscriptons daubed on the wall.
There’s also the tradition of the Nazarene, in which devotees carry a heavy likeness of Christ on the Cross in a distinctive maroon robe in a long procession until nearly exhausted, with long ropes and carrying poles. The custom is to tug on the ropes to increase the difficulty and you may see the line swaying like a snake through the crowded streets.
I knew a really remarkable man who ran a waste-paper and tin-can recycling shop who ran the neighborhood — and the chapel of the Nazarene in Moriones, Tondo. Almost nobody in the neighborhood held what you would call an up and up job. They were waste paper scavengers, petty grifters, confidence artists, thugs, snatchers. One, as I recall, was a ghoul. He would steal bodies from wakes to sell them for medical dissection. Another specialized in setting up gambling at funerals (sakla)). But on Good Friday this whole scurvy crew would take to the streets and flog themselves in the most vigorous way and abject themselves most grievously as they one and all carried the Narene of Moriones in penance. I should add that it was real repentance tempered by the knowledge that it would lapse in about 72 hours.
A much bigger procession may be found in Quiapo, where ardor is so great there’s an actual risk of being trampled underfoot. Look at the men in the crowd. They’re the poor and lost of Manila. Half of them, I’ll wager, belong to such august organizations as the Oxo, the Sigue-sigue Commando or the Sigue-sigue Sputnik. The rough hands, the smell of Argo soap (the soap of jailbirds, distinctive for its multi-colors) sets them apart from the upscale Filipino.
The consciousness of a low-lifer is one of desperation and exaltation. Every day is filled with greater terror and yet more intense hope than other modes of life. There’s a recognition of this strange psychology, even a pride in it. And standing on the old Smoky Mountain when it still burned, one could look out at the miles of slums in every direction and hear the laughter and the joking as the scavengers dug for cans. Sa Tondo man ay may langit din, which roughly translates to “even in Tondo laughter lives.” It does. And so the crucifixions are part of this extreme variation in mood; the high and the low; the sorrow and the joy; the sin and the atonement.
Oh such nonsense I’m afraid, this time, Wretchard.
The Emperor Constantine, I believe it was, should be added to the list of cult leaders as the one who chose Athanasius and consigned Arius to the wilderness, by casting his lot and power with those who insisted on the divinity of that hopeful man from Nazereth – in whose name such terrible atrocities have been committed.
After all, how could the Emperor be divine if the central figure of the state religion was not?
And then there is that man himself …
No more impudent that a “Kill all the lawyers” reference, with or without the disguise of literary authority. He who is without sin …
Not to start a fight on a religious holiday, which I decline.
I’m gonna go on a limb here and guess Jake is one of those poor saps who thinks Gandhi was a pacifist. Eh? Who’s with me?
Although, Wretchard I must confess that I find your April 3, 4:16 posting on the American ideal to be most compelling.
Karen Yvonne April 4, 2010 @ 4:21 AM:
You called to our attention Kreft and Tacelli’s Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
Thanks! I just ordered it, and look forward to reading it.
For some reason I awoke this morning hearing in my musical imagination the wonderful sound of the hymn Jesus Christ Is Risen Today…
Jamie Irons
Thank you for the explanation, W. I hadn’t thought about the rituals having different expressions in different provinces, but in the context of what you’ve written elsewhere about provincial distinctions, it does make sense.
I just saw an article in the Daily Mail on Friday that reminded me to ask the question. The article had multiple pictures. Apparently it’s not just the Jesus re-enactors … guys dress up as Roman soldiers as well. While the costumes aren’t Hollywood-level, neither are they kid-stuff, either. It struck me how seriously these Filipinos who do participate in the ritual take it. The caption on one of the pictures was: “Ruben Enaje, a 49-year-old sign painter, was nailed to a cross for the 24th time as his way of thanking God for his survival after falling from building.”
24 times!! That’s some gratitude!!
The “scurvy crew” flogging themselves … interesting that they still actually retain such a sense of sin not delineated by man but by God … it’s kind of an anti-Michael Corleone image (MC avowing his rejection of Satan at his nephew’s baptism while his ordered executions of the other family capos are carried out) …. Corleone’s Catholic practices cost him nothing. It’s not that he doesn’t believe in right and wrong, but the rights & wrongs he actually cares about are those that affect the power of the Corleone family.
The scurvy crew in Moriones are in some other category that strikes me as more medieval, in the sense of still possessing an awareness & fear of God amidst their sinful ways. I guess Western secularism hasn’t “enlightened” them yet? (/sarc/) Somehow the rueful rabble seems almost a more hopeful place to be. Even if it’s just for 72 hours, at least they know the wages of sin.
Alexis– Don’t know if you saw my thumbnail of you in the 30 March post, but I will say again, your words are akin to Mozart’s notes, your arguments organized, clear and lucid. I will also say again that you surely must write for pay.
Walt
Brilliant stuff, Wretchard! I just got back from a three hour trip, all the time playing CD’s in the car just before I read your post. Coincidentally I was humming Don Henley’s “The Last Resort.”
The last stanza and refrain of this Eagles’ song fits very nicely here:
You can leave it all behind
and sail to Lahaina
just like the missionaries did, so many years ago
They even brought a neon sign: “Jesus is coming”
Brought the white man’s burden down
Brought the white man’s reign
Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
‘Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here
We satisfy our endless needs and
justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and the name
of God
And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning
They stand up and sing about
what it’s like up there
They call it paradise
I don’t know why
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye
This was not a day to stay within 4 walls staring at a little screen.
LINK-Sunday In the Park-LINK
The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinance of the Govt. from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html
7.2 earthquake in Mexicali, just south of US border, and unusually many aftershocks there, north into the US near Escondido, and also in northern California near “the gysers”.
Look at this:
http://quake.usgs.gov/recenteqs/latest.htm
ouch, 4.1 in Santa Monica bay, when I get home, hope things aren’t all crashed.
–
oh hey, it looks like it shook loose the edit widget on PJM!!!
“For some reason I awoke this morning hearing in my musical imagination the wonderful sound of the hymn Jesus Christ Is Risen Today…”
Jamie Irons
I was stuck on Christ the Lord Is Risen Today…
that was an excerpt from:
Amendment I (Religion)
Document 68
James Madison to Rev. Adams
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions68.html
CFBleacher. I thought you might be interested in the the following….circa 1931
The League of Nations asked Albert Einstien to write anyone he chose on any topic..he picked Dr. Freud.
Dear Mr. Freud:
The proposal of the League of Nations and its International Institute of Intellectual Co-operation at Paris that I should invite a person, to be chosen by myself, to a frank exchange of views on any problem that I might select affords me a very welcome opportunity of conferring with you upon a question which, as things now are, seems the most insistent of all the problems civilization has to face. This is the problem: Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?
http://tinyurl.com/yzfb5f7
Love the dog but thought Vitruvian Man would be a better fit…just a thought.
The Catholic Church is of the opinion/faith that Darwin is how the Maker executed his plan. The implication being that it is not just man who has free will but the Universe as a whole.
Which would in some sense make us intentional Creatures of This Universe.
Which fits in with my idea of a Maker so good that he need not keep adusting his mechanism to make it go right.
Bob,
Somehow I feel more and more blessed I’m not an Apache.
Or it could be arrested development.
Children in early childhood have “invisible” friends that follow them around and watch out for them. After they head off to pre-school or enter a social environment, they tend to lose those friends. Unless of course, they are exposed to religious propaganda, in which case those invisible friends become “angels”.
There is no God, there never has been any God, there never will be any God.
It is a mental construct invented by men huddling in fear around a fire while things go bump in the dark.
It’s the 21st century and if there is something going bump in the dark, it will set off my motion detector, which turns on the floodlights. At that point I decide if I want to shoot it or not. No invisible, all powerful being needed.
Now if you want to believe in some all powerful being (what’s their shoe size?) go ahead, just leave me out of it.
You have the right to worship as you please, but so do I.
The thing about monotheism is that somebody has to be wrong.
If there can be only one, then when the music stops, Either God, Allah, Ahura Mazda or YHWH will get the only chair. The others get the boot. So One-Godders tend to be real pushy about converting others. At sword point, historically. Like they get bonus points or maybe green stamps. I think it’s because they are not real sure they haven’t been suckered and they need to recruit others to the Ponzi scheme.
After all, the Ponzi is a good thing until it runs out of suckers. At least for the early entries.
This is disturbing on more than one level:
Obama Removes Jesus from Easter Message
What’s next… no don’t tell me, let me figure it out.
Papa Ray
PS. Obama got his ass chewed by the Taliban. Seems they think he is coward and a liar.
But we already knew that.
Papa Ray
This is disturbing on more than one level:
Obama Removes Jesus from Easter Message
What’s next… no don’t tell me, let me figure it out.
Papa Ray
PS. Obama got his ass chewed by the Taliban. Seems they think he is coward and a liar.
But we already knew that.
Papa Ray
Tell me, if a doctor were convinced that his patient had a deadly disease that would surely kill the patient if left untreated, and moreover, that a cure existed that if taken in time would surely purge all trace of the disease from the patient’s body, would the doctor not be zealous in convincing the patient that he needs this medicine? How much more zealous would that doctor be if he himself had once had this same deadly disease, and was healed by this very same cure? The doctor is the missionary.
As to the part about bonus points, yes, the one who wins souls to the glory of Jesus can look forward to being awarded the soul winner’s crown at the Judgment Seat of Christ. You are also correct in saying, “Someone has to be wrong,” for this is obvious. Tell me, though, can your gun deliver you from cancer? Can your own right hand save you from pestilence and death? You are but a blade of grass! Soon you will whither and perish. You wish to know the Truth? This shall be the sign for you that Jesus is Lord- in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, Christians living and dead shall be transformed into immortal and incorruptible bodies, and we shall vanish from this Earth. After this, two prophets shall appear in Jerusalem, to whom power over the air, the waters and the land has been granted, such that they can tell the sky, “Be dry,” and it will not rain so long as they preach, and they can tell the water, “Become blood,” and it will become unpotable and bloody.
Want another sign? Russia shall lead a coalition of Islamic nations to attack Israel, and though Israel shall seem hopeless, Israel shall be victorious, and it will not even be a contest. At the Command of the Almighty, the forces of nature will rise up to defend Israel. The invaders shall be struck with a great confusion and turn their weapons on one another in the greatest incident of death by friendly fire in human history. Them that survive these shall be devoured by fire, such that the invaders are consumed by fire while they yet stand. Could this be a nuclear bomb? Perhaps, but if it is, it results in Russia’s surrender, not a retaliatory strike; at least, not one that succeeds against Israel. Yes, I am telling you that Russia shall surrender to Israel.
Excellent article:
Leftists Have No Right to Strip Faith from American History
Papa Ray
With respect to the comment of Jake:
“The Emperor Constantine, I believe it was, should be added to the list of cult leaders as the one who chose Athanasius and consigned Arius to the wilderness, by casting his lot and power with those who insisted on the divinity of that hopeful man from Nazereth – in whose name such terrible atrocities have been committed.
After all, how could the Emperor be divine if the central figure of the state religion was not?”
I think it is the other way around. The decisions of the Nicene Council did not necessarily represent Constantine’s personal preferences. Rather he wanted to avoid disorder and division in the Church. Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by, an Arius-sympathizing bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia. His successors in the 4th century , including his son, Constantius, persecuted Athanasius, exiling him three times. It was only after a long struggle that the Athanasian or Nicene position prevailed. Rather than wanting a divine Jesus, the 4th century emperors often acted as if such a Jesus would be an ideological threat to their imperial prerogatives.
I am filled with impotent rage right now.
Oxymoronic tempos swinging towards beauty and ugliness
There is a very real toxin inside me that eats at my soul.
Mostly, I refuse to feed it,
Believing I don’t need it
but when I make
the unfortunate mistake
Of emptying my mind
For the ‘greater good’s’ sake
I’m gone, baby, gone.
And, that is wrong, baby wrong.
I’m with Walt on this. Good stuff, Alexis.
W: “The history of secularization can be understood not as a replacement of belief by reason, but an exchange of one belief for another.”
I would like to make an intelligent comment in support of what Wretchard said, but Igor Shafarevich says it so much better than me.
“The religious aspects of socialism may explain the extraordinary attraction of socialist doctrines and their capacity to inflame individuals and to inspire popular movements. It is precisely these aspects of socialism which cannot be explained when socialism is regarded as a political or economic category. Socialism’s pretensions to be a universal world view comprising and explaining everything also make it akin to religion. A characteristic of religion is socialism’s view of history not as a chaotic phenomenon but as an entity that has a goal, a meaning and a justification. In other words, both socialism and religion view history teleologically… Finally, socialism’s hostility toward traditional religion hardly contradicts this judgment–it may simply be a matter of animosity between rival religions… It is certainly true that socialism is hostile to religion. But is it possible to understand it as a consequence of atheism? Hardly, at least if we understand atheism as it is usually defined: as the loss of religious feeling. It is not clear just how such a negative concept can become the stimulus for an active attitude toward the world or how it can be the source of the infectiousness of socialist doctrines. Furthermore, socialism’s attitude toward religion does not at all resemble the indifferent and skeptical position of someone who has lost interest in religion. The term “atheism” is inappropriate for the description of people in the grip of socialist doctrines. It would be more correct to speak here not of “atheists” but of “God-haters,” not of “atheism” but of “theophobia.” Such, certainly, is the passionately hostile attitude of socialism toward religion. Thus, while socialism is certainly connected with the loss of religious feeling, it can hardly be reduced to it. The place formerly occupied by religion does not remain vacant; a new lodger appeared.” Igor Shafarevich
http://www.robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html
W: “But the correspondence was inexact, because if the Creator were anything, he would universal. That made him different from any mere King, however great. And that I think… contributes to the militancy and universality of the American ideal.”
Yes, the American ideal is stated in the Declaration of Independence – what Thomas Jefferson referred to as “an expression of the American mind.” The Declaration of Independence is America’s supreme un-amendable moral law; whereas the Constitution is our supreme amendable secular law. Our Constitution separates church from state while the Declaration unites God to state – sacred equality of all before secular law which must secure sacred individual rights to life, liberty and private property honestly earned through creative labor (pursuit of happiness).
Kinuachdrach
Reepicheep wrote: “It is evident the universe is dying; it ultimately resolves to a state of maximum entropy, in which nothing can ever happen again”
/////
Actually one of the things that’s got modern astrophysicists jabberwalky is that not only is the universe expanding but the rate of expansion is increasing. So why is the rate of expansion accelerating when entropy was supposed to taking over. That’s why they call it dark energy. They don’t know…
So what’s the point. Be careful about trying to stuff scientific jargon into theological language.
This happened all through the 19th century as theologians tried to insert Newton’s ideas into their treatises. The result is that much of 19th century theology has been discredited.
Vedic literature postulates that the universe is dying, but since its (Brahma) lifespan is 311 trillion years and we are at about 3 trillion years birthday, worrying about that may be a tad irrational. After the demise, the information is somehow preserved and passed on to another universe that is born after the one that died.
I’m in agreement regarding praise Alexis’ writing style, and also in agreement in encouraging him to write more.
I’m not in agreement with the substance of this latest post, however, to the extent that I can determine it. I fear the endgame of the theological path it sets out results once again in Arianism.
The basic problem here is harmonizing the conception of God with the nature of Christ, and this leads us to question the Holy Trinity and the Holy Eucharist.
Admittedly these are difficult problems, and ones quite suited to Easter.
What can I say but that participation in the Eucharist is a liberally given Holy Sacrament that invites us to participate in the divine? It is quite unique and unlike anything else, an ingestion of divine essence. That’s not cannibalism; cannibalism is devouring the dead flesh of other humans. That is not what the Eucharist is at all.
On the nature of Christ, the problem of Word become flesh, what can I say but re-read the opening of John’s Gospel. The man Jesus from Nazareth was Word of God, he was God, that is the claim of John and also the claim of Christ before the council in all the gospels. If that is not true, then the whole of Christianity has been either a lie or a delusion.
Fortunately, Christianity in sum comes down to a simple problem, despite all the theological nuances. Either you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on an Easter Sunday long ago, or you consign that claim to a lie or to a misunderstanding. You’ve got to interpret that one factual claim as either true or false.
I hope you enter into such a consideration honestly, and that you come to what I believe is the correct conclusion.
That being said, I hope everyone had a great Easter — the greatest day there is.
Yea, I know, kind of odd that the vedic figure is bigger by several orders of magnitude. There is supposed to be a group of people (9, I think) that are supposed to apps info since dawn of time. Maybe they had a better info? 500 times longer, not much diff.
erc rodson ,
Life violates entropy
Why do I always get the blame? I swears I don’t even know the girl!
Time to call a lawyer.
The Catholic Church may be of that opinion, but within old-fashion Darwinism and various forms of neo-Darwinism, God is not a necessary ingredient in that “theory.” Thus, this is just a convenient copeout.
Further, F. Collins’ “intervening, loving God” isn’t consistent with Darwinism, either.
The point I’m driving at is this: the fundamental theory of all forms of “purposeless” Darwinism and cosmology (but not the available evidence as we currently know it) are flawed.
Faith is any belief undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief based on that which is unobservable and untestable. Religion contains faith that eternal God created matter (The Universe); an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation. Atheism contains faith that matter (The Universe) is either eternal or created it’s self; an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation.
Science is the process of determining how matter behaves using observation, testing and reason; with reason defined as the ability to see and understand self-evident truth.
Faith is any belief undiscoverable by science, which is to say any belief based on that which is unobservable and untestable.
Religion contains faith that eternal God created matter (The Universe); an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation.
Atheism contains faith that matter (The Universe) is either eternal or created it’s self; an irrational, supernatural belief not based on direct observation.
By definition there can be no conflict between Science and either Atheistic Faith or Religious Faith since all faith is outside the domain of science, and science is likewise outside the domain of any faith. True faith and true science are, and always have been, mutually exclusive and never in conflict.
S.J. Gould’s “non-overlapping magisteria” is a vacuous notion, since nothing in the Universe at that level of fundamental analysis can be “non-interacting.”
The divorse of “science” and “religion” (it’s my thesis) is at the core of the conundrum facing this world and our Nation at present. One can’t accept the proposition that “humans are animals worth as much as an ant, a leaf or a rock” from one side of their brain, but yet at the same time accept the proposition that “humans are made by the grace of God” from the other side of their brain. Or, accept on the one hand that the Universe and all in it have no purpose, but then on the other hand that the Universe was created by God with purpose. Or, that from this point of view, there isn’t “free will,” but then from that point of view humans do make choices.
Children in Middle School, when the brain gets down to being really wired, when faced with this dichotomy, do make a choice. And all of us, unfortunately, know fully well what that choice is, and its consequences and ramifications: we currently live them.
Then atheism is on par with belief based on monotheism.
I no longer use the term “atheist” to describe my spiritual outlook. I view “atheist” as a subset of non-believer, as non-believer to me at least, has a wider connotation. In my experience, believers tend to use atheist as a pejorative, which can limit a conversation. Non-believers are not exempt on this point as well, when using “Christian” etc. Preemption is used all too much, creating unneeded hostility, which in turn can close off one’s mind.
Discussions on spirituality are challenging, as it does come to a chicken or egg situation.
Consciousness or Existence, which is the primary?
One more basic point: this bifurcation of science and religion (although predating it by almost half a century in Revolutionary France) really became formally established in the mid-1800s with Darwin and Marx. Their influence, from the Arts to politics to social life to economics and finance, resulted in the events of the 20th century, possibly the darkest century in the history of humanity, where wars, genocides, and in general mass murder at a scale the World had never known, occurred. Oftentimes, this is referred to as “progressivism” these days.
God created man in His image with all individuals of equal (infinite) value; so all men are equal before the law. God lives; and since man is made in the image of God, we have a sacred unalienable right to life. God is free; and since man is made in the image of God, we are born free with a sacred unalienable right to liberty. God is the Creator; and since man is made in the image of God, we are born creative with a sacred unalienable right to creativity and the property which accrues from creative labor – the fruits of labor – we are born with a sacred unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. If man is made in the image of God the Declaration of Independence is true. If man is made only in the image of pond scum, then documents such as the Communist Manifesto are true – with Marxist type government laying claim to the so-called rights of mankind and with the ruling Marxist elite more equal than others.
“Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion.” Thomas Jefferson
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?” Thomas Jefferson
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Thomas Jefferson
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
“I have no fear but that the result of our experiment will be that men may be trusted to govern themselves without a master. Could the contrary of this be proved I should conclude either that there is no God, or that He is a malevolent Being.” Thomas Jefferson
“The fight of the Germans… against feudal aristocracy and absolute monarchy, in other words, the liberal movement, became more earnest. By this, the long-wished for opportunity was offered to “True” Socialism (Communism) of confronting the political movement (Classic Liberalism) with the socialistic demands, of hurling the traditional anathemas against liberalism, against representative government, against bourgeois competition, bourgeois freedom of the press, bourgeois legislation, bourgeois liberty and equality… There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality.” Karl Marx
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
“Communism has never concealed the fact that it rejects all absolute concepts of morality. It scoffs at any consideration of “good” and “evil” as indisputable categories. Communism considers morality to be relative, to be a class matter. Depending upon circumstances and the political situation, any act, including murder, even the killing of thousands, could be good or could be bad.” Alexander Solzhenitsyn
http://www.alor.org/Library/LegacyofTerror.htm
@ storm rider
My points had to do with the proposition that religion and science must be integrated in a consistent manner to both; de-coupling them has lead to the horrors, some of which you allude to.
Papa Ray,
I think you meant to say “to give it up, convinced him I did”?
Thank you Paul. I am in agreement with you, and so were John Locke and Albert Einstein
“Where revelation comes into its own is where reason (science) cannot reach. Where we have few or no ideas for reason (science) to contradict or confirm, this is the proper matters for faith…that Part of the Angels rebelled against GOD, and thereby lost their first happy state: and that the dead shall rise, and live again: These and the like, being Beyond the Discovery of Reason (Science), are purely matters of Faith; with which Reason (Science) has nothing to do.“ John Locke
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
“The doctrine of a personal G-d interfering with natural events could never be refuted… by science, for it can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.” Albert Einstein
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_einstein.php3
Indeed, Storm-Rider, and a number of others, including S.W. Hawking.
Jamie Irons @108 -
You are most welcome.
That makes me very happy.
I’m always a little amazed, on the rare occasion, to see someone answering some point I’ve made, but even more amazed that anyone would be moved to action (ordering a book) by anything I’ve said.
On second thought, maybe I’m not the mover…
The minds and souls one sees revealed here at BC are precious.
Animals believe. Freethinkers reason. Pure conservatives embrace the counter-reformaion, the dark ages, the holocaust and the Unenlightment.
Perhaps because no proof of a “Jesus” walking the Earth exists?
“Animals believe?” That’s a gem.
No, animals don’t believe, they act on instinct and training. While I suspect your dog is in fact very much brighter than you, kochevnik, I doubt he spends any time pondering theological matters or wondering if he has a soul.
Are you saying animals are never uncertain? You’re obviously confusing machines with living things. Animals must believe because they lack the faculties to verify, and the maths to quantify confidence. Conservatives however decide to be dumber than animals, in willfully ignoring evidence contrary to their conjectured, imagined and superficial viewpoints. So by your own definition you prove animals smarter than you. Needless to say there’s a study proving conservatives are dumber, lest you find yourself accidentally questioning the issue.
Communism was created by conservatives.
Karen: For what it’s worth, I too found your comment extremely eloquent and thought-provoking. I will not, however, order the Kreeft book until I get through the 4 Chesterton tomes I own. In fact, I have an entire case of books I really read through before buying more. (Ha! Like that’ll happen!) My book buying habits far outstrip my ability to get through them – and the advent of blogs did not help.
Well thank you, Donna V.,.
I had to laugh at what you said about the surfeit of books and paucity of time. I know just what you mean, I have the exact same problem.
I came back to this thread to apologize for the use of the word “precious” at my #124, in case that made anyone gag. I don’t know what happened – maybe towards the end of a thread, the tendency is to get careless. Or sloppy. Or something. But I do believe that BCers’ sensibilities are wonderfully receptive to the truth, and that’s what draws them here. And that does have a value worth remarking.
OTOH, re kochevnik – need to get that Toque working again!
Both Abrahamic religions with christ psychotics and jihad Muslims were fascistic religions that precipitated the collapse of Rome. Rome was strong and tolerant with polytheism. With authoritarian christofasicsm the dark ages ensued. Later inquisitions culminated in the holocaust and the Catholic invention of communism.
Your “faith” is better known as “brown-nosing”