I appreciate your various caveats and respectful tone. I'll just make one comment:
The idea you seem to be ascribing to "justification by faith" appears to be some sort of Kierkegaardian leap as contrasted with empiricism. But when the Bible uses the term "faith" it means "trust" following proof and it is contrasted with works. The religion described in the Bible is an empirical religion grounded in historical acts. God never demanded that people follow him blindly. In fact, whenever he asked for radical trust, he disrupted the natural order to prove himself to his followers. When he came to deliver Israel, he sent Moses with powerful miracles; when he came to oppose the cult of Baal, he sent Elijah; when he said "this is my beloved Son, follow him," he backed the radical claims and ministry of Jesus with many miracles. Of course, we have to trust these claims a little more blindly than those who experienced them, but we have their testimony as a guide; Jesus acknowledged this when he said to doubting Thomas, "you believed because you stuck your fingers into my wounds; blessed are those who will not see and yet believe."
There are answers for those who seek.
I have admired your work these past few years. Thank you.
Ok, I'll just play 'devil's advocate' here. But first let me say that this post and this thread is incredibly enlightening. If everybody went this deep, we wouldn't have the problems we have in the world. But....
As for, "God never demanded that people follow him blindly", we have the story of Adam and Eve. God told them to never eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I'd say that's God demanding to be followed blindly. I think the Adam and Eve story is in reality a parable about coming of age. Children cannot assess good and evil, and nakedness is not a big thing to them. And they don't get that they aren't immortal. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of puberty.
I just had to throw that all in, here. Even with our perceptiveness as adults, we must be as children, as the Bible says. There's a time for science, and there's a time for belief.
Thanks for your comment; let me suggest the following:
In the Garden - which I don't read as a parable - there was a real tree, the threat of death was real, and the interaction with God was face-to-face. So I don't see this as requiring blind trust. Surely Adam and Eve had a poor understanding of what death would mean, but it was a transparent warning in a real place.
However, I think this point can be taken to extremes. Let me add a note of clarification: God rewards blind trust, but he doesn't demand it.
Abraham left his family and home at a word from God (no miracles), but he had trouble believing that God could provide him an heir from his old wife. When he finally believed God's promise, we're told that "Abraham believed and God credited it to him as righteousness." This becomes the primary source text for the NT doctrine of justification by faith.
The Centurian had never met Jesus, but begged him off, understanding implicitly that Jesus had perfect authority over his child's illness. To this, Jesus responded: "I have not seen such faith in all the house of Israel. Go, your request has been granted..."
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." We often require children to follow blindly for their own safety--at puberty, as you point out, they rebel and leave the safety of blind following. It does not make the blind following wrong; it is suitable for specific times.
Also, as a little aside--do you know that pain in childbirth comes from the knowledge of good and evil? When our ancestors' frontal lobe expanded rapidly--the birth canal was too small to accommodate it.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Cherry picking scripture will result in nothing more than a handful of cherries.
Not wisdom. You have to read and understand scripture in context to comprehend the meaning. The meaning of this scripture has nothing to do with puberty.
The entire frontal lobe expansion story has no proof and requires faith for you to hold it as a belief.
Thanks for the quote. Which reminds me of Neal Young's "Sugar Mountain."
As for the birth canal, I have read that, when humans started walking upright, the pelvis had to become stronger, and that decreased the birth canal. But humans may very well have a better developed ability to sense pain.
I was just pointing out what I've read. I've got to believe any female mammal feels pain at birth. Is it more intense for humans? Perhaps it is. Yes, I've seen animals give birth. I can't interpret how much pain they felt.
No one knows any of what you are saying you've read about walking upright and pelvises. That alone requires faith. Faith in what you read not what you know from experience.
So, Mormonism has a fascinating take on the conflicting commandments given to Adam and Eve. Rather than being tempted by the serpent, Eve listens to him and realizes that the fruit will allow her to attain the knowledge necessary to fulfill another commandment--to be fruitful and multiply. Thanks to her disobedience to one commandment, she was able to give birth to the human race thus obeying another. Though I no longer follow the religion of my youth, I do appreciate the idea that to choose one good thing, you cannot choose another. Isn’t that just like life? I find this a very mature take on a strange story. It comes down to the trade offs explained by Sowell. And grants us the independence to be disobedient to stupid laws, even the ones made by god himself. While we are discussing what to put in that slot I thought this might be a useful contribution. For another fascinating take on Adam and Eve we might look to Daniel Quinn and his Ishmael series. Love the Vonnegut quote!
"Eve listens to him and realizes that the fruit will allow her to attain the knowledge necessary to fulfill another commandment--to be fruitful and multiply."
Interesting. I know it's illegal everywhere now, but is this how Mormons - if I understand it correctly - justified the marriage of multiple women to one man?
I've had this link queued up all morning trying to figure out how to fit it into the comments.
This, of course, is the lamest of all possible ways to stuff it in but, if people really want to understand why we have told our selves The Bible Story, Ishmael explains it to Walter pretty much perfectly to me. Gato references the same with Something Bigger Than Ourselves.
I knew there was another Ishmael fan in the community!
As to the polygamy, that is a messy messy can of worms. The interpretation you cite is the common one given to faithful members, sadly the truth is not so simple. After looking into it further I would have to conclude that it had much more to do with the sexual frisson common in spiritual revivalist environments. I’m trying not to say cults. Anyway, it’s probably not interesting to people from outside the tradition, but I continue to find it a fascinating subject of study. I can recommend two podcasts if you have a lot of time on your hands 🙌🏼
i have often wondered about polygamy and the effect it has on a society. it's common with many animals (deer, lions, etc) where a few males monopolize the breeding rights.
1 hand, this tends to select for only strong males breeding. on the other, it limits genetic diversity, can lead to inbreeding problems, and in human populations tends to result in large numbers of unmarried males with no prospect of pairing. that tends to lead to either large scale outmigration, war, or some sort of societal unrest. i wonder if the reason that polygamous systems tend to be transient and seem to have been selected against in modern humans whose survival rates are high lies therein: that societies with lots of unpaired military age males get seriously unstable.
Yeah polygamy doesn't even work well to produce more offspring according to the people who have examined the numbers in its mid-nineteenth century heyday. There's so much more BS involved that it's not even effective apparently and it turns out that boosting the population was just a cover story anyway. The unpaired males you mention are a problem in the fundamentalist communities who still follow this practice--which is not legally or socially endorsed (never was in the USA), making it that much more complicated of course.
There have been a couple Dark Horse episodes ruminating on evolution and monogamy--off the top of my head Bret discusses it with Louise Perry and Bridget Phetasy. I've also heard JBP wade in on the subject from time to time citing the long-term emotional involvement required to raise stable children. Pretty unique in the animal world. Are we just animals? Are we not? Such a fine line sometimes.
small sample size alert, but you can see some of its effects in the accounts of Abraham, Jacob, David and their descendants.
Perhaps the difference between humans and animals lies in the divine image. The human need for love in community is orders of magnitude deeper than animals, so when the parents pick favorites, the jealousy and covetousness stirred in the rejected children can lead to never-ending blood feuds.
My perspective on polygamy comes from the Mormon tradition, so this contained mostly new information for me. With some salient points on migration problems in Europe, which is one of Ali’s pet projects. She’s one smart cookie. The USA is lucky to have her.
Presumably animals don't comprehend God. And they also don't comprehend sin. Maybe they go together. If our existence is only about survival, and not about right and wrong, then how can we know God?
I've had pets. We have a dog. Unquestionably they have cultural standards. There is social structure, and some sense of right and wrong, or at least acceptable and unacceptable. As a puppy, Toby would nip at us playfully, but never bite. He had some sort of judgement, or is it instinct?
Is knowledge of God and of sin merely a matter of intelligence, of ability to process information? Whatever it is, I think we can't know God without knowing sin.
Maybe I’m struggling with the use of the word sin. I don’t see animals as capable of sinning. For example we just got home from holidays and the cat has peed somewhere she is not supposed to. My husband is livid. Me on the other hand, how can I blame a creature who doesn’t understand the concept of “not supposed to pee” on the carpet? Why not? It’s soft!
So yes we do seem to have that knowledge of good and evil that animals don’t have and I guess we could agree to call bad choices sin. I’m just not in a place where I feel I need to be saved from sin by an external entity. The natural consequences are sufficient. Karma seems more appealing these days. Probably also because I find the idea of a moral code somewhat suspicious as well. Whose morals? Who decides? I’m not saying it’s not useful in society because we will need some basis, but....
I was just discussing scalping and Viking death poses. Who decided that’s the appropriate action in a battle? Who decides why people battle one another? It’s all very tricky. Like the cat I don’t have the answers at this point. But it’s definitely time for some questions and deep conversations.
The story of Adam and Eve is kind of unique in my mind, because it was a scriptural commandment that God never intended these two people to obey indefinitely. God knew, and intended, that they would partake of the tree. This was the entire purpose of the Earth that God had created.
To make a statement like this you have to start making distinctions between God's will and his plan.
It's not appropriate to say that it was God's will for them to eat the forbidden fruit, when he expressly says otherwise, and we know that he is too holy to lie.
But we know that salvation through Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1, I think); therefore, we must recognize that God had an uber-plan that accounted for the reality of disobedience so that he could demonstrate his justice and mercy.
But God commanded them to not eat the fruit of the tree of eternal life and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yes, this is a parable, not actual history. But in this parable, God commands that Adam and Eve not eat the fruit. I don't see where God presumed that they would ultimately disobey. As punishment, he banished them from the Gaden of Eden, unable to return. They never got to eat the fruit of eternal life.
Again, I see this parable as being about the coming of age, so the above discussion is merely academic.
If you think that "proof" of someone being resurrected from the dead is based on true-believer testimony, I literally do not know what to say. Your point about "a little more blindly" really admits it. The proof is that many religions, even Islam, has its miracles that are testified to... by ITS own true believers.
They did not believe until they saw him resurrected. And they included in their testimony that the first witnesses were women, which (by the rules of the day) would have gotten them laughed out of the public square.
I have not argued that all miracles are the proof of every claim. I only argue that they were used as proof when God demanded radical trust. Moses himself admitted that sometimes false prophets would perform miracles (Deut 13) - so the believer has an obligation to look beyond the miracle to the claim being made. Any claim contrary to what has been previously revealed is bogus, regardless of whether it is attested by a miracle.
It is left to those of us who are not witnesses to listen not only to the claim of a miracle, but also its logic. Was there a resurrection? Maybe, but why does that matter? Could there be a restored relationship with God without a resurrection? No.
Our sins separate us from God; yes, he is forgiving, but he is also holy and cannot be so if he does not punish sin. The resurrection follows the willing death by one who was not himself a sinner and who also had the indestructible life of divinity so that he could give new life to all who believe.
As the saying goes: so that God could be just as well as the one who justifies those who believe.
I'm responding just to tell you I'm not responding.
But, also, responding.
I don't know why you feel the need to "inhale." Since you saw fit to engage my comment about faith and miracles, it only seemed reasonable to respond to your comment; I don't believe my response constitutes "denying you your right to your opinions." I was merely responding to your statement about not having witnessed miracles by pointing out the [probably] obvious point that those of us who aren't witnesses are compelled to go beyond the 'what' to the 'why.' I didn't need to provide a citation because it was my own thought (not that I imagine I'm being original).
So when I say I'm not responding, I mean that I don't plan to respond to whatever further responses you may have (while reserving the right...), I recognize that you apparently don't really wish to have a dialog regardless of your commenting, and also that I do not feel a compelling need to pursue further dialog, etc...
Pi Guy, I wish you would read through the eyewitness accounts (and if I may be so bold, not base your unconvincedness on your having read them twenty years ago). Was it you or someone else in the thread who said he/she _chose_ not to believe the accounts?
Faith is indeed a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8-9). But please don’t let that deter you! He is so very open to the honest heart that cries out to Him to show Himself real. (Mark 9:24– help my unbelief!)
Belief and knowledge are two different words with two different meanings. Within the confines of our human senses/abilities, 'seeing' confers knowledge, not belief.
A 'belief' is having faith in something you don't have full knowledge of. I remember my 2nd year algebra course, full of 'theorem/proof'. Not every theory has a proof but is still a valid theory that many yet be proven.
"Not every theory has a proof but is still a valid theory that many yet be proven."
Perhaps we should be more careful with our vocabulary. In Math, a Theory holds an extremely exalted station in the Book of Laws *precisely because _it has been proven_*. It's much more certain and unquestionable - verily, by its proof it is unquestionable - than when we say more colloquially, "I have a theory about that." Most people, when they say that mean that they have something more like a Hypothesis.
And by Belief, I think you could say that you believe in gravity despite the fact that you likely don't have full knowledge of the subject. But that doesn't mean that it must be taken on Faith because there's a pretty significant body of evidence demonstrating its existence, and that it pretty well behaves precisely as, well... Theory predicts that it does.
You Believe gravity works. I Know it does. Fortunately for us, we're both right.
I mean, I wasn't around when Oden and his brothers, the sons of Bure, used the skull of Ymir their grandfather to make the heaven, but it's there every day when I look.
By the logic of the christian you argue with, that the sky is there is proof positive that heaven (the sky, it's the same word in swedish for heaven and sky) was made as described in the Eddas.
I think there's a difference between tales of Odin and accounts of people who reported facts they witnessed and were put to death for their belief in those facts, even when changing their minds would have gotten them off the hook. I've enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle, but wouldn't go to the mat over it, nor, I'm sure, would Wagner have.
"I've enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle, but wouldn't go to the mat over it"
I don't know, Man. I mean, like, Siegfried - talk about When a Man Loves a Woman. Ain't No Mountain High Enough. Even if she's a Raven-Haired, Ruby-Lipped Witchy Woman. Maybe especially then.
Saul of Tarsus comes to mind... And there are many others that were violently antagonistic to Jesus of Nazarus and his followers until they personally experienced God's "proof".
Did mistcr really reference "true-believer testimony", or did he actually reference "those who experienced [historical acts]"?
There *is* a difference, and your expressed skepticism is based on your misrepresentation of who, exactly, was bearing witness to those "historical acts", it seems to me.
Jesus' apostles (the true believers) claim to have experienced seeing Jesus risen from the dead. That is what I am referring to. If one believes by faith, just say so. Do not try and make us believe that YOUR miracles were real because of eyewitness testimony, which even today is understood to be often wrong.
Eyewitness testimony is often found to be wrong in criminal situations where the events occurred very quickly and the witnesses weren't necessarily focused on the actors.
That is not the eyewitness testimony described in the Bible. The apostles walked with Jesus for three years, they saw him die, they saw copious amounts of blood and water escape his body after his side was pierced, and then they spent significant amounts of time with him over forty days following his resurrection. It bears no resemblance to the poor record of eyewitness testimony that you're referring to.
As most who buy what the alleged written word contains, reasoning isn’t, if the bible is discounted and ignored. A debate without facts is not a debate and by no means does anyone’s bible contain facts; parables indeed, useful good works and good intentions indeed, but fiction based on some supposedly known facts, is still fiction. And anyone simply saying you must believe in what’s written, or else, supplies nothing but dogmatic obedience and anything but proof of any occurrences, let alone the details of said occurrences.
With Christmas quickly approaching religion and the Bible subject are relevant ones. The choosing of what to insert into the present-day bible (and then there is the question of whose Christian bible, let alone the “sacred” texts of world’s other 10-top religions should be used, but I digress) is one of the many reasons why I have little faith (no pun) in what I was force fed -- i.e., that God "penned" the Bible. I know inspired by God; is the dodge I recall being used. And yes, I recall that BS from that god-awful, mandatory Baltimore Catechism memorization (among other indoctrination techniques): that God works in “mysterious ways” and “he always was and always will be”!
More generalized, undefined platitudes aside, when one looks closely at Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, there are many disconnects. Not the LEAST disconnect is that history was verbal and no chisel or nub was put to stone or Papyrus by anyone until 40- or 50-years AD. And then nothing was documented about those occurrences, if they happened, or when they happened. Nothing was written the day after the supposed resurrection, nor a month later. It took a lifetime before verbal story telling was consigned to text! And then, there is the question of what was done to and with, what exactly was put in writing? The point being, who wrote what, when? No one knows the answer to that question. But inspired by god and faith in the unknown, purportedly provides the answer (and a virgin thrown in the volcano, will appease the lava gods and provide us with abundance)!!
With the oldest known Bible being from the middle of the 4th. century, there is no chain of custody, no proof that what was written, was written by anyone named Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and if it was, did it make it to today's Bible fully, partially intact, or not at all!! If they penned what is contained in today’s bible, were Mark, Matthew, Luke and John mentally stable, or were they the tin foil-hat wearers of the day? Or were they fab four Madison Avenue types of the day; taking it upon themselves to spin a yarn that would sell Billions? Or were they as the platitudes suggest, INSPIRED by God to provide his, her, or its word? Gee, all I need to do is say my pronouncements are inspired by God and I too can rule the world, amass a fortune and tell everyone how they should live and behave. Then, if they disregard my edicts, I’ll ramp up the Crusades and turn-on the Inquisition (both of which, make the Salem Witch trials look like a Sunday romp in the park)!
Housed in a London Museum, is the Oldest known New Testament Bible in the World. This Bible was discovered in Egypt, first coming to the attention of scholars in the 19th. century. It is the Book of Sinai (Codex Sinaiticus). It dates from the Middle of the 4th century. What happened during Jesus’s life and then FROM the day after death, to the Middle of the 4th. century? Assuming what the Book of Sinai contains is an accurate account of events (and that’s an unbelievable, unproveable assumption), how many hands and scribes touched, modified and obliterated, destroyed and rewrote, what was originally written in those first hundreds of years AD? Does the Book of Sinai contain anything written from around the time of Jesus? Who contributed what to it? Does it contain someone’s experiences and memories? Or were the contents of the Book of Sinai conceived from someone’s wishes and dreams, like other fictional books about characters (e.g., King Arthur, Grimm's Fairy Tales)? If no one knows the authenticity of the Bible’s contents, how does anyone know that what it contains, happened? And if portions of the bible are thought to have happened, how would anyone know whether it is true, partially true, or totally false? In ~350AD, there obviously were no pictures, no news at 11:00! There were NO written accounts a week, a month, a year, or decades after what happened. It is generally known that a news event today, when written about 24 hours later, will contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies. How about NOT writing about the event for decades or hundreds of years? How accurate, fanciful or downright fictionalized could that event have been made to be, if indeed it actually took place?
Equally as confounding is that The Book of Sinai contained 2-books that are not now in the New Testament. These are:
1>. Shepherd of Hermas
2>. Epistle of Barnabas
What happened to these books? Why were they removed? This does nothing but deepen doubts that the oldest known Bible has any relevance to anything that happened or didn’t happen.
Next to the Book of Sinai on display in the U.K., is another Bible written just a few decades later & also from Egypt. It is the “The Book of Alexandria”. It too has two more books NOT now in the New Testament:
1>. “The first letter of Clement”
2>. “The 2nd. letter of Clement”
Two (2) Ancient Bibles and Four Strange Books that we are aware of!! How many more books were there? Why have they mysteriously disappeared? And what of other Books or writings? Few have heard of the 50 or so other Gospels that circulated in antiquity such as:
1>. The Gospel of Thomas
2>. Gospel of Mary
More question than answers. I get it, there are so many questions without answers but one: "you must have faith my son, have faith" and believe, BELIEVE in the good book. Once belief is instilled and indoctrinated in 100% of the contents of the “good book”, ALL else is acceptable and believable! Now, let’s go out and ban books by Nicholas Copernicus and throw the Inquisition upon Galileo Galilei and his Earth revolving around the Sun heresy and any other men or witches with heretical ideas.
Suffice is to say that a discussion and pray tell a debate of Christian Biblical derivation applied to today is meaningless, unless of course the book is etched in the stone some believe it to be. Then have at it. Reason by quoting chapter and verse as if it is indeed indisputable chapter and verse, as if the characters or events existed, or they did what is said they have done. But as one without belief in any chapter and verse, my eyes glaze over and my mind wanders to what the heck is the point? How can a book’s contents be used to prove anything; when the book is just a ficticious compilation of unsubstantiated occurrences, good deeds and thoughts, not the word of some unknown, unseen, god or gods of man’s making? Use that as the basis for discussion and debate and there is no discussion.
The top 10 religions have their texts. It is a requirement! Without the dogma, the writings, the book (just the facts Jack), what is one left with, but reason, logic, science (as we know it at this moment) and the golden rule. The question is, which scroll, book, text about a god or gods is to be observed, believed, followed and obeyed? Therein lies the rub, those words “faith” and “belief”. And so it goes…you must simply have faith and believe…to believe, and if you sorta’ believe in what I believe, we can have a discussion about it; otherwise, citing passages from the Bible, Qur’an, Vedas, Tripitaka et al. provides no relevance, nor do they carry more weight than any other human philosophical statement or construct.
Well put. As a Christian I appreciate your comments about the word “faith,” especially. In the last century it has taken on the “leap of faith” connotation, which is not conveyed by its root in the Latin, “fide,” which implies an objective belief or trust. I could never be a Christian based upon an absence of objective data, although in the 35 years of my life as a Christian I could never have imagined the sheer quantity of evidence available that I now have access to. Admittedly the state of Christianity in the West is not the objective faith of my Protestant forefathers 300-500 years ago.
this, of course, requires that one believes that the stories recounted in the Bible are true. and of course, there's no way to empirically know that any of them are. and as Michael Hudson has pointed out in his exhaustive book, "...and forgive them their debts," the very word "sin" upon which so much of the religious tenets hang is an utterly mis-translated word. the original Greek opheilēma / opheiletēs meant literally financial "debt." the Bible, as it turns out, is actually preoccupied with debt and debt forgiveness. that corrected translation leads to a very different religion if you ask me.
from the book's publishing notes:
"Jesus's first sermon announced that he had come to proclaim a Clean Slate debt cancellation (the Jubilee Year), as was first described in the Bible (Leviticus 25), and had been used in Babylonia since Hammurabi's dynasty. This message - more than any other religious claim - is what threatened his enemies, and is why he was put to death. This interpretation has been all but expunged from our contemporary understanding of the phrase, "...and forgive them their debts," in The Lord's Prayer. It has been changed to "...and forgive them their trespasses (or sins)," depending on the particular Christian tradition that influenced the translation from the Greek opheilēma/opheiletēs (debts/debtors). ...
"Perhaps most striking is that - according to a nearly complete consensus of Assyriologists and biblical scholars - the Bible is preoccupied with debt forgiveness more than with sin."
I've been reading Hudson for many years. He's right more often than not. And always insightful. To eliminate his perspective and research is like saying vitamin c is irrelevant.
But it's folly to read the Bible and conclude that it's presenting a class struggle.
The Bible's principal concern is with your relationship to God. Every bad/evil/sinful thing that we do to each other is merely the outflow of our relationship with God. Jesus himself made this clear in Matthew 15:10ff.
To declare that "deliver us from our debts" in the Lord's prayer is a request for fiscal and property debt cancellation is in effect to declare your intent to renege on your commitments and thereby to make God an accessory to theft.
The Bible has a message of consolation for the poor and offers wisdom to help them escape poverty when possible; it also has a message of condemnation for the corrupt wealthy and admonishes them to behave with generosity toward those indebted to them. However, when we strip the Bible of its essential message of a spiritual salvation, we actually strip it of its power to transform hearts in the manner that makes these things possible.
that's where we differ. I don't believe that's the principal concern of the Bible. I agree with Hudson. It makes much more sense to me that Jesus, again hard to know if any of these stories are true, was a threat because he threatened the economic power of the day. And the cover up for killing him and to diffuse the populist power of his message about the jubilee law was to turn him into a religious figure and put everyone off the trail. I'm seeing these kind of reframings of factual things to protect the moneyed powerful IRL today. Of course it went on before the internet. So to me that seems likely here. The history of regular clearing of debts, is on the other hand, empirically provable. And then it stopped.
As for transforming hearts, calling people "sinners" from the get go is completely the opposite of the spiritual truth imo. That's a program meant to control and manipulate the masses if ever I saw one. "You're a sinner, just do what we tell you and you'll be 'saved,' oh and give us your money and don't question us or you'll be excommunicated." ... ah, I see what's happening here.
We all have beliefs, whether we realize it or not. For those whose personal experience is limited to the governance of natural laws, the tendency is to believe that natural laws are immutable (god-like). This is indeed a tenet of what we call modern science, but it cannot be proven. For those who have experienced the presence of God (not just believe because they were told to...) it becomes obvious that God is the immutable entity. This belief also cannot be proven, but is corroborated by the witness of countless throughout human history, and confirmed by continued personal experience.
“I’m only one person, what can I do?” Said the whole world.
The root problem is the system itself. Fixing the system itself should be the one place we can all agree on.
We need to fix the entire system from being corrupted - government and all other related systems have lost all trust (government, religion, media, medicine, big tech, science, academia, food, etc). The answer lies in building new trustworthy systems, migrating to them, then plugging them in to fix the existing corrupted ones. Like using a plug-in to fix a corrupted computer system.
It starts with understanding Swarm Theory and Human Swarm Intelligence. This is the beginning, but if everyone takes the time to understand this we can fix our corrupted systems and then fix everything else. Transparency + Decentralization + Human Swarm Intelligence = the answer.
I agree, we definitely need new systems. I think we need to simply create the new ones rather than spend energy and time to try and fix / fight the old ones. The new ones will simply exist in parallel for a while, I believe. I'll check out the link!
"but is corroborated by the witness of countless throughout human history, and confirmed by continued personal experience."
Scientists - not Teh Scientists™ - but Scientists do not believe that natural laws are immutable. The Science is never settled.
If they could be settled, then Proof would indeed be how we acquire new scientific knowledge. We acquire new scientific knowledge by means of Evidence.
All I need to know about religion was revealed during covid. Virtually all Christians failed to do the right thing despite what their holy book teaches for fear of how other humans would feel about being a "disrupter", while not the least concerned how their god would expect them to behave.
There has been very few members of The Church, or their leaders who have felt compelled to assess how they performed against how the person they worship would've expected..Indeed demands.
Why? Because they would have to confront the fact that they only believe in their teachings so long as it doesn't come at a price.
Otherwise it's all talk. They're all about sacrifice; the sacrifice of others.
i had a somewhat different experience in that my friends who are more profoundly religious seemed by far less likely to get sucked into the fear cults.
however, this stands in marked contrast to how many of the "religious leaders" behaved.
perhaps the issue is not devotees but popes, not religion but ORGANIZED religion which, like any political body, tend to become venal and self serving.
i think it may be useful to distinguish between christians and the chirstian church/bureaucracy.
this history of popes is as bloodthirsty, arrogant, and covetous as any line of kings.
Agree 94%. And same with my friends and family. They got it.
But let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. My friends knew that I did not wear masks and I told them I wouldn't be wearing one when we met up for lunch. It made them uncomfortable...I could feel it and see it in their eyes. I asked them when we sat down if they thought they could walk the 20 steps to the door without a masks after we were done.
So I paid for lunch and they dutifully put on their masks as soon as they stood up. I gave them shit about it, but they kept them glued on.
I was simply asking for small resistance. None of them could muster the courage to walk 20 feet, after we were finished and I PAID!
I mean seriously what would happen to then at that point? It represented no meaningful risk. They had succumb to apathy, despite hating the masks, because they had accepted there was nothing they could do...that it was senseless to resist
We needed a lot small resistors to make these mandates unenforceable or such a pain in the ass that they were de facto optional.
They were scared. Moreover they had resigned to doing it indefinitely.
That is much more scary than the cult fanatics imo
Anecdotal. I'm a devout Christian and I got in trouble with my job in healthcare multiple times over my refusal to acquiesce to the garbage COVID lunacy (masks, distancing, vaccination, etc.). Took my kids to closed parks where people had literally been arrested for playing. Was the only one in Walmart or wherever without a mask on. My mother is a devout Christian and she confronted and still confronts (she's a little confrontational anyways, and maybe that's part of it) people who wear masks around in public. For just as many religious devotees that you noticed cowering, I can name one or several who stood up bravely.
You are a person of character and with mighty courage. The fear of social tyranny can be more terrifying than the prospect of shedding blood on a battle field.
Most Generals will say as much because they had to report directly to one before they were appointed as a general.
The small resistors were key all along. Few existed. Many thought that those who continously resisted deserved the shaming and isolation simply because they didn't follow the "precious" rules.
Ugh I am having this exact conversation with my middle schooler at the moment. I can see her becoming exasperated with a mother who spends a lot of energy “not consenting” to a LOT of crap. Mostly at the airport. And school. Anyway, just today I reminded her: the rules are made for people, not people made for the rules. Don’t ever forget it. It is absolutely imperative that we know and understand the spirit of the law and when it is appropriate to follow that rather than the letter. Rant over.
I watched the apple event last night...amazing how small the transistors are...and I didn't know there were so many that identified as small "trans" sistors.
I agree Ryan. I refused to wear a mask. Was accosted in Wegmans by a woman shopper, and thrown out of REI, no mask,a rebel. My family usually donned the cloth, but ironically let it slip down in my presence. I think they used my refusal as an easy out for what they truly wanted to do.
They do not fear (read awe, reverence) God. They worship the god of their belly, the fear of man...their behavior does not/did not typify the Bible-believing Christians I know amid covid nonsense
I think you might be the exception to the rule on balance. Geography and socioeconomics play a role as well.
They are devoted Christians I've known these guys since I was in college. So is virtually everyone in my family except for me.
They FEARED losing something more than anything. Like "privileges" to participate in society or the fear they'd be "reported" at work for noncompliance.
Do you want to know if the church has reflected on its behavior during that time and plans to be a change agent in the event there's a repeat?
It's real easy:
Has the leadership made it clear to children that what happened was both WRONG and didn't work...and why that is so?
Do the children know they were done wrong by adults?
If they haven't then they have failed their God again and the children.
And they are inviting a repeat.
The children must know or rest assured they will also blindly submit in a spirit of fear.
I think a lot of the best intentions of Christians were co opted (see also the movie Devil's Advocate) C.S. Lewis talked about the tyranny of caring. If I wore a mask because I simply cared about Grandma that would be one thing...but this was a symbol of caring in general not only about Grandma but all the "marginalized."
Appreciate the distinction and I share the critique. I'll venture to say that there are few more dismayed by the churches' responses --especially now, when so many lies have been revealed and so much harm is apparent-- than the followers of Jesus who HAVE been working to speak truth and life into the chaotic inversion/subversion of right and wrong that inhabits our world.
One of the most culturally despised, censored, and abandoned groups of people right now are those who were harmed by covid vaccines. I'm part of the effort to bring acknowledgement, just compensation, research, support, and encouragement to the vaccine-injured and find myself almost completely surrounded by other Christians drawn to this work. I am 1000% past ready for the churches to be vocal and help break through the stigma to bring mercy and justice for these suffering people.
None of us know where this road will lead, but we try to do the next right thing put in front of us and proceed with love, following Jesus' commands to love God first and love our neighbors. No other compass.
There are also secular friends involved, of course. And it's true that humor and good cheer help keep us all going... the obscene is also absurd on some level. When all the true, earnest, rational, humane arguments apparently fail to make a dent, there is comfort and resolve-building in a good laugh at the expense of the dragon. A reminder that it's not all powerful, after all.
"i think it may be useful to distinguish between christians and the chirstian church/bureaucracy."
Like separating the Art from the Artist? Not quite right but most of the Faithful I encounter are nice, productive, friendly, happy, loving, hard-working people. In a world chock-full with Bad Stuff, I find that I don't care what you think makes you be a better person.
A priest in my former parish gave a sermon about the sinfulness of living in fear. After Mass I pointed out to him the irony of delivering that message to a congregation forced to wear masks. His response: “well, some things are worth being afraid of”. Needless to say, I wrote him off and left that parish shortly thereafter.
About 30% of people did not take the vaccine. And more eyes are opened now. Hopefully some learning has taken place both within the church and without.
Nailed it Ryan! I'm not a church goer but I do believe in God. God gave us the ability to think for ourselves. It's up to us what we choose to do with it. Many churches were defiant,many were not. I've been inspired by many on these substacks and have noticed that our community is growing....which gives me some hope. Some sheep will always be sheep! Our leadership will continue! I know I will for sure!
When I see compartmentalized blindness like this, I get very introspective. Like "eff, where is my train off the rails if they can't see there's is already turned over in the weeds and on fire."
According to them, they would think the Bible should have a footnote.
"Fear of the Lord (and Covid) is he beginning of wisdom."
This reminds me of a speech one of the characters of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" made. It's toward the end of the book but well worth reading if you can make it that far. The gist of it is that the person who demands sacrifice is a person who aims to set themselves up as master; and those that are asked to sacrifice are the slaves.
I recently read The Fountainhead for the first time and my god did it blow my mind, as soon as I finished it I immediately started reading it again. Have never had a book show me, in such exacting detail, what is wrong with our world and how it happened; Atlas Shrugged goes into even better detail for the failures of society. I think a lot of people miss the spiritual aspect of both of these books, it comes down to following your life's purpose and refusing to conform to what society thinks, if more people followed this the world would be so much better off. Rand wasn't saying "oh, let's all be selfish and live like degenerates", she was saying that to truly live one must go by their internal compass, only by following that will you find that for which you seek.
Right now I'm "in the middle" of reading Atlas for the first time. It's an audiobook, so something like 60 hours long, and I only listen when I'm driving or flying. So it's been going on for a few months.
But when I read the quote from "The Fountainhead" (haven't read it yet, but did read "We The Living" back in my college years 40 years ago - quotable stuff in that one, too), I immediately thought that, "yeah, there's a lot of quotable stuff like that in Atlas, too!".
I just need to figure out how to bookmark passages in Audible's audiobooks so I can go back and easily find those gems.
Atlas comes in at something like 677,000 words, have trouble writing 2,000 words let alone 677k words. One of the best quotes from the Fountainhead, paraphrasing here, is when Roark is asked what he'll do for work and he replies "I'm not worried, my people will find me". Also love the scene when Roark runs into Ellsworth Toohey at the housing project and Toohey asks him what he, Roark, thinks of him. Roark simply replies "But I don't think of you", like the idea of thinking about a lowlife like Toohey is beyond his comprehension. Disregarding public opinion, and refusing to conform to it, is they key to living your true life.
YES!!! I love that "But I *don't* think of you."!!! I thought I remembered it from WTL but apparently I also read The Fountainhead, and must've merged the two in my memory.
"But I don't think of you." Another gem that has stuck with me through the years (albeit incorrectly attributed to WTL).
Love part in Atlas when John Galt requests to speak with Stadler. Stadler walks in the room and immediately starts ranting that he had no choice but to sell out science to the looters, changes tact and admits that Galt and his vision need to be destroyed. Galt simply looks at him and says "everything you just said was exactly what I was going to say to you". One of the biggest mic drops in history of literature.
THIS is the one I remembered, the one I was looking for, the one that has stuck with me through the years:
“Don't you know....don't you know that there are things, in the best of us, which no outside hand should dare touch? Things sacred because, and only because, one can say: 'This is mine'? Don't you know that we live only for ourselves, the best of us do, those who are worthy of it? Don't you know that there is something in us which must not be touched by any state, by any collective, by any number of the millions?”
“And what is the state but a servant and a convenience for a large number of people, just like the electric light and the plumbing system? And wouldn't it be preposterous to claim that men must exist for their plumbing, not the plumbing for the men?” ~ from "We The Living"
It's interesting that we let people into BigGov who think they're The Principal, That Cool Art Teacher That Everyone Loves, The Wise School Counselor, That Coach That Will Make You... Better.
When what we mostly want from them is that they be The Front Office Secretary and a Handful of Janitors.
"Rand wasn't saying "oh, let's all be selfish and live like degenerates", she was saying that to truly live one must go by their internal compass, only by following that will you find that for which you seek."
"this is not a predilection i have ever shared and one for which i once had no small amount of distrust perhaps because my mind is of too *objectivist* a bent to lend itself to such ideas as justification by faith." [emp Pi's]
I found Objectivism to be...too much. Or too little.
Then again, I make this admission: there were 2 chapters in Atlas where I started to pass paragraphs , and then pages...only to check in to see if the rant had changed flavor.
It was 30 years ago, probably...and no, I couldn't make myself see the movie. I was so excited! Then ... thry seemed to keep screwing with it- until I just went " Meh...nah "
The movies were disappointing when I think it could have helped a lot with the skipping passages stuff with (1) good editing and film making, and (2) finding someone who will let you a couple seasons worth of series.
Even Firefly wouldn't have been enough to fit in all is AS.
Don't claim to be anything, simply love Rand's work. consciousness without spirit would bring us to the level of dumb beasts, look at the society of looters in Atlas, they are all devoid of their souls, they have been cutoff from that which differentiates man from the Neanderthals. If you take away a man's true purpose in life you have removed his reason for being and, to me, that is a spiritual aspect. Not talking in terms of being a good Christian and following the tenets of that faith, I'm talking in terms of understanding that all of us are energetic beings and allowing our energy to be manipulated and used by others, for their own purposes, by force of a gun; this is how I interpret what Rand wrote.
hahaha, no worries at all brother. My wife claims I'm a debater about everything and, while I'll never admit it, she's right. I love debating ideas, concepts, anything that is not a concrete fact is fair game IMO, think it's part of enjoying life so no need to apologize. It's also a reason I love books so much, one person can interpret them one way and I can interpret them in my way, fun part is debating whose view is correct. Lately I've been contemplating writing a book on how Rand's work can be viewed in a spiritual lens and how it's been misinterpreted, often quite intentionally, by the media. Mostly though her work has made me understand the nature of our current world and why everything just sucks now. Movies are nothing but recycled garbage, no originality anywhere, authors are chosen not on the merit of their work but on their sexual preferences or race, same thing in corporate America, being promoted no longer has anything to do with merit but on what type of PR you'll give to the company, our infrastructure is completely falling apart (waiting on the equivalent of the Taggart Bridge collapse to happen) while we piss away billions on foreign wars, etc. The main point anyone should take away from Rand's work is the only path forward for humanity is to remove the chains of government from our bodies and embrace self governance; Rand may have been the first AnarchoCapitalist now that I think about it.
Right diagnosis of symptoms, wrong diagnosis of malady. It's not that "Christians" don't believe and didn't live up to what they should have done during Covid--many did, especially those on the front lines who risked their lives to the sick in the very beginning, when no one knew how deadly the virus was, and many whose voices were silenced when it became apparent the lockdowns and "mitigations" were stupid and that people were being lied to) it's that:
1) Many people who claim to be Christian actually believe other things more than they believe in God
2) Fear will make many, many people abandon what they do believe and hate themselves for doing it
3) Many people in charge care only about their own power
4) Those things have ALWAYS been true, and only a sincere and strong Church that teaches otherwise can make people overcome those things to behave otherwise. It's easier to kill or enslave enemies than forgive them, easier to let the poor die than bother to feed and house them, easier to let the sick die than to cure them--and that's what people do, and always have done. The less influence Christianity has over thought and institutions and political leaders, the less you will see any of those things happen.
That's a pretty big one to fall short of over an extended amount of time.
And when you say "many did". Do you mean on their knees? Was it in any meaningful way?
I think Jesus would've rebuked them by telling them get off their knees and stand up.
Who stood up for the children against the evil? If you can't do that, then it reasons they probably couldn't find the strength to sacrifice in accordance with what they proselytize if it had a cost they would bear.
The vast majority gave into a spirit of fear and let children be washed in it for 2 years.
All I'm asking is that they actually self reflect on why they were cowards in the face of evil.
Character is revealed when you have to stand up and take action when nobody else will. It's also revealed when a person has fallen short day after day after day shrinking from evil if they admit they did - at a minimum to themselves.
They feared how THEY would look here on earth, not how they would look to their savior in "heaven".
They chose to be spectators to widespread evil with no self-awareness that indeed they were awful examples of what a Christian is supposed to be; a non-coward who cares for their neighbor as they care for themselves.
The Church is the third biggest disappointment right under Teachers/Schools and the PHA'S.
Epic fail and they want to sweep it under the rug...I wonder why?
I am a Christian. If I don't fall short in one way I will fall short in the other. To be a Christian means to acknowledge this and to hide in the life of Jesus on my behalf. And the death of Jesus on my behalf. "He who has no sin, let him throw the the first stone."
Nah. This was a clean cut event that leaves no excuses for Christians. Easiest decision all time.
The excuse they all used was they were saving their efforts and focusing on praying about the "big one". It wouldn't have mattered if it were 2 years or 5 or 10 years. They would've sat by and complied indefinitely.
What a cop out in the face of evil.
This is not simply falling short because they said a cuss word. This was 18-24 months of willful blindness, so they didn't have to think about it.
So what's worse; a heathen like me thats going to a lake of fire for a trillion years, who immediately noticed the obvious and took action, or a Christian who denies the existence of evil right in front of their face for expediency?
They took the easy way out and not one of them feels they should've done more.
A Christian who is resigned to not fighting evil is more dangerous than the fanatics imo. If they can't muster the courage then who will?
Ryan Gardner, YES! Christians have failed. Yes, the church is disappointing. (You and I are included in the church, I think.) Now, how are you and I going to do our part (whatever that is) in turning people to God and living according to His purposes and plans? My wife and I made fancy masks for ourselves, which we wore until we figured out that people and organizations we thought we could trust had been fooled, or were complicit in perpetuating lies. We (individually and collectively) need healing, and restoration. (Don't get me started on Ukraine, the southern U.S. border, government corruption, the butchery of Jews today. The egg is on our faces--the blood is on our hands-- not just on others'.)
"Money changers in the temples..." and churches, and mosques, and.... 98% of all religious institutions suffer the money changers. Exactly 100% of the formal international institutions, exactly 100% of the formal national institutions and approximately 98% of the formal local institutions of faith. Corrupted by the money changing within.
And by money I don't mean just gold. The intrinsic value of money being ambition, power, comfort, gaining the respect and esteem of other fallen men placed ahead of their respect and honor for the God they ostensibly serve and believe in. Or the fear of leaders who might've lost all of the above if they didn't go along...and still don't go along with the demands of fallen men.
We, mankind the world over suffers from the rule of weak leaders. Weak, pathetic people. Including those weak in faith. Made leaders because the strong among us have chosen other pursuits, not desiring to lead.
And is God said to Elijah, "I have more than 7,000 who have not bent the need to Baal." The life of Jesus in people is real and powerful. It does not make people perfect in this life. And it is working like leaven Even in the true believers who did wrong during COVID. Some of them are in my small group at church. And grace is a beautiful beautiful beautiful beautiful thing. It doesn't mean consequences go away. But it means I love even those in my small group who did the vaccine dance. And who just don't get that part of life. And yes, some have grown sick, some died, and going to be with Jesus. Some of the brightest who were at the moment blind. As Christians, as well as us humans are quite the motley crew!
My ire isn't for those who were duped and blinded to harm themselves. It is reserved for those who demanded others harm themselves. Those who demanded I wear a Satanic cult symbol, the mask of obedience to Satan himself, upon my face. Those who demanded I take the Satanic blood injections that bind to the pure blood God filled me with, forever linking those who did with Lucifer himself.
My ire is reserved for the authoritarians, those in positions of high hard power like politicians, police and judges and lower soft power, like preachers and rabbis, doctors, teachers, merchants and cashiers, all who made demands I and others harm themselves, separate ourselves from God to worship false gods.
I understand that I will seek and need forgiveness from God for my sins against him. That humbles me to the degree it does.
But the influence of Michael, the Archangel, who serves God as he does is strong in me.
And while I do not wield Michael's sword to slay the enemies of God I wield words and power of thought to slay them in other ways.
I'm glad God is forgiving of those who seek his forgiveness, for my words and thoughts against those who have trespassed myself, my dearest and God will need forgiveness.
My understanding of God's forgiveness is that it comes when it is asked for, by a truly repentant heart that atones for their trespasses and transgressions. To forgive those who trespassed and transgressed who are not truly repentant and make no effort to atone for their trespasses and transgressions would not be following God's example. And would result in them doing it to us all over again. The world now needs to repent and atone. Only then can everyone move on.
But don't you think Christians have some self reflection to do?
If not that means it happens again. We were persecuted and yet we are the ones who must try to understand why they did that, and to forgive them, despite them not caring about our experience of being forced to live as a pariah. That was the toughest part of resisting: Knowing up-front, that's how it would end
That's not capitalism. Though it bears a striking resemblance to crony capitalism. Also known as public-private partnerships. Also known as Fascism. The only reason capitalism gets a bad rap is that "crony" version of it. True free market capitalism doesn't partner with lawmakers to give itself advantage. In the business of man or in the business of God.
Sorry if I led you astray. I'm being a little facetious and, yet, also noting that Free Trade - someting like Putting your $ in the Collection Plate and Dropping Off a Couple Dozen Cookies for the Bake Sale in exchange for Salvation is, well, strictly speaking, Capitalism.
Again - I think you read me a little wrong here. I'm pretty well in the camp of Religion and Fascism, they aren't exactly Kissing Cousins. But they do seem awfully willing to Sneak a Peek on One Another While They're in the Shower.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
All men are fallen. None escape the sin we are born with. Those who seek power or are placed in power are afflicted with the corrupting influence of it. Precious very few succumb to its influence. Even those in service to God. Especially those in service to God.
Interesting. I live in the South. Most of the disrupters I know (including 165+ women in my town who actually stood together to support each other during Covid, warned and cared for others, defied masks, took hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin(!) and urged our churches to reopen) are Christians. I was, however, fascinated by the fear demonstrated by so many. In every other pandemic it was the Christians who helped the sick because we don’t fear death. In this country we have become too comfortable with the world.
The other telling thing about most American Christians is their gullibility. Look how many support televangelists, conning little old ladies out of their Social Security. And then there’s the whole unqualified support for Israeli genocide if Palestinians, including their fellow Christians. I’ve heard them call for murdering all Palestinians.
COVID precipitated a MASSIVE faith crisis for me. It all came crashing down in rapid succession and I’m not even sad about it. Kudos for seeing it sooner and working to create more resistors!
"virtually all Christians failed to do the right thing despite what their holy book teaches"
I suspect that the same thing that might predispose one accept uncriticially the Words and Edicts of One Loving Powerful Benevolent Authoritative Entity on the basis of Faith Without Question seems likely to make one open to accepting uncritically Words and Edicts of Any Other Loving Powerful Benevolent Authoritative Entity on Faith on Faith Without Question.
Like, it's just easier to fit in. You know, go along to get along. Don't rock the boat, go with the flow.
It was evident to me from the early days of the lockdown that something very cult-like was occurring. When quite literally nothing happened during those first 15 days to justify the lockdowns, the mantra of “just wait two weeks” was on the lips of the believers of the Branch Covidians, much like how a doomsday cult leader is allowed to pick new dates when the aliens don’t show when they are supposed to.
Creators of mathematical models (which only tell you what they were told to tell you) were exulted as if they were prophets who could tell the future, and like the false prophets of the Old Testament they weren’t punished and ignored when the first round of predictions failed to come true. The Amish, the state of South Dakota, and the country of Sweden may very well have never existed because it was impossible to speak of them.
Suddenly, argument from authority (which is the weakest form of argument in every science except Theology) became the primary means of demonstrating scientific truth; people were citing CDC web pages the way I might cite Scripture or the Church Fathers. It was as if, in the manner of God, the CDC can “neither deceive nor be deceived.”
Suddenly, complete novelties such as 6-feet distancing, lockdowns, forced masking, and experimental mRNA shots were declared as “safe and effective” not because of any real evidence but out of some misplaced “faith” and unjustified “hope” so that the absolute cruelty of destroying peoples’ jobs, making them be muzzled to return to work, and then threatening to fire them if they didn’t receive the sacrament of the covenant with Pfizer might mockingly be called “charity.”
Indeed, some people who received the earlier rounds of vaccinations were describing the experience in terms that were just as religious as descriptions of full immersion Baptism in the early Church.
The strongest evidence that something akin to a religious conversion was occurring in people was precisely what I witnessed among some of my fellow clergy. “Do not be afraid” became “Fear is a virtue.” “Those who wish to save their life will lose it” became “We must wish to save lives at any cost.”
While seeing the face of God is to experience salvation, seeing the faces of those made in his image no longer held any value at all. Those who once described themselves as defenders of the rights of laborers ignored my own call to action and I was forced to admit embarrassment at the fact that a socialist publication could more easily observe the damage being done to the poor and working class than my own confreres.
What I was witnessing was a “religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth” which is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the “mystery of iniquity” which accompanies the Church’s final trial (CCC 675).
I recognize that many readers here may not be of a particularly religious background, so I will add that this experience of conversion also occurred in people regarding supposedly deeply held ideological and moral beliefs.
Committed libertarians became radical authoritarians. Those who would proclaim that health care should be free to everyone now insisted it should be denied to those who don’t comply. Those who once claimed government was too large now eagerly caused it to grow.
Those who once asserted rights to privacy and bodily autonomy renounced the right to be taken seriously ever again by declaring that medical decisions should be public and forced. The entire field of public health basically apostatized from the entire moral and policy framework that they had created before 2020. Medical doctors completely abandoned everything they were trained to do with respect to treatment and ethics, even to the point of refusing to see patients in person and jettisoning the concept of informed consent completely.
I give credit to the brilliance of the the true geniuses like Augustine and Aquinas.
That's the one quibble I'd have with the history part of your post. The Enlightenment was the pro-reason counterreaction to the Reformation's anti- reason stance.
True brilliance flourished in the middle ages. Augustine! AQUINAS! Aquinas, for example, brought both Aristotle and Averroes to the Western schools.
Reading even excerpts from their works would allow you to witness raw intellectual power, education, and insight.
Thank you. I had begun to suspect that my Roman Catholic brothers had all missed the boat on this. But recognition of the deception is indeed widespread by now. We need to turn not to some form of resistance as savior, but to our Savior for refuge and strength to endure and thrive. But not in this life only: we must all help make Christ known.
There were dissidents and skeptics like gato even when Christendom was at its height. Humankind is diverse and we need people with cranky, outsider-y personalities to stress-test our beliefs and social structures in every age. However, we now live in Clown World. Increasingly, the dissidents and skeptics are the Christians..
Every one of us is alive NOW, at this particular moment, for a reason. Like many here I'm a skeptic by nature. Had I been born 1000 years ago I may have developed into a cranky contrarian yelling at the Church from the outside. As it is, I'm a traditionalist Catholic. I believe God caused me to be born when I was, with the personality that I have, in order that I might be drawn into His Church. And I hope and pray that is His plan for el gato malo, too.
I grew up in a Baptist church. My dog tags listed Christian, non-denominational. I married a Roman Catholic woman, the 7th of 8 children.
I place my faith in God alone. No organization of man is incorruptible. "...wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there am I..."
I too was born a skeptic. Instinctively, I distrust the motives of others, especially groups. We are to expect a falling away of the church. Outright adoption of teachings at direct odds with those of scripture.
Have you read “From Christendom to Apostolic Age”? It does a brilliant job explaining that we really are in Clown World (post-Christendom) and what that means for Catholics. Our parish read it for Lent in 2022. For me it was so helpful in explaining why I felt so out of sync with the world.
Religion is inescapable. Belief in religion as a falsehood is merely another form of religion masquerading as intellectual honesty/rationalism. Rationalism all too often leads us off of a cliff, as boriquagato has well shown because it is not informed by the lessons of the heart, which knows no logic other than what grows from its own intuitive feelings. Therefore impugning religion as a falsehood becomes yet another unverified belief system -- ipso facto, a religion. If you believe life is sacred, if you believe the natural order is sacred, if you believe that there is a moral order, are you required to provide empirical proof for this belief, or does it have some legitimacy to the extent that it is heartfelt? Not saying that all the "logical" deductions that ramify from such belief are necessarily correct, but only that there is inside our human wisdom an ability to perceive the sacred. Keats said it like this: "Beauty is truth and truth beauty; That is all you know on earth, and all ye need to know." In a movie I saw a small boy said to a man, "We need to protect the earth because God gave it to us." The man says, "Well young, man, I don't know about that. Maybe what you mean is we need to respect nature, respect the natural order." The boy responds, "That's what I just said."
i agree with this take. atheism is not in and of itself some sort of religion. is does however leave open the "put idea bigger than me slot" open and therefore make those practicing it more likely to adopt other religion like belief sets, often without realizing they are religions.
i would bet that atheism correlates strongly with "climate crisis belief" or "woke" and that strong religious belief tends to inoculate against such ideas.
As a recovering Catholic I often joke and say, "I'm between religions right now."
But I also identify as a Recovering Democrat but have not found the need for Faith to support my shift away from what was once a pretty darned liberal worldview. Something something "mugged by reality."
I am almost certain that Climate Crisis Belief and Woke correllate with Atheism but many in that camp are faithless for the same reason that they're afraid the world is boiling away: Because someone told them so. If you don't come to your conclusions by means of logic then it's unlikely that logic will convince otherwise.
I'm kind of A Pox on Both Your Houses guy all around, more a Please Just Leave Me Alone guy, and have a tough time finding a social-idealogical comfort zone. This here forum, as you've suggested, fills that space. Finding this community has gone a long way toward filling that Bigger Than Me Slot.
Religiously and Politically, I find myself pretty happily agnostic.
I hear you. Have you noticed that those who are not religious seldom feel a need to convert others? I am content to allow others to be whatever religion they choose. But Christians and some other religions seem to have a compulsion to convert you to their faith. I find it offensive.
Atheism could be like not collecting stamps if you are a hermit. As soon as an atheist partakes in a society means he/she must define morals. So you need to believe in something. Your example doesn't work.
I define morals just fine without reference to any deity. Everyone can and many do, all around you partaking in society , every day.
I said it in another comment here but it's more like this to me:
You tell me it concerns you that, without fear of eternal consequences, I could commit all manner of atrocities with nothing to tell me that's wrong.
I respond by saying that it frightens me much more that, in the absence of God telling you so, you could think of nothing on your own that would prevent you from committing atrocities.
Atheism is a religious belief in the same way and for the same reason anti-racism is still racism.
As in: someone who actively and consciously denies gods et al thinks about them all the time and adjusts his/hers way of life according to this state of denial - the same way an anti-racist is fixated on race.
But as you point out: NOT bothering (or maybe it should be: NOT god-bothering?) with it is not belief.
May I suggest atheism as a term for the stereotypically agressive and insulting mental 14-year old qwith a liberal arts major ranting about religion as the copium of the masses, and /apatheism/ for the people who simply say: "You do you, man, just don''t force your beliefs on anyone, m'kay?"
"May I suggest atheism as a term for the stereotypically agressive and insulting mental 14-year old qwith a liberal arts major ranting about religion as the copium of the masses"
While I am aware of the sterotype - and it is warranted in some cases; some of the faithless are completely insufferable, behavior hardly seen amongst the faithful - words have meanings.
Theism = The belief that gods exist. Atheism = Disbelief in the existence of gods.
Whereas...
"Atheism is a religious belief in the same way and for the same reason anti-racism is still racism."
No, but that might be true of Antitheism, which is defined as "opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods." I don't oppose such belief. I just don't find any of the gods yet introduced to me to be believable.
"If you see what I'm fishing for?"
Yup, I see it. I've not initiated a single conversation that addressed Belief or Faith or Religion. I haven't once suggested that my is The One and Only Right Way and all who disagree are wrong. And until you suggested how you might characterize me based on nothing other than my declaration of unBelief - "insulting mental 14-year old," I think were your words - I wouldn't even ask you to review all of the comments I've made here. I have not, as you say, forced my belifes on anyone, m'kay? I even see one instance where another commenter asked me directly if I wanted to believe and it feel that I politely declined.
To sum up: Atheism is a religious belief in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps ...
In fact, the basis for faith in God, for me, is logic. He is the Author of Logic. I doubt anyone, even gato, would believe me if I said I found a watch on the beach and it had evolved itself from nothing over millions of years. Clearly it was designed. My kids’ Lego pirate ship wouldn’t build itself no matter how long I threw Legos up in the air (not to mention the origin of the Legos). But infinitely complex living creatures were assembled by random processes? No random process creates order upon order. Nope-Designer. The God of the Bible alone is perfect, has perfect standards (He can’t help it that He’s perfect, but He is). When He made a perfect world with ONE rule, He knew His children would break the rule. He had a plan to pay the price (perfect justice demands payment) Himself. All He asks is that you recognize Him for Who He is. Then you can’t help but love Him back. The Bible is a gorgeous love story of rebellious people over eons making messes by their own rebellion, not God’s. He warns them, cautions them, lets them make messes, then saves them (spiritually and eternally, often but not necessarily temporally), anyone who believes in Him, from beginning to end. Christians know we can’t pay and we are grateful for His great Love. Open your minds honestly. Or just throw Legos up in the air for the rest of your life and see what you get. He loves you. I’ll take faith in that God any day. As James said, we all have faith in something.
Evidence. There’s a ton of archaeological and internal/external evidence for the truth of the Bible. Open your mind to the possibility. Everyone who loves science (and I DO) knows that one valid counter example decimates a long-held scientific “Law”. We know that science can never PROVE anything. It is placing your faith in a sieve, IMO. And hey, no one has ever disproven the Natural Law that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. So how DID it come to exist? I say this in love and respect. But you are free to believe in your brand of religion, Science or whatever.
"There’s a ton of archaeological and internal/external evidence for the truth of the Bible."
There's a ton of archaelogical evidence that many people and places mentioned in The Bible actualy existed, and generally fit the timelines suggested in the text.
"So how DID it come to exist?"
I don't know. But I do know that the Hindus are certain that Brahma did it. The Greeks credit the Titans. The Aztecs assert that we're on our Fifth Try.
Do you believe in Vishnu? Zeus? Quetzacoatl? Me either. I just go One God Further.
Lovely. This is a wonderful topic for the times. And you cover it eloquently. Did the stories of God emerge from humans wrestling with consciousness and death over millennia? Or did the stories reveal the God who was there all along. I am on Team God, but have loved my post-Covid atheist connections. Many have a clear perspective on the cult apparatuses. (Some are in their own cult obviously) We are seeing a total dismemberment of the Enlightenment. Part of me wonders is these past 500 years are the anomaly and that peoples need subjugation. The Fall of Rome 2.0 might be the Long March to the loving arms of Feudalism.
If you haven’t yet, consider listening to Jordan Peterson’s Genesis series. That is, if you can stand him getting wrapped around his own axel of language precision. It doesn’t bother me. But it drives Mrs Clown crazy.
ClownBasket, good thinking, but I hope you're not hiding behind some vague materialistic interpretation of history. In brief, go to the source and consider the Prime Fact: Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead. Don't just think about it, and certainly don't dismiss it out of hand.
Excellent piece gato. In the last decade I’ve gone from atheism to belief in a God of my understanding to Catholic. Early in this journey, I heard man’s search for meaning described as a God-shaped hole that we instinctively fill. In Jung’s work with drunks, he posited that only a spiritual experience could rearrange the psyche of chronic alcoholics sufficiently to overcome the drink problem.
Last year I read From Christendom to the Apostolic Age, by Monsignor Shea. It posits that we are now living in a post-Christendom Age for the first time in perhaps 1,500 years. During the Christendom era, reason, law, art, etc flourished, with Christian principles and morality being the tie that bound people together. As you describe, we are untethered, and cults of self and weather gods proliferate.
How to stem the tide? South Park & memer mockery are the front line, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. In the U.S., a return to first principles, and defending our founding and our constitution as inherently good may be a secular uniting factor.
Truth is the only foundation to build a stable society. For generations, the west has been rebuilt on a foundation of lies. Boys can become girls. Children dont need fathers. Masculinity is toxic. The patriarchy is destructive to women. Etc, Etc. At least the tenets of most religions, even if there dogma can not be proven, laid a foundation of the family that is based in truths. A stable family with a mother and a father nurturing there children. The greatest lie ever sold was the one told by feminists, the idea that seeking some soulless career in management was the path to success and happiness for the modern woman. Not being a mother, being a good wife, and nurturing and caring for the next generation. Then telling them that they could have it all, a career and kids, and no need for a man. The reciepts are in for that lie, and we are enjoying its fruits. Unstable, depressed, confused kids that have no what to believe. Entitled crybabies that believe the world revolves around them. You can say what you will about christianity, or religion, but its foundation in family and believing there is a higher power are much healthier for society, then the current narcissitic views that the world revolves me, and my feelings must be accepted and affirmed, no matter how rooted in falsehoods they are.
The more I read in this thread, the more sure I am that I must and will spend time on my knees imploring God's mercy, and that many will turn to Him. The litany of events and attitudes and actions that demonstrate the world's rejection of God--and following a trajectory so close to one drawn by satanic forces--would otherwise be overwhelming. Just in the last few minutes, I hear that Yemen has declared war and is launching a barrage of rockets against Israel. Can we be seeing the start of the final battle?
Jordan Peterson talks about the death of foundational stories as well. We’ve made a huge mistake with our young people by encouraging them to dream, reach, aspire, etc without understanding that roots are important. Is the foundation from which to reach sturdy? Many parents don’t provide a firm foundation and schools want children to run before they can walk, which disables them.
With some 7.5-8 billion individual neural universes existing and interacting, I believe the need for common narratives becomes ever more difficult yet important. Organized religions accomplished this as they provided symbolic narratives and universal truths couched in story -- i.e., parable. As the world religion built, crumbles, the Racial, National, and other superficial tribal narratives become the easy way out for many and will lead to conflict and pain. A story without purpose and a narrative without hope is indeed a bleak prospect. Narrative is everything. Here's to hoping for better ones (South Park and the memes both give me hope). Cheers.
As a Catholic, let me assure you that using a phrase like "truly oppressive popery" shows you do not yet understand the history or theology of that time period (it was neither "popery" or "oppressive," but was experienced by every people that converted as the pathway from oppression and hopelessness to freedom--the pathway that elevated women and children and the poor, led to the end of slavery, created the hospital and the university, and otherwise transformed pagan Europe). But as someone who trod this same path, let me assure you what I myself would have once scoffed at: If "the views of folks like jung and joseph campbell on these matters as expressions (or perhaps mirrors) of the human subconscious and the quest of the hero for even if they are not entirely true or provable, they possess an internal (and perhaps eternal) elegance" then you are stilll only seeing half the truth and you are stuck like poor Jordan Peterson -- deconctructing things into pieces small enough for you to appreciate but not have to actually pay attention to, but unable (yet) to put them back together. It's like taking an old watch apart and lovingly keeping the pieces in separate boxes. Sure, you can "appreciate" the elegance of gears and how the sweeping hands of the watch might "symbolize the passage of time" and "help mankind to grapple with the truth that his days are numbered and each passing hour leads to the inscrutable reality of death" etc. etc. but in reality you're just delaying dealing with the reality that that thing TELLS TIME ({"and that's damned important!" as he might say), and that you're not being aloof and dealing with timed death, and the watch separately, you're deliberately keeping the watch in parts so that you don't have to deal with time, the watch, death, and the watchmaker. And when you finally do, you're not LESS free, you're MORE free.
so your argument is that popes never waged wars of venality and covetousness and used the bureaucracy of their church to amass vast wealth and power in predatory fashion?
that the medieval church did not rapaciously steal land and treasure from those it purported to shepherd?
No, my argument is that all people in all time have done waged wars but the Church tried (and still tries) to teach people NOT to. I have no idea what you mean by "wars of venality and covetousness" but no, the Church has not used its bureaucracy to amass vast wealth and power in predatory fashion, it did not rapaciously steal land and treasure from those it purported to shepherd, and the truth about the Inquisition is very, very easy to find out -- the Inquisition was not run by the Church, but by the state. Clerical inquisitors ran its trials, and they were much preferred to secular trials, because Inquisitors were more fair, more interested in the truth, and more merciful. Medieval countries didn't have prisons, death and disfigurement were frequent punishments everywhere - as true in pre-Christian days, and the Renaissance, and the 1700s and 1800s. That's not because of the Church, that's because of human nature. Christian countries were not, and never have been, worse than other countries around them. People converted because Christian life, though imperfect, is better.
The Church, many of its bishops and priests and lesser clergy, and even some of its popes, have been bad and sinful men. Some of them obviously are now too. But this view of history is simply false.
Interesting El Gato, that you wrote this article on this Reformation Day, when Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. 95 statements dealing with the selling of indulgences and of other errors that he saw in the church. He challenged the conspiracy theories, he did the Biblical research, and he debunked them. Then, he pointed out that if people can forgive the sins of the living and the dead, then why not just forgive them all and save them the money! If the popery can write an indulgence or stamp it and say, "Yes, those sins are forgiven, why not do it for free? Why must the people pay the Pope with money? Luther pointed out that the greater love is to forgive and do what is right without payment. I agree with Gail Fine that the Church was the "pathway from oppression and hopelessness to freedom, " but it also came with a price: indulgences as a way to Heaven. Luther saw the truth.
Luther was a sad, troubled man who saw severe problems of the Church in his day, and if the stupid men in charge had fixed them, Luther wouldn't have gone on to destroy Christendom and create his own church--which split immediately, and has been splitting ever since. The clergy at the time were abusing indulgences, but the above description is not what they are. We still have indulgences. And the Counter-Reformation not only fixed those problems, but it created many news saints and a great flowering of faith, art, architecture, and scholarship that lasted until a few decades ago.
I have no faith personally either.... but I do think (like many others) that religion is the natural state of humanity.... and Enlightenment rationalism has been a three century aberration. One whose day is now done.
"and Enlightenment rationalism has been a three century aberration."
Rationalism is probably what caused our ancestors 125 millennia since to seek an explanation for everything. With minimal evidence - collaboration quickened the pace of this accumulation - they were unable to attribute much natural behavior to anything lacking agency.
Thus, it came to pass that Man created The Gods in His Own Image.
Best yet! I woke this morning thinking about the college students who have been droning on for years about DEI and Tolerance and Woke have suddenly, with an attack and war half a world away, decided that they must now tear apart (literally) anyone who is not from their culture, ancestry, religion, or politically correct flavor of the moment. They have revealed the utter fallacy of what they thought they bought into with the tiniest scratch in the fabric of their belief. Their professors have been preaching not from the elevated soapbox of enlightened wisdom and credentialed authority but from a cat box that is in bad need of cleaning. I hope that some of the people will see this and repent of their foolish and dangerous "isms". Sometimes it takes a cat to point this out and he wants his box cleaned and given back.
The first sentence of the Bible states this: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth….” If this is not a true statement then the truth of all that follows cannot be trusted as true. Can the truth of the “In the beginning” statement be tested independently from the statement itself? Why yes it can! Something cannot be created by itself. This is a logical impossibility. The only possibility then that avoids a creation by an outside force is an infinitively old Universe - one that has always existed. But this is a physical impossibility due to The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If our Universe were infinitely old, It would be cold (no energy left), dark and dead. We could not exist.
Now the truth of the creation by an outside force (God) does not prove the truth of the rest of the Book. But it does raise the distinct possibility that the God of The Universe is surely capable do doing anything in the Universe that follows His Creation.
I appreciate your various caveats and respectful tone. I'll just make one comment:
The idea you seem to be ascribing to "justification by faith" appears to be some sort of Kierkegaardian leap as contrasted with empiricism. But when the Bible uses the term "faith" it means "trust" following proof and it is contrasted with works. The religion described in the Bible is an empirical religion grounded in historical acts. God never demanded that people follow him blindly. In fact, whenever he asked for radical trust, he disrupted the natural order to prove himself to his followers. When he came to deliver Israel, he sent Moses with powerful miracles; when he came to oppose the cult of Baal, he sent Elijah; when he said "this is my beloved Son, follow him," he backed the radical claims and ministry of Jesus with many miracles. Of course, we have to trust these claims a little more blindly than those who experienced them, but we have their testimony as a guide; Jesus acknowledged this when he said to doubting Thomas, "you believed because you stuck your fingers into my wounds; blessed are those who will not see and yet believe."
There are answers for those who seek.
I have admired your work these past few years. Thank you.
Ok, I'll just play 'devil's advocate' here. But first let me say that this post and this thread is incredibly enlightening. If everybody went this deep, we wouldn't have the problems we have in the world. But....
As for, "God never demanded that people follow him blindly", we have the story of Adam and Eve. God told them to never eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. I'd say that's God demanding to be followed blindly. I think the Adam and Eve story is in reality a parable about coming of age. Children cannot assess good and evil, and nakedness is not a big thing to them. And they don't get that they aren't immortal. The story of Adam and Eve is the story of puberty.
I just had to throw that all in, here. Even with our perceptiveness as adults, we must be as children, as the Bible says. There's a time for science, and there's a time for belief.
Thanks for your comment; let me suggest the following:
In the Garden - which I don't read as a parable - there was a real tree, the threat of death was real, and the interaction with God was face-to-face. So I don't see this as requiring blind trust. Surely Adam and Eve had a poor understanding of what death would mean, but it was a transparent warning in a real place.
However, I think this point can be taken to extremes. Let me add a note of clarification: God rewards blind trust, but he doesn't demand it.
Abraham left his family and home at a word from God (no miracles), but he had trouble believing that God could provide him an heir from his old wife. When he finally believed God's promise, we're told that "Abraham believed and God credited it to him as righteousness." This becomes the primary source text for the NT doctrine of justification by faith.
The Centurian had never met Jesus, but begged him off, understanding implicitly that Jesus had perfect authority over his child's illness. To this, Jesus responded: "I have not seen such faith in all the house of Israel. Go, your request has been granted..."
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." We often require children to follow blindly for their own safety--at puberty, as you point out, they rebel and leave the safety of blind following. It does not make the blind following wrong; it is suitable for specific times.
Also, as a little aside--do you know that pain in childbirth comes from the knowledge of good and evil? When our ancestors' frontal lobe expanded rapidly--the birth canal was too small to accommodate it.
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Cherry picking scripture will result in nothing more than a handful of cherries.
Not wisdom. You have to read and understand scripture in context to comprehend the meaning. The meaning of this scripture has nothing to do with puberty.
The entire frontal lobe expansion story has no proof and requires faith for you to hold it as a belief.
God Bless.
Thanks for the quote. Which reminds me of Neal Young's "Sugar Mountain."
As for the birth canal, I have read that, when humans started walking upright, the pelvis had to become stronger, and that decreased the birth canal. But humans may very well have a better developed ability to sense pain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L86gQQBYSc4
Have you ever seen an animal in labor? Their pain is obvious, they just don’t vocalize it. Doing so would announce their vulnerability to predators.
I have birthed many animals and their pain in labor is not like what a woman experiences. It's not an instinctual quietness. That's a myth.
I was just pointing out what I've read. I've got to believe any female mammal feels pain at birth. Is it more intense for humans? Perhaps it is. Yes, I've seen animals give birth. I can't interpret how much pain they felt.
No one knows any of what you are saying you've read about walking upright and pelvises. That alone requires faith. Faith in what you read not what you know from experience.
So, Mormonism has a fascinating take on the conflicting commandments given to Adam and Eve. Rather than being tempted by the serpent, Eve listens to him and realizes that the fruit will allow her to attain the knowledge necessary to fulfill another commandment--to be fruitful and multiply. Thanks to her disobedience to one commandment, she was able to give birth to the human race thus obeying another. Though I no longer follow the religion of my youth, I do appreciate the idea that to choose one good thing, you cannot choose another. Isn’t that just like life? I find this a very mature take on a strange story. It comes down to the trade offs explained by Sowell. And grants us the independence to be disobedient to stupid laws, even the ones made by god himself. While we are discussing what to put in that slot I thought this might be a useful contribution. For another fascinating take on Adam and Eve we might look to Daniel Quinn and his Ishmael series. Love the Vonnegut quote!
"Eve listens to him and realizes that the fruit will allow her to attain the knowledge necessary to fulfill another commandment--to be fruitful and multiply."
Interesting. I know it's illegal everywhere now, but is this how Mormons - if I understand it correctly - justified the marriage of multiple women to one man?
"Daniel Quinn"
https://www.amazon.com/Ishmael-Novel-Daniel-Quinn/dp/0553375407
I've had this link queued up all morning trying to figure out how to fit it into the comments.
This, of course, is the lamest of all possible ways to stuff it in but, if people really want to understand why we have told our selves The Bible Story, Ishmael explains it to Walter pretty much perfectly to me. Gato references the same with Something Bigger Than Ourselves.
I knew there was another Ishmael fan in the community!
As to the polygamy, that is a messy messy can of worms. The interpretation you cite is the common one given to faithful members, sadly the truth is not so simple. After looking into it further I would have to conclude that it had much more to do with the sexual frisson common in spiritual revivalist environments. I’m trying not to say cults. Anyway, it’s probably not interesting to people from outside the tradition, but I continue to find it a fascinating subject of study. I can recommend two podcasts if you have a lot of time on your hands 🙌🏼
i have often wondered about polygamy and the effect it has on a society. it's common with many animals (deer, lions, etc) where a few males monopolize the breeding rights.
1 hand, this tends to select for only strong males breeding. on the other, it limits genetic diversity, can lead to inbreeding problems, and in human populations tends to result in large numbers of unmarried males with no prospect of pairing. that tends to lead to either large scale outmigration, war, or some sort of societal unrest. i wonder if the reason that polygamous systems tend to be transient and seem to have been selected against in modern humans whose survival rates are high lies therein: that societies with lots of unpaired military age males get seriously unstable.
Yeah polygamy doesn't even work well to produce more offspring according to the people who have examined the numbers in its mid-nineteenth century heyday. There's so much more BS involved that it's not even effective apparently and it turns out that boosting the population was just a cover story anyway. The unpaired males you mention are a problem in the fundamentalist communities who still follow this practice--which is not legally or socially endorsed (never was in the USA), making it that much more complicated of course.
There have been a couple Dark Horse episodes ruminating on evolution and monogamy--off the top of my head Bret discusses it with Louise Perry and Bridget Phetasy. I've also heard JBP wade in on the subject from time to time citing the long-term emotional involvement required to raise stable children. Pretty unique in the animal world. Are we just animals? Are we not? Such a fine line sometimes.
Lots to philosophize about!
small sample size alert, but you can see some of its effects in the accounts of Abraham, Jacob, David and their descendants.
Perhaps the difference between humans and animals lies in the divine image. The human need for love in community is orders of magnitude deeper than animals, so when the parents pick favorites, the jealousy and covetousness stirred in the rejected children can lead to never-ending blood feuds.
Stumbled across this just today: https://podcasts.apple.com/nl/podcast/the-ayaan-hirsi-ali-podcast/id1552059697?i=1000606190270
My perspective on polygamy comes from the Mormon tradition, so this contained mostly new information for me. With some salient points on migration problems in Europe, which is one of Ali’s pet projects. She’s one smart cookie. The USA is lucky to have her.
Thanks for that perspective.
Here's a thought: Can we love God, if we don't know sin?
My answer would be yes. Viewing god as a creator rather than a mediator. Sort of akin to more animist worship of a great spirit type of god.
But...
Presumably animals don't comprehend God. And they also don't comprehend sin. Maybe they go together. If our existence is only about survival, and not about right and wrong, then how can we know God?
I've had pets. We have a dog. Unquestionably they have cultural standards. There is social structure, and some sense of right and wrong, or at least acceptable and unacceptable. As a puppy, Toby would nip at us playfully, but never bite. He had some sort of judgement, or is it instinct?
Is knowledge of God and of sin merely a matter of intelligence, of ability to process information? Whatever it is, I think we can't know God without knowing sin.
Maybe I’m struggling with the use of the word sin. I don’t see animals as capable of sinning. For example we just got home from holidays and the cat has peed somewhere she is not supposed to. My husband is livid. Me on the other hand, how can I blame a creature who doesn’t understand the concept of “not supposed to pee” on the carpet? Why not? It’s soft!
So yes we do seem to have that knowledge of good and evil that animals don’t have and I guess we could agree to call bad choices sin. I’m just not in a place where I feel I need to be saved from sin by an external entity. The natural consequences are sufficient. Karma seems more appealing these days. Probably also because I find the idea of a moral code somewhat suspicious as well. Whose morals? Who decides? I’m not saying it’s not useful in society because we will need some basis, but....
I was just discussing scalping and Viking death poses. Who decided that’s the appropriate action in a battle? Who decides why people battle one another? It’s all very tricky. Like the cat I don’t have the answers at this point. But it’s definitely time for some questions and deep conversations.
The story of Adam and Eve is kind of unique in my mind, because it was a scriptural commandment that God never intended these two people to obey indefinitely. God knew, and intended, that they would partake of the tree. This was the entire purpose of the Earth that God had created.
To make a statement like this you have to start making distinctions between God's will and his plan.
It's not appropriate to say that it was God's will for them to eat the forbidden fruit, when he expressly says otherwise, and we know that he is too holy to lie.
But we know that salvation through Christ was ordained from before the foundation of the earth (Ephesians 1, I think); therefore, we must recognize that God had an uber-plan that accounted for the reality of disobedience so that he could demonstrate his justice and mercy.
But God commanded them to not eat the fruit of the tree of eternal life and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Yes, this is a parable, not actual history. But in this parable, God commands that Adam and Eve not eat the fruit. I don't see where God presumed that they would ultimately disobey. As punishment, he banished them from the Gaden of Eden, unable to return. They never got to eat the fruit of eternal life.
Again, I see this parable as being about the coming of age, so the above discussion is merely academic.
If you think that "proof" of someone being resurrected from the dead is based on true-believer testimony, I literally do not know what to say. Your point about "a little more blindly" really admits it. The proof is that many religions, even Islam, has its miracles that are testified to... by ITS own true believers.
True believer?
They did not believe until they saw him resurrected. And they included in their testimony that the first witnesses were women, which (by the rules of the day) would have gotten them laughed out of the public square.
I have not argued that all miracles are the proof of every claim. I only argue that they were used as proof when God demanded radical trust. Moses himself admitted that sometimes false prophets would perform miracles (Deut 13) - so the believer has an obligation to look beyond the miracle to the claim being made. Any claim contrary to what has been previously revealed is bogus, regardless of whether it is attested by a miracle.
"They did not believe until they saw him resurrected."
Which is, succinctly, why I do not believe.
I suspect many also hold this view and it is not unreasonable.
Yes, no doubt this is the view of many.
It is left to those of us who are not witnesses to listen not only to the claim of a miracle, but also its logic. Was there a resurrection? Maybe, but why does that matter? Could there be a restored relationship with God without a resurrection? No.
Our sins separate us from God; yes, he is forgiving, but he is also holy and cannot be so if he does not punish sin. The resurrection follows the willing death by one who was not himself a sinner and who also had the indestructible life of divinity so that he could give new life to all who believe.
As the saying goes: so that God could be just as well as the one who justifies those who believe.
*inhales* Listen... uh, read. I don't mean any disrespect, and would never deny you your right to your own opinions. But
"but also its logic"
*citation needed*
I have heard the claims of miracles. I just find those accounts unconvincing. YMMV
I'm responding just to tell you I'm not responding.
But, also, responding.
I don't know why you feel the need to "inhale." Since you saw fit to engage my comment about faith and miracles, it only seemed reasonable to respond to your comment; I don't believe my response constitutes "denying you your right to your opinions." I was merely responding to your statement about not having witnessed miracles by pointing out the [probably] obvious point that those of us who aren't witnesses are compelled to go beyond the 'what' to the 'why.' I didn't need to provide a citation because it was my own thought (not that I imagine I'm being original).
So when I say I'm not responding, I mean that I don't plan to respond to whatever further responses you may have (while reserving the right...), I recognize that you apparently don't really wish to have a dialog regardless of your commenting, and also that I do not feel a compelling need to pursue further dialog, etc...
Would over 400 prophecies given over a period of 2000 years being fulfilled by one man help? Are you interested in believing?
Pi Guy, I wish you would read through the eyewitness accounts (and if I may be so bold, not base your unconvincedness on your having read them twenty years ago). Was it you or someone else in the thread who said he/she _chose_ not to believe the accounts?
Not just His disciples, but hundreds others.
*nods*
For whatever reason, He has not yet seen fit to grant me the Gift of Faith.
Faith is indeed a gift from God. (Ephesians 2:8-9). But please don’t let that deter you! He is so very open to the honest heart that cries out to Him to show Himself real. (Mark 9:24– help my unbelief!)
Belief and knowledge are two different words with two different meanings. Within the confines of our human senses/abilities, 'seeing' confers knowledge, not belief.
A 'belief' is having faith in something you don't have full knowledge of. I remember my 2nd year algebra course, full of 'theorem/proof'. Not every theory has a proof but is still a valid theory that many yet be proven.
"Not every theory has a proof but is still a valid theory that many yet be proven."
Perhaps we should be more careful with our vocabulary. In Math, a Theory holds an extremely exalted station in the Book of Laws *precisely because _it has been proven_*. It's much more certain and unquestionable - verily, by its proof it is unquestionable - than when we say more colloquially, "I have a theory about that." Most people, when they say that mean that they have something more like a Hypothesis.
And by Belief, I think you could say that you believe in gravity despite the fact that you likely don't have full knowledge of the subject. But that doesn't mean that it must be taken on Faith because there's a pretty significant body of evidence demonstrating its existence, and that it pretty well behaves precisely as, well... Theory predicts that it does.
You Believe gravity works. I Know it does. Fortunately for us, we're both right.
My theory boils down to what my father, a believer but not particularly religious, used to say: 'better to believe than not to believe'.
Faith is not reasonable.
It is good that people wrestle and tackle these issues though. I think they are part of what makes us weigh other things we can't see as well.
I think it's good as well.
I don't know about that.
I mean, I wasn't around when Oden and his brothers, the sons of Bure, used the skull of Ymir their grandfather to make the heaven, but it's there every day when I look.
By the logic of the christian you argue with, that the sky is there is proof positive that heaven (the sky, it's the same word in swedish for heaven and sky) was made as described in the Eddas.
I think there's a difference between tales of Odin and accounts of people who reported facts they witnessed and were put to death for their belief in those facts, even when changing their minds would have gotten them off the hook. I've enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle, but wouldn't go to the mat over it, nor, I'm sure, would Wagner have.
"I've enjoyed Wagner's Ring Cycle, but wouldn't go to the mat over it"
I don't know, Man. I mean, like, Siegfried - talk about When a Man Loves a Woman. Ain't No Mountain High Enough. Even if she's a Raven-Haired, Ruby-Lipped Witchy Woman. Maybe especially then.
Yeah, I'd totes go to the mat for that.
Saul of Tarsus comes to mind... And there are many others that were violently antagonistic to Jesus of Nazarus and his followers until they personally experienced God's "proof".
Did mistcr really reference "true-believer testimony", or did he actually reference "those who experienced [historical acts]"?
There *is* a difference, and your expressed skepticism is based on your misrepresentation of who, exactly, was bearing witness to those "historical acts", it seems to me.
Jesus' apostles (the true believers) claim to have experienced seeing Jesus risen from the dead. That is what I am referring to. If one believes by faith, just say so. Do not try and make us believe that YOUR miracles were real because of eyewitness testimony, which even today is understood to be often wrong.
Eyewitness testimony is often found to be wrong in criminal situations where the events occurred very quickly and the witnesses weren't necessarily focused on the actors.
That is not the eyewitness testimony described in the Bible. The apostles walked with Jesus for three years, they saw him die, they saw copious amounts of blood and water escape his body after his side was pierced, and then they spent significant amounts of time with him over forty days following his resurrection. It bears no resemblance to the poor record of eyewitness testimony that you're referring to.
As most who buy what the alleged written word contains, reasoning isn’t, if the bible is discounted and ignored. A debate without facts is not a debate and by no means does anyone’s bible contain facts; parables indeed, useful good works and good intentions indeed, but fiction based on some supposedly known facts, is still fiction. And anyone simply saying you must believe in what’s written, or else, supplies nothing but dogmatic obedience and anything but proof of any occurrences, let alone the details of said occurrences.
With Christmas quickly approaching religion and the Bible subject are relevant ones. The choosing of what to insert into the present-day bible (and then there is the question of whose Christian bible, let alone the “sacred” texts of world’s other 10-top religions should be used, but I digress) is one of the many reasons why I have little faith (no pun) in what I was force fed -- i.e., that God "penned" the Bible. I know inspired by God; is the dodge I recall being used. And yes, I recall that BS from that god-awful, mandatory Baltimore Catechism memorization (among other indoctrination techniques): that God works in “mysterious ways” and “he always was and always will be”!
More generalized, undefined platitudes aside, when one looks closely at Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, there are many disconnects. Not the LEAST disconnect is that history was verbal and no chisel or nub was put to stone or Papyrus by anyone until 40- or 50-years AD. And then nothing was documented about those occurrences, if they happened, or when they happened. Nothing was written the day after the supposed resurrection, nor a month later. It took a lifetime before verbal story telling was consigned to text! And then, there is the question of what was done to and with, what exactly was put in writing? The point being, who wrote what, when? No one knows the answer to that question. But inspired by god and faith in the unknown, purportedly provides the answer (and a virgin thrown in the volcano, will appease the lava gods and provide us with abundance)!!
With the oldest known Bible being from the middle of the 4th. century, there is no chain of custody, no proof that what was written, was written by anyone named Mark, Matthew, Luke and John and if it was, did it make it to today's Bible fully, partially intact, or not at all!! If they penned what is contained in today’s bible, were Mark, Matthew, Luke and John mentally stable, or were they the tin foil-hat wearers of the day? Or were they fab four Madison Avenue types of the day; taking it upon themselves to spin a yarn that would sell Billions? Or were they as the platitudes suggest, INSPIRED by God to provide his, her, or its word? Gee, all I need to do is say my pronouncements are inspired by God and I too can rule the world, amass a fortune and tell everyone how they should live and behave. Then, if they disregard my edicts, I’ll ramp up the Crusades and turn-on the Inquisition (both of which, make the Salem Witch trials look like a Sunday romp in the park)!
Housed in a London Museum, is the Oldest known New Testament Bible in the World. This Bible was discovered in Egypt, first coming to the attention of scholars in the 19th. century. It is the Book of Sinai (Codex Sinaiticus). It dates from the Middle of the 4th century. What happened during Jesus’s life and then FROM the day after death, to the Middle of the 4th. century? Assuming what the Book of Sinai contains is an accurate account of events (and that’s an unbelievable, unproveable assumption), how many hands and scribes touched, modified and obliterated, destroyed and rewrote, what was originally written in those first hundreds of years AD? Does the Book of Sinai contain anything written from around the time of Jesus? Who contributed what to it? Does it contain someone’s experiences and memories? Or were the contents of the Book of Sinai conceived from someone’s wishes and dreams, like other fictional books about characters (e.g., King Arthur, Grimm's Fairy Tales)? If no one knows the authenticity of the Bible’s contents, how does anyone know that what it contains, happened? And if portions of the bible are thought to have happened, how would anyone know whether it is true, partially true, or totally false? In ~350AD, there obviously were no pictures, no news at 11:00! There were NO written accounts a week, a month, a year, or decades after what happened. It is generally known that a news event today, when written about 24 hours later, will contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies. How about NOT writing about the event for decades or hundreds of years? How accurate, fanciful or downright fictionalized could that event have been made to be, if indeed it actually took place?
Equally as confounding is that The Book of Sinai contained 2-books that are not now in the New Testament. These are:
1>. Shepherd of Hermas
2>. Epistle of Barnabas
What happened to these books? Why were they removed? This does nothing but deepen doubts that the oldest known Bible has any relevance to anything that happened or didn’t happen.
Next to the Book of Sinai on display in the U.K., is another Bible written just a few decades later & also from Egypt. It is the “The Book of Alexandria”. It too has two more books NOT now in the New Testament:
1>. “The first letter of Clement”
2>. “The 2nd. letter of Clement”
Two (2) Ancient Bibles and Four Strange Books that we are aware of!! How many more books were there? Why have they mysteriously disappeared? And what of other Books or writings? Few have heard of the 50 or so other Gospels that circulated in antiquity such as:
1>. The Gospel of Thomas
2>. Gospel of Mary
More question than answers. I get it, there are so many questions without answers but one: "you must have faith my son, have faith" and believe, BELIEVE in the good book. Once belief is instilled and indoctrinated in 100% of the contents of the “good book”, ALL else is acceptable and believable! Now, let’s go out and ban books by Nicholas Copernicus and throw the Inquisition upon Galileo Galilei and his Earth revolving around the Sun heresy and any other men or witches with heretical ideas.
Suffice is to say that a discussion and pray tell a debate of Christian Biblical derivation applied to today is meaningless, unless of course the book is etched in the stone some believe it to be. Then have at it. Reason by quoting chapter and verse as if it is indeed indisputable chapter and verse, as if the characters or events existed, or they did what is said they have done. But as one without belief in any chapter and verse, my eyes glaze over and my mind wanders to what the heck is the point? How can a book’s contents be used to prove anything; when the book is just a ficticious compilation of unsubstantiated occurrences, good deeds and thoughts, not the word of some unknown, unseen, god or gods of man’s making? Use that as the basis for discussion and debate and there is no discussion.
The top 10 religions have their texts. It is a requirement! Without the dogma, the writings, the book (just the facts Jack), what is one left with, but reason, logic, science (as we know it at this moment) and the golden rule. The question is, which scroll, book, text about a god or gods is to be observed, believed, followed and obeyed? Therein lies the rub, those words “faith” and “belief”. And so it goes…you must simply have faith and believe…to believe, and if you sorta’ believe in what I believe, we can have a discussion about it; otherwise, citing passages from the Bible, Qur’an, Vedas, Tripitaka et al. provides no relevance, nor do they carry more weight than any other human philosophical statement or construct.
Faith without works, it's like a song you can't sing...it's about as useless as a screendoor on a submarine.
(From an intro to another song on a Rich Mullins album)
ah, love me some Rich Mullins!
I wish we could have had him around a few more years...
Me too. I felt like he would tackle larger and larger projects.
How are those testimonials any different than marketing ploys to exalt a product?
Well put. As a Christian I appreciate your comments about the word “faith,” especially. In the last century it has taken on the “leap of faith” connotation, which is not conveyed by its root in the Latin, “fide,” which implies an objective belief or trust. I could never be a Christian based upon an absence of objective data, although in the 35 years of my life as a Christian I could never have imagined the sheer quantity of evidence available that I now have access to. Admittedly the state of Christianity in the West is not the objective faith of my Protestant forefathers 300-500 years ago.
Some Christians are in for a rude awakening.
Happy for us that it's the power of God for salvation.
those miracles are all unverifiable bullshit
this, of course, requires that one believes that the stories recounted in the Bible are true. and of course, there's no way to empirically know that any of them are. and as Michael Hudson has pointed out in his exhaustive book, "...and forgive them their debts," the very word "sin" upon which so much of the religious tenets hang is an utterly mis-translated word. the original Greek opheilēma / opheiletēs meant literally financial "debt." the Bible, as it turns out, is actually preoccupied with debt and debt forgiveness. that corrected translation leads to a very different religion if you ask me.
from the book's publishing notes:
"Jesus's first sermon announced that he had come to proclaim a Clean Slate debt cancellation (the Jubilee Year), as was first described in the Bible (Leviticus 25), and had been used in Babylonia since Hammurabi's dynasty. This message - more than any other religious claim - is what threatened his enemies, and is why he was put to death. This interpretation has been all but expunged from our contemporary understanding of the phrase, "...and forgive them their debts," in The Lord's Prayer. It has been changed to "...and forgive them their trespasses (or sins)," depending on the particular Christian tradition that influenced the translation from the Greek opheilēma/opheiletēs (debts/debtors). ...
"Perhaps most striking is that - according to a nearly complete consensus of Assyriologists and biblical scholars - the Bible is preoccupied with debt forgiveness more than with sin."
https://www.amazon.com/forgive-them-their-debts-Foreclosure/dp/3981826027
I'm afraid Hudson is a poor guide. This analysis is like saying vitamin c is all you need for health because your doctor said you need a supplement.
I've been reading Hudson for many years. He's right more often than not. And always insightful. To eliminate his perspective and research is like saying vitamin c is irrelevant.
which I did not do.
But it's folly to read the Bible and conclude that it's presenting a class struggle.
The Bible's principal concern is with your relationship to God. Every bad/evil/sinful thing that we do to each other is merely the outflow of our relationship with God. Jesus himself made this clear in Matthew 15:10ff.
To declare that "deliver us from our debts" in the Lord's prayer is a request for fiscal and property debt cancellation is in effect to declare your intent to renege on your commitments and thereby to make God an accessory to theft.
The Bible has a message of consolation for the poor and offers wisdom to help them escape poverty when possible; it also has a message of condemnation for the corrupt wealthy and admonishes them to behave with generosity toward those indebted to them. However, when we strip the Bible of its essential message of a spiritual salvation, we actually strip it of its power to transform hearts in the manner that makes these things possible.
that's where we differ. I don't believe that's the principal concern of the Bible. I agree with Hudson. It makes much more sense to me that Jesus, again hard to know if any of these stories are true, was a threat because he threatened the economic power of the day. And the cover up for killing him and to diffuse the populist power of his message about the jubilee law was to turn him into a religious figure and put everyone off the trail. I'm seeing these kind of reframings of factual things to protect the moneyed powerful IRL today. Of course it went on before the internet. So to me that seems likely here. The history of regular clearing of debts, is on the other hand, empirically provable. And then it stopped.
As for transforming hearts, calling people "sinners" from the get go is completely the opposite of the spiritual truth imo. That's a program meant to control and manipulate the masses if ever I saw one. "You're a sinner, just do what we tell you and you'll be 'saved,' oh and give us your money and don't question us or you'll be excommunicated." ... ah, I see what's happening here.
We all have beliefs, whether we realize it or not. For those whose personal experience is limited to the governance of natural laws, the tendency is to believe that natural laws are immutable (god-like). This is indeed a tenet of what we call modern science, but it cannot be proven. For those who have experienced the presence of God (not just believe because they were told to...) it becomes obvious that God is the immutable entity. This belief also cannot be proven, but is corroborated by the witness of countless throughout human history, and confirmed by continued personal experience.
“I’m only one person, what can I do?” Said the whole world.
The root problem is the system itself. Fixing the system itself should be the one place we can all agree on.
We need to fix the entire system from being corrupted - government and all other related systems have lost all trust (government, religion, media, medicine, big tech, science, academia, food, etc). The answer lies in building new trustworthy systems, migrating to them, then plugging them in to fix the existing corrupted ones. Like using a plug-in to fix a corrupted computer system.
It starts with understanding Swarm Theory and Human Swarm Intelligence. This is the beginning, but if everyone takes the time to understand this we can fix our corrupted systems and then fix everything else. Transparency + Decentralization + Human Swarm Intelligence = the answer.
Never heard of it? Here: https://joshketry.substack.com/p/human-swarm-intelligence-the-most
I agree, we definitely need new systems. I think we need to simply create the new ones rather than spend energy and time to try and fix / fight the old ones. The new ones will simply exist in parallel for a while, I believe. I'll check out the link!
"but it cannot be proven"
Proof is for alcohol and geometry.
"but is corroborated by the witness of countless throughout human history, and confirmed by continued personal experience."
Scientists - not Teh Scientists™ - but Scientists do not believe that natural laws are immutable. The Science is never settled.
If they could be settled, then Proof would indeed be how we acquire new scientific knowledge. We acquire new scientific knowledge by means of Evidence.
This has been _my_ personal experience.
All I need to know about religion was revealed during covid. Virtually all Christians failed to do the right thing despite what their holy book teaches for fear of how other humans would feel about being a "disrupter", while not the least concerned how their god would expect them to behave.
There has been very few members of The Church, or their leaders who have felt compelled to assess how they performed against how the person they worship would've expected..Indeed demands.
Why? Because they would have to confront the fact that they only believe in their teachings so long as it doesn't come at a price.
Otherwise it's all talk. They're all about sacrifice; the sacrifice of others.
i had a somewhat different experience in that my friends who are more profoundly religious seemed by far less likely to get sucked into the fear cults.
however, this stands in marked contrast to how many of the "religious leaders" behaved.
perhaps the issue is not devotees but popes, not religion but ORGANIZED religion which, like any political body, tend to become venal and self serving.
i think it may be useful to distinguish between christians and the chirstian church/bureaucracy.
this history of popes is as bloodthirsty, arrogant, and covetous as any line of kings.
Agree 94%. And same with my friends and family. They got it.
But let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. My friends knew that I did not wear masks and I told them I wouldn't be wearing one when we met up for lunch. It made them uncomfortable...I could feel it and see it in their eyes. I asked them when we sat down if they thought they could walk the 20 steps to the door without a masks after we were done.
So I paid for lunch and they dutifully put on their masks as soon as they stood up. I gave them shit about it, but they kept them glued on.
I was simply asking for small resistance. None of them could muster the courage to walk 20 feet, after we were finished and I PAID!
I mean seriously what would happen to then at that point? It represented no meaningful risk. They had succumb to apathy, despite hating the masks, because they had accepted there was nothing they could do...that it was senseless to resist
We needed a lot small resistors to make these mandates unenforceable or such a pain in the ass that they were de facto optional.
They were scared. Moreover they had resigned to doing it indefinitely.
That is much more scary than the cult fanatics imo
Anecdotal. I'm a devout Christian and I got in trouble with my job in healthcare multiple times over my refusal to acquiesce to the garbage COVID lunacy (masks, distancing, vaccination, etc.). Took my kids to closed parks where people had literally been arrested for playing. Was the only one in Walmart or wherever without a mask on. My mother is a devout Christian and she confronted and still confronts (she's a little confrontational anyways, and maybe that's part of it) people who wear masks around in public. For just as many religious devotees that you noticed cowering, I can name one or several who stood up bravely.
You are a person of character and with mighty courage. The fear of social tyranny can be more terrifying than the prospect of shedding blood on a battle field.
Most Generals will say as much because they had to report directly to one before they were appointed as a general.
Thank you!
The small resistors were key all along. Few existed. Many thought that those who continously resisted deserved the shaming and isolation simply because they didn't follow the "precious" rules.
Ugh I am having this exact conversation with my middle schooler at the moment. I can see her becoming exasperated with a mother who spends a lot of energy “not consenting” to a LOT of crap. Mostly at the airport. And school. Anyway, just today I reminded her: the rules are made for people, not people made for the rules. Don’t ever forget it. It is absolutely imperative that we know and understand the spirit of the law and when it is appropriate to follow that rather than the letter. Rant over.
I am glad you're not the only insane parent too! How dare we teach our kids to question authority?!....:)
No, seriously that is great that you do that. Gives me some hope.
"The small resistors"
Dude, please. I'm not small. I'm just Resistance Challenged!
I watched the apple event last night...amazing how small the transistors are...and I didn't know there were so many that identified as small "trans" sistors.
Trans sistors are sistors too.
I agree Ryan. I refused to wear a mask. Was accosted in Wegmans by a woman shopper, and thrown out of REI, no mask,a rebel. My family usually donned the cloth, but ironically let it slip down in my presence. I think they used my refusal as an easy out for what they truly wanted to do.
They do not fear (read awe, reverence) God. They worship the god of their belly, the fear of man...their behavior does not/did not typify the Bible-believing Christians I know amid covid nonsense
I think you might be the exception to the rule on balance. Geography and socioeconomics play a role as well.
They are devoted Christians I've known these guys since I was in college. So is virtually everyone in my family except for me.
They FEARED losing something more than anything. Like "privileges" to participate in society or the fear they'd be "reported" at work for noncompliance.
Do you want to know if the church has reflected on its behavior during that time and plans to be a change agent in the event there's a repeat?
It's real easy:
Has the leadership made it clear to children that what happened was both WRONG and didn't work...and why that is so?
Do the children know they were done wrong by adults?
If they haven't then they have failed their God again and the children.
And they are inviting a repeat.
The children must know or rest assured they will also blindly submit in a spirit of fear.
excellent points Ryan.
"We needed a lot small resistors to make these mandates unenforceable"
You have my sword. Or, well, my KN95 Mask + Vape Pen Demo.
Either way, I am Spartacus.
Lol. I love it when you geek out.
Geeks forever!
*fist bump*
I think a lot of the best intentions of Christians were co opted (see also the movie Devil's Advocate) C.S. Lewis talked about the tyranny of caring. If I wore a mask because I simply cared about Grandma that would be one thing...but this was a symbol of caring in general not only about Grandma but all the "marginalized."
Appreciate the distinction and I share the critique. I'll venture to say that there are few more dismayed by the churches' responses --especially now, when so many lies have been revealed and so much harm is apparent-- than the followers of Jesus who HAVE been working to speak truth and life into the chaotic inversion/subversion of right and wrong that inhabits our world.
One of the most culturally despised, censored, and abandoned groups of people right now are those who were harmed by covid vaccines. I'm part of the effort to bring acknowledgement, just compensation, research, support, and encouragement to the vaccine-injured and find myself almost completely surrounded by other Christians drawn to this work. I am 1000% past ready for the churches to be vocal and help break through the stigma to bring mercy and justice for these suffering people.
None of us know where this road will lead, but we try to do the next right thing put in front of us and proceed with love, following Jesus' commands to love God first and love our neighbors. No other compass.
There are also secular friends involved, of course. And it's true that humor and good cheer help keep us all going... the obscene is also absurd on some level. When all the true, earnest, rational, humane arguments apparently fail to make a dent, there is comfort and resolve-building in a good laugh at the expense of the dragon. A reminder that it's not all powerful, after all.
How hard will the maskers come down on us next time?
"i think it may be useful to distinguish between christians and the chirstian church/bureaucracy."
Like separating the Art from the Artist? Not quite right but most of the Faithful I encounter are nice, productive, friendly, happy, loving, hard-working people. In a world chock-full with Bad Stuff, I find that I don't care what you think makes you be a better person.
The Popes, Inc., are not better people.
My neighbors who claim to be Christians all got vaxxed and boosted.
A priest in my former parish gave a sermon about the sinfulness of living in fear. After Mass I pointed out to him the irony of delivering that message to a congregation forced to wear masks. His response: “well, some things are worth being afraid of”. Needless to say, I wrote him off and left that parish shortly thereafter.
Yeah. You made the right choice. No excuses for the leadership.
Certainly they all are familiar with 2 Timothy 1:7
"For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind"
That pretty much covers what was needed to stop the abomination that the plandemic was.
About 30% of people did not take the vaccine. And more eyes are opened now. Hopefully some learning has taken place both within the church and without.
I am pleasantly surprised to hear that it's that high.
Nailed it Ryan! I'm not a church goer but I do believe in God. God gave us the ability to think for ourselves. It's up to us what we choose to do with it. Many churches were defiant,many were not. I've been inspired by many on these substacks and have noticed that our community is growing....which gives me some hope. Some sheep will always be sheep! Our leadership will continue! I know I will for sure!
When I see compartmentalized blindness like this, I get very introspective. Like "eff, where is my train off the rails if they can't see there's is already turned over in the weeds and on fire."
According to them, they would think the Bible should have a footnote.
"Fear of the Lord (and Covid) is he beginning of wisdom."
What will be his next worthy fear?
Boom
This reminds me of a speech one of the characters of Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" made. It's toward the end of the book but well worth reading if you can make it that far. The gist of it is that the person who demands sacrifice is a person who aims to set themselves up as master; and those that are asked to sacrifice are the slaves.
I recently read The Fountainhead for the first time and my god did it blow my mind, as soon as I finished it I immediately started reading it again. Have never had a book show me, in such exacting detail, what is wrong with our world and how it happened; Atlas Shrugged goes into even better detail for the failures of society. I think a lot of people miss the spiritual aspect of both of these books, it comes down to following your life's purpose and refusing to conform to what society thinks, if more people followed this the world would be so much better off. Rand wasn't saying "oh, let's all be selfish and live like degenerates", she was saying that to truly live one must go by their internal compass, only by following that will you find that for which you seek.
Right now I'm "in the middle" of reading Atlas for the first time. It's an audiobook, so something like 60 hours long, and I only listen when I'm driving or flying. So it's been going on for a few months.
But when I read the quote from "The Fountainhead" (haven't read it yet, but did read "We The Living" back in my college years 40 years ago - quotable stuff in that one, too), I immediately thought that, "yeah, there's a lot of quotable stuff like that in Atlas, too!".
I just need to figure out how to bookmark passages in Audible's audiobooks so I can go back and easily find those gems.
Atlas comes in at something like 677,000 words, have trouble writing 2,000 words let alone 677k words. One of the best quotes from the Fountainhead, paraphrasing here, is when Roark is asked what he'll do for work and he replies "I'm not worried, my people will find me". Also love the scene when Roark runs into Ellsworth Toohey at the housing project and Toohey asks him what he, Roark, thinks of him. Roark simply replies "But I don't think of you", like the idea of thinking about a lowlife like Toohey is beyond his comprehension. Disregarding public opinion, and refusing to conform to it, is they key to living your true life.
YES!!! I love that "But I *don't* think of you."!!! I thought I remembered it from WTL but apparently I also read The Fountainhead, and must've merged the two in my memory.
"But I don't think of you." Another gem that has stuck with me through the years (albeit incorrectly attributed to WTL).
"Toohey"
Ellsworth Toohey is the greatest villian of all time rivalled only possibly by Dr. Robert Stadler of the State Science Institute.
$
Love part in Atlas when John Galt requests to speak with Stadler. Stadler walks in the room and immediately starts ranting that he had no choice but to sell out science to the looters, changes tact and admits that Galt and his vision need to be destroyed. Galt simply looks at him and says "everything you just said was exactly what I was going to say to you". One of the biggest mic drops in history of literature.
The Stadler, of Stadler and Waldorf?
THIS is the one I remembered, the one I was looking for, the one that has stuck with me through the years:
“Don't you know....don't you know that there are things, in the best of us, which no outside hand should dare touch? Things sacred because, and only because, one can say: 'This is mine'? Don't you know that we live only for ourselves, the best of us do, those who are worthy of it? Don't you know that there is something in us which must not be touched by any state, by any collective, by any number of the millions?”
“And what is the state but a servant and a convenience for a large number of people, just like the electric light and the plumbing system? And wouldn't it be preposterous to claim that men must exist for their plumbing, not the plumbing for the men?” ~ from "We The Living"
It's interesting that we let people into BigGov who think they're The Principal, That Cool Art Teacher That Everyone Loves, The Wise School Counselor, That Coach That Will Make You... Better.
When what we mostly want from them is that they be The Front Office Secretary and a Handful of Janitors.
"Rand wasn't saying "oh, let's all be selfish and live like degenerates", she was saying that to truly live one must go by their internal compass, only by following that will you find that for which you seek."
https://youtu.be/q5pESPQpXxE?si=62RzwdShs9fnzo-h
"this is not a predilection i have ever shared and one for which i once had no small amount of distrust perhaps because my mind is of too *objectivist* a bent to lend itself to such ideas as justification by faith." [emp Pi's]
An Objectivist, you are - mmMMHH?!
I found Objectivism to be...too much. Or too little.
Then again, I make this admission: there were 2 chapters in Atlas where I started to pass paragraphs , and then pages...only to check in to see if the rant had changed flavor.
It was 30 years ago, probably...and no, I couldn't make myself see the movie. I was so excited! Then ... thry seemed to keep screwing with it- until I just went " Meh...nah "
The movies were disappointing when I think it could have helped a lot with the skipping passages stuff with (1) good editing and film making, and (2) finding someone who will let you a couple seasons worth of series.
Even Firefly wouldn't have been enough to fit in all is AS.
Ooooooo Shiny!
Don't claim to be anything, simply love Rand's work. consciousness without spirit would bring us to the level of dumb beasts, look at the society of looters in Atlas, they are all devoid of their souls, they have been cutoff from that which differentiates man from the Neanderthals. If you take away a man's true purpose in life you have removed his reason for being and, to me, that is a spiritual aspect. Not talking in terms of being a good Christian and following the tenets of that faith, I'm talking in terms of understanding that all of us are energetic beings and allowing our energy to be manipulated and used by others, for their own purposes, by force of a gun; this is how I interpret what Rand wrote.
Sorry. Didn't mean to box you into a staking a claim. I was just trying to flash my Rand Card.
I dig your style, though.
hahaha, no worries at all brother. My wife claims I'm a debater about everything and, while I'll never admit it, she's right. I love debating ideas, concepts, anything that is not a concrete fact is fair game IMO, think it's part of enjoying life so no need to apologize. It's also a reason I love books so much, one person can interpret them one way and I can interpret them in my way, fun part is debating whose view is correct. Lately I've been contemplating writing a book on how Rand's work can be viewed in a spiritual lens and how it's been misinterpreted, often quite intentionally, by the media. Mostly though her work has made me understand the nature of our current world and why everything just sucks now. Movies are nothing but recycled garbage, no originality anywhere, authors are chosen not on the merit of their work but on their sexual preferences or race, same thing in corporate America, being promoted no longer has anything to do with merit but on what type of PR you'll give to the company, our infrastructure is completely falling apart (waiting on the equivalent of the Taggart Bridge collapse to happen) while we piss away billions on foreign wars, etc. The main point anyone should take away from Rand's work is the only path forward for humanity is to remove the chains of government from our bodies and embrace self governance; Rand may have been the first AnarchoCapitalist now that I think about it.
"Atlas Shrugged"
Who is John Galt?
$
Dang. Excellent memory. Well done!
Right diagnosis of symptoms, wrong diagnosis of malady. It's not that "Christians" don't believe and didn't live up to what they should have done during Covid--many did, especially those on the front lines who risked their lives to the sick in the very beginning, when no one knew how deadly the virus was, and many whose voices were silenced when it became apparent the lockdowns and "mitigations" were stupid and that people were being lied to) it's that:
1) Many people who claim to be Christian actually believe other things more than they believe in God
2) Fear will make many, many people abandon what they do believe and hate themselves for doing it
3) Many people in charge care only about their own power
4) Those things have ALWAYS been true, and only a sincere and strong Church that teaches otherwise can make people overcome those things to behave otherwise. It's easier to kill or enslave enemies than forgive them, easier to let the poor die than bother to feed and house them, easier to let the sick die than to cure them--and that's what people do, and always have done. The less influence Christianity has over thought and institutions and political leaders, the less you will see any of those things happen.
So they fell short of 2 Timothy 1:7.
That's a pretty big one to fall short of over an extended amount of time.
And when you say "many did". Do you mean on their knees? Was it in any meaningful way?
I think Jesus would've rebuked them by telling them get off their knees and stand up.
Who stood up for the children against the evil? If you can't do that, then it reasons they probably couldn't find the strength to sacrifice in accordance with what they proselytize if it had a cost they would bear.
The vast majority gave into a spirit of fear and let children be washed in it for 2 years.
All I'm asking is that they actually self reflect on why they were cowards in the face of evil.
Character is revealed when you have to stand up and take action when nobody else will. It's also revealed when a person has fallen short day after day after day shrinking from evil if they admit they did - at a minimum to themselves.
They feared how THEY would look here on earth, not how they would look to their savior in "heaven".
They chose to be spectators to widespread evil with no self-awareness that indeed they were awful examples of what a Christian is supposed to be; a non-coward who cares for their neighbor as they care for themselves.
The Church is the third biggest disappointment right under Teachers/Schools and the PHA'S.
Epic fail and they want to sweep it under the rug...I wonder why?
I am a Christian. If I don't fall short in one way I will fall short in the other. To be a Christian means to acknowledge this and to hide in the life of Jesus on my behalf. And the death of Jesus on my behalf. "He who has no sin, let him throw the the first stone."
Nah. This was a clean cut event that leaves no excuses for Christians. Easiest decision all time.
The excuse they all used was they were saving their efforts and focusing on praying about the "big one". It wouldn't have mattered if it were 2 years or 5 or 10 years. They would've sat by and complied indefinitely.
What a cop out in the face of evil.
This is not simply falling short because they said a cuss word. This was 18-24 months of willful blindness, so they didn't have to think about it.
So what's worse; a heathen like me thats going to a lake of fire for a trillion years, who immediately noticed the obvious and took action, or a Christian who denies the existence of evil right in front of their face for expediency?
They took the easy way out and not one of them feels they should've done more.
A Christian who is resigned to not fighting evil is more dangerous than the fanatics imo. If they can't muster the courage then who will?
I guess heathens.
There's still time, I think....
Ryan Gardner, YES! Christians have failed. Yes, the church is disappointing. (You and I are included in the church, I think.) Now, how are you and I going to do our part (whatever that is) in turning people to God and living according to His purposes and plans? My wife and I made fancy masks for ourselves, which we wore until we figured out that people and organizations we thought we could trust had been fooled, or were complicit in perpetuating lies. We (individually and collectively) need healing, and restoration. (Don't get me started on Ukraine, the southern U.S. border, government corruption, the butchery of Jews today. The egg is on our faces--the blood is on our hands-- not just on others'.)
"Many people who claim to be Christian actually believe other things more than they believe in God"
We all belong to many tribes. Conflict results where their overlapping bylaws contradict one another.
I have to imagine that that makes it tough to be True Believer.
I couldn’t agree more! The Catholic Church was an embarrassment throughout COVID! They coulda been a contender…
"Money changers in the temples..." and churches, and mosques, and.... 98% of all religious institutions suffer the money changers. Exactly 100% of the formal international institutions, exactly 100% of the formal national institutions and approximately 98% of the formal local institutions of faith. Corrupted by the money changing within.
And by money I don't mean just gold. The intrinsic value of money being ambition, power, comfort, gaining the respect and esteem of other fallen men placed ahead of their respect and honor for the God they ostensibly serve and believe in. Or the fear of leaders who might've lost all of the above if they didn't go along...and still don't go along with the demands of fallen men.
We, mankind the world over suffers from the rule of weak leaders. Weak, pathetic people. Including those weak in faith. Made leaders because the strong among us have chosen other pursuits, not desiring to lead.
And is God said to Elijah, "I have more than 7,000 who have not bent the need to Baal." The life of Jesus in people is real and powerful. It does not make people perfect in this life. And it is working like leaven Even in the true believers who did wrong during COVID. Some of them are in my small group at church. And grace is a beautiful beautiful beautiful beautiful thing. It doesn't mean consequences go away. But it means I love even those in my small group who did the vaccine dance. And who just don't get that part of life. And yes, some have grown sick, some died, and going to be with Jesus. Some of the brightest who were at the moment blind. As Christians, as well as us humans are quite the motley crew!
My ire isn't for those who were duped and blinded to harm themselves. It is reserved for those who demanded others harm themselves. Those who demanded I wear a Satanic cult symbol, the mask of obedience to Satan himself, upon my face. Those who demanded I take the Satanic blood injections that bind to the pure blood God filled me with, forever linking those who did with Lucifer himself.
My ire is reserved for the authoritarians, those in positions of high hard power like politicians, police and judges and lower soft power, like preachers and rabbis, doctors, teachers, merchants and cashiers, all who made demands I and others harm themselves, separate ourselves from God to worship false gods.
I understand that I will seek and need forgiveness from God for my sins against him. That humbles me to the degree it does.
But the influence of Michael, the Archangel, who serves God as he does is strong in me.
And while I do not wield Michael's sword to slay the enemies of God I wield words and power of thought to slay them in other ways.
I'm glad God is forgiving of those who seek his forgiveness, for my words and thoughts against those who have trespassed myself, my dearest and God will need forgiveness.
I understand what you're saying.
After your ire... can you forgive and help everyone move on? What does the world need now?
My understanding of God's forgiveness is that it comes when it is asked for, by a truly repentant heart that atones for their trespasses and transgressions. To forgive those who trespassed and transgressed who are not truly repentant and make no effort to atone for their trespasses and transgressions would not be following God's example. And would result in them doing it to us all over again. The world now needs to repent and atone. Only then can everyone move on.
David - I understand the sentiment.
But don't you think Christians have some self reflection to do?
If not that means it happens again. We were persecuted and yet we are the ones who must try to understand why they did that, and to forgive them, despite them not caring about our experience of being forced to live as a pariah. That was the toughest part of resisting: Knowing up-front, that's how it would end
Well said.
"Money changers in the temples..." and churches, and mosques"
They're selling a service.
#Capitalism
That's not capitalism. Though it bears a striking resemblance to crony capitalism. Also known as public-private partnerships. Also known as Fascism. The only reason capitalism gets a bad rap is that "crony" version of it. True free market capitalism doesn't partner with lawmakers to give itself advantage. In the business of man or in the business of God.
Sorry if I led you astray. I'm being a little facetious and, yet, also noting that Free Trade - someting like Putting your $ in the Collection Plate and Dropping Off a Couple Dozen Cookies for the Bake Sale in exchange for Salvation is, well, strictly speaking, Capitalism.
Again - I think you read me a little wrong here. I'm pretty well in the camp of Religion and Fascism, they aren't exactly Kissing Cousins. But they do seem awfully willing to Sneak a Peek on One Another While They're in the Shower.
*ponders* No... That's still not quite it.
Not quite it. But I get where you are going.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
All men are fallen. None escape the sin we are born with. Those who seek power or are placed in power are afflicted with the corrupting influence of it. Precious very few succumb to its influence. Even those in service to God. Especially those in service to God.
Don't look to fallible followers, but to the foundations.
These are the ‘powers of darkness, rulers in high place’. I agree.
BOOM
Well, we'll always have the Kathy Hochuls of the world advising us that God Himself wanted us to be jabbed.
Lolol. I guess wearing bling is considered atonement for being cowards
Oh lord have mercy for that bitch!
Preach, Brother!
Interesting. I live in the South. Most of the disrupters I know (including 165+ women in my town who actually stood together to support each other during Covid, warned and cared for others, defied masks, took hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin(!) and urged our churches to reopen) are Christians. I was, however, fascinated by the fear demonstrated by so many. In every other pandemic it was the Christians who helped the sick because we don’t fear death. In this country we have become too comfortable with the world.
The other telling thing about most American Christians is their gullibility. Look how many support televangelists, conning little old ladies out of their Social Security. And then there’s the whole unqualified support for Israeli genocide if Palestinians, including their fellow Christians. I’ve heard them call for murdering all Palestinians.
https://youtu.be/T6F9ENMJyMY?si=nGFVJH8NL8tg1Cqb
LOL!
COVID precipitated a MASSIVE faith crisis for me. It all came crashing down in rapid succession and I’m not even sad about it. Kudos for seeing it sooner and working to create more resistors!
"virtually all Christians failed to do the right thing despite what their holy book teaches"
I suspect that the same thing that might predispose one accept uncriticially the Words and Edicts of One Loving Powerful Benevolent Authoritative Entity on the basis of Faith Without Question seems likely to make one open to accepting uncritically Words and Edicts of Any Other Loving Powerful Benevolent Authoritative Entity on Faith on Faith Without Question.
Like, it's just easier to fit in. You know, go along to get along. Don't rock the boat, go with the flow.
IOW: Be a Mask Karen
I knew COVID-19 mitigation was a religion because I knew what religion looks like:
https://brownstone.org/articles/mitigation-is-the-golden-calf/
Lockdowns and Mandates as Religious Conversion
It was evident to me from the early days of the lockdown that something very cult-like was occurring. When quite literally nothing happened during those first 15 days to justify the lockdowns, the mantra of “just wait two weeks” was on the lips of the believers of the Branch Covidians, much like how a doomsday cult leader is allowed to pick new dates when the aliens don’t show when they are supposed to.
Creators of mathematical models (which only tell you what they were told to tell you) were exulted as if they were prophets who could tell the future, and like the false prophets of the Old Testament they weren’t punished and ignored when the first round of predictions failed to come true. The Amish, the state of South Dakota, and the country of Sweden may very well have never existed because it was impossible to speak of them.
Suddenly, argument from authority (which is the weakest form of argument in every science except Theology) became the primary means of demonstrating scientific truth; people were citing CDC web pages the way I might cite Scripture or the Church Fathers. It was as if, in the manner of God, the CDC can “neither deceive nor be deceived.”
Suddenly, complete novelties such as 6-feet distancing, lockdowns, forced masking, and experimental mRNA shots were declared as “safe and effective” not because of any real evidence but out of some misplaced “faith” and unjustified “hope” so that the absolute cruelty of destroying peoples’ jobs, making them be muzzled to return to work, and then threatening to fire them if they didn’t receive the sacrament of the covenant with Pfizer might mockingly be called “charity.”
Indeed, some people who received the earlier rounds of vaccinations were describing the experience in terms that were just as religious as descriptions of full immersion Baptism in the early Church.
The strongest evidence that something akin to a religious conversion was occurring in people was precisely what I witnessed among some of my fellow clergy. “Do not be afraid” became “Fear is a virtue.” “Those who wish to save their life will lose it” became “We must wish to save lives at any cost.”
While seeing the face of God is to experience salvation, seeing the faces of those made in his image no longer held any value at all. Those who once described themselves as defenders of the rights of laborers ignored my own call to action and I was forced to admit embarrassment at the fact that a socialist publication could more easily observe the damage being done to the poor and working class than my own confreres.
What I was witnessing was a “religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth” which is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes the “mystery of iniquity” which accompanies the Church’s final trial (CCC 675).
I recognize that many readers here may not be of a particularly religious background, so I will add that this experience of conversion also occurred in people regarding supposedly deeply held ideological and moral beliefs.
Committed libertarians became radical authoritarians. Those who would proclaim that health care should be free to everyone now insisted it should be denied to those who don’t comply. Those who once claimed government was too large now eagerly caused it to grow.
Those who once asserted rights to privacy and bodily autonomy renounced the right to be taken seriously ever again by declaring that medical decisions should be public and forced. The entire field of public health basically apostatized from the entire moral and policy framework that they had created before 2020. Medical doctors completely abandoned everything they were trained to do with respect to treatment and ethics, even to the point of refusing to see patients in person and jettisoning the concept of informed consent completely.
thanks for your help in making mince meat of their scared cows fr john.
I give credit to the brilliance of the the true geniuses like Augustine and Aquinas.
That's the one quibble I'd have with the history part of your post. The Enlightenment was the pro-reason counterreaction to the Reformation's anti- reason stance.
True brilliance flourished in the middle ages. Augustine! AQUINAS! Aquinas, for example, brought both Aristotle and Averroes to the Western schools.
Reading even excerpts from their works would allow you to witness raw intellectual power, education, and insight.
Well said, Fr. John. Excellent twitter feed, btw.
Thank you. I had begun to suspect that my Roman Catholic brothers had all missed the boat on this. But recognition of the deception is indeed widespread by now. We need to turn not to some form of resistance as savior, but to our Savior for refuge and strength to endure and thrive. But not in this life only: we must all help make Christ known.
Another of my Brownstone pieces:
https://brownstone.org/articles/reflections-on-the-triduum-can-the-darkness-turn-to-light/
It was truly a work of the evil one in 2020.
There were dissidents and skeptics like gato even when Christendom was at its height. Humankind is diverse and we need people with cranky, outsider-y personalities to stress-test our beliefs and social structures in every age. However, we now live in Clown World. Increasingly, the dissidents and skeptics are the Christians..
Every one of us is alive NOW, at this particular moment, for a reason. Like many here I'm a skeptic by nature. Had I been born 1000 years ago I may have developed into a cranky contrarian yelling at the Church from the outside. As it is, I'm a traditionalist Catholic. I believe God caused me to be born when I was, with the personality that I have, in order that I might be drawn into His Church. And I hope and pray that is His plan for el gato malo, too.
I grew up in a Baptist church. My dog tags listed Christian, non-denominational. I married a Roman Catholic woman, the 7th of 8 children.
I place my faith in God alone. No organization of man is incorruptible. "...wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, there am I..."
I too was born a skeptic. Instinctively, I distrust the motives of others, especially groups. We are to expect a falling away of the church. Outright adoption of teachings at direct odds with those of scripture.
Have you read “From Christendom to Apostolic Age”? It does a brilliant job explaining that we really are in Clown World (post-Christendom) and what that means for Catholics. Our parish read it for Lent in 2022. For me it was so helpful in explaining why I felt so out of sync with the world.
https://www.amazon.com/Christendom-Apostolic-Mission-Pastoral-Strategies/dp/099887289X?nodl=1&dplnkId=1e885d2f-a789-4c95-a6a1-6da7bad5d5d1
Looks really good, Jen, thanks, already downloaded the sample!
Religion is inescapable. Belief in religion as a falsehood is merely another form of religion masquerading as intellectual honesty/rationalism. Rationalism all too often leads us off of a cliff, as boriquagato has well shown because it is not informed by the lessons of the heart, which knows no logic other than what grows from its own intuitive feelings. Therefore impugning religion as a falsehood becomes yet another unverified belief system -- ipso facto, a religion. If you believe life is sacred, if you believe the natural order is sacred, if you believe that there is a moral order, are you required to provide empirical proof for this belief, or does it have some legitimacy to the extent that it is heartfelt? Not saying that all the "logical" deductions that ramify from such belief are necessarily correct, but only that there is inside our human wisdom an ability to perceive the sacred. Keats said it like this: "Beauty is truth and truth beauty; That is all you know on earth, and all ye need to know." In a movie I saw a small boy said to a man, "We need to protect the earth because God gave it to us." The man says, "Well young, man, I don't know about that. Maybe what you mean is we need to respect nature, respect the natural order." The boy responds, "That's what I just said."
"Belief in religion as a falsehood is merely another form of religion masquerading as intellectual honesty/rationalism."
Atheism is a Religion in exactly the same way that NOT Collecting Stamps is a Hobby.
i agree with this take. atheism is not in and of itself some sort of religion. is does however leave open the "put idea bigger than me slot" open and therefore make those practicing it more likely to adopt other religion like belief sets, often without realizing they are religions.
i would bet that atheism correlates strongly with "climate crisis belief" or "woke" and that strong religious belief tends to inoculate against such ideas.
As a recovering Catholic I often joke and say, "I'm between religions right now."
But I also identify as a Recovering Democrat but have not found the need for Faith to support my shift away from what was once a pretty darned liberal worldview. Something something "mugged by reality."
I am almost certain that Climate Crisis Belief and Woke correllate with Atheism but many in that camp are faithless for the same reason that they're afraid the world is boiling away: Because someone told them so. If you don't come to your conclusions by means of logic then it's unlikely that logic will convince otherwise.
I'm kind of A Pox on Both Your Houses guy all around, more a Please Just Leave Me Alone guy, and have a tough time finding a social-idealogical comfort zone. This here forum, as you've suggested, fills that space. Finding this community has gone a long way toward filling that Bigger Than Me Slot.
Religiously and Politically, I find myself pretty happily agnostic.
I hear you. Have you noticed that those who are not religious seldom feel a need to convert others? I am content to allow others to be whatever religion they choose. But Christians and some other religions seem to have a compulsion to convert you to their faith. I find it offensive.
"Have you noticed that those who are not religious seldom feel a need to convert others?"
Converting we heathens is part of their mission. I think many are genuinely trying to help.
Too many are just moral bullies.
This may be why I was so comfy over in The Gutter. That and the comrraderie.
As a non Christian, recovering Wiccan ( now Spiritual but Non-religious) I just appreciated the space.
( and GM and I could talk as girls about hand weapons etc...and Noone gave a flip)
"talk as girls about hand weapons"
*leans in whilst popcorn microwavers*
I wonder if el gato malo likes karambits? They look almost exactly like a cat's claw 🤔
👀 is that a danbong in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
All I got currently is this Cold Steel karambit... but I'll only let ya play wiv it if you make real popcorn...
"As a <insert name of reject from Island of Misfit Toys>, I just appreciate[d] the space."
Oh, I hear ya.
*thoughtful gaze...one that belies the fact that I'm just glitching up, and neurons that used to fire correctly- now just redirect at will with humor*
... reject, Misfit Toy....
Heyyyy...I resemble that!
In reading your comments I have come to appreciate your quest for truth. It's there. Start with this: Jesus lived, died, rose again.
Atheism could be like not collecting stamps if you are a hermit. As soon as an atheist partakes in a society means he/she must define morals. So you need to believe in something. Your example doesn't work.
I define morals just fine without reference to any deity. Everyone can and many do, all around you partaking in society , every day.
I said it in another comment here but it's more like this to me:
You tell me it concerns you that, without fear of eternal consequences, I could commit all manner of atrocities with nothing to tell me that's wrong.
I respond by saying that it frightens me much more that, in the absence of God telling you so, you could think of nothing on your own that would prevent you from committing atrocities.
I have no problem with atrocities. In fact most atheist I drive crazy with this idea.
Yeah.
Like I said, I hope you can see why I would find that frightening.
Atheism is a religious belief in the same way and for the same reason anti-racism is still racism.
As in: someone who actively and consciously denies gods et al thinks about them all the time and adjusts his/hers way of life according to this state of denial - the same way an anti-racist is fixated on race.
But as you point out: NOT bothering (or maybe it should be: NOT god-bothering?) with it is not belief.
May I suggest atheism as a term for the stereotypically agressive and insulting mental 14-year old qwith a liberal arts major ranting about religion as the copium of the masses, and /apatheism/ for the people who simply say: "You do you, man, just don''t force your beliefs on anyone, m'kay?"
If you see what I'm fishing for?
"May I suggest atheism as a term for the stereotypically agressive and insulting mental 14-year old qwith a liberal arts major ranting about religion as the copium of the masses"
While I am aware of the sterotype - and it is warranted in some cases; some of the faithless are completely insufferable, behavior hardly seen amongst the faithful - words have meanings.
Theism = The belief that gods exist. Atheism = Disbelief in the existence of gods.
Whereas...
"Atheism is a religious belief in the same way and for the same reason anti-racism is still racism."
No, but that might be true of Antitheism, which is defined as "opposition to belief in the existence of a god or gods." I don't oppose such belief. I just don't find any of the gods yet introduced to me to be believable.
"If you see what I'm fishing for?"
Yup, I see it. I've not initiated a single conversation that addressed Belief or Faith or Religion. I haven't once suggested that my is The One and Only Right Way and all who disagree are wrong. And until you suggested how you might characterize me based on nothing other than my declaration of unBelief - "insulting mental 14-year old," I think were your words - I wouldn't even ask you to review all of the comments I've made here. I have not, as you say, forced my belifes on anyone, m'kay? I even see one instance where another commenter asked me directly if I wanted to believe and it feel that I politely declined.
To sum up: Atheism is a religious belief in exactly the same way that NOT collecting stamps ...
Stop me if you've heard this already.
I wish this didn't sound so ascerbic. Please accept my apology in advance.
I love this. I will now claim that NOT losing weight is an achievement. Makes my day!
In fact, the basis for faith in God, for me, is logic. He is the Author of Logic. I doubt anyone, even gato, would believe me if I said I found a watch on the beach and it had evolved itself from nothing over millions of years. Clearly it was designed. My kids’ Lego pirate ship wouldn’t build itself no matter how long I threw Legos up in the air (not to mention the origin of the Legos). But infinitely complex living creatures were assembled by random processes? No random process creates order upon order. Nope-Designer. The God of the Bible alone is perfect, has perfect standards (He can’t help it that He’s perfect, but He is). When He made a perfect world with ONE rule, He knew His children would break the rule. He had a plan to pay the price (perfect justice demands payment) Himself. All He asks is that you recognize Him for Who He is. Then you can’t help but love Him back. The Bible is a gorgeous love story of rebellious people over eons making messes by their own rebellion, not God’s. He warns them, cautions them, lets them make messes, then saves them (spiritually and eternally, often but not necessarily temporally), anyone who believes in Him, from beginning to end. Christians know we can’t pay and we are grateful for His great Love. Open your minds honestly. Or just throw Legos up in the air for the rest of your life and see what you get. He loves you. I’ll take faith in that God any day. As James said, we all have faith in something.
"and it had evolved itself from nothing over millions of years. "
Ah. The Blind Watchmaker Conjecture.
https://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393351491
One man's Logic Authored by God is another man's logic Rooted in Evidence.
Evidence. There’s a ton of archaeological and internal/external evidence for the truth of the Bible. Open your mind to the possibility. Everyone who loves science (and I DO) knows that one valid counter example decimates a long-held scientific “Law”. We know that science can never PROVE anything. It is placing your faith in a sieve, IMO. And hey, no one has ever disproven the Natural Law that energy and mass cannot be created or destroyed. So how DID it come to exist? I say this in love and respect. But you are free to believe in your brand of religion, Science or whatever.
"There’s a ton of archaeological and internal/external evidence for the truth of the Bible."
There's a ton of archaelogical evidence that many people and places mentioned in The Bible actualy existed, and generally fit the timelines suggested in the text.
"So how DID it come to exist?"
I don't know. But I do know that the Hindus are certain that Brahma did it. The Greeks credit the Titans. The Aztecs assert that we're on our Fifth Try.
Do you believe in Vishnu? Zeus? Quetzacoatl? Me either. I just go One God Further.
Stick to the fact: Jesus lived, died, and rose again.
We shall just have to agree to disagree.
Have a good day.
Lovely. This is a wonderful topic for the times. And you cover it eloquently. Did the stories of God emerge from humans wrestling with consciousness and death over millennia? Or did the stories reveal the God who was there all along. I am on Team God, but have loved my post-Covid atheist connections. Many have a clear perspective on the cult apparatuses. (Some are in their own cult obviously) We are seeing a total dismemberment of the Enlightenment. Part of me wonders is these past 500 years are the anomaly and that peoples need subjugation. The Fall of Rome 2.0 might be the Long March to the loving arms of Feudalism.
If you haven’t yet, consider listening to Jordan Peterson’s Genesis series. That is, if you can stand him getting wrapped around his own axel of language precision. It doesn’t bother me. But it drives Mrs Clown crazy.
have enjoyed having some clowns in the basket as well.
ClownBasket, good thinking, but I hope you're not hiding behind some vague materialistic interpretation of history. In brief, go to the source and consider the Prime Fact: Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose from the dead. Don't just think about it, and certainly don't dismiss it out of hand.
Excellent piece gato. In the last decade I’ve gone from atheism to belief in a God of my understanding to Catholic. Early in this journey, I heard man’s search for meaning described as a God-shaped hole that we instinctively fill. In Jung’s work with drunks, he posited that only a spiritual experience could rearrange the psyche of chronic alcoholics sufficiently to overcome the drink problem.
Last year I read From Christendom to the Apostolic Age, by Monsignor Shea. It posits that we are now living in a post-Christendom Age for the first time in perhaps 1,500 years. During the Christendom era, reason, law, art, etc flourished, with Christian principles and morality being the tie that bound people together. As you describe, we are untethered, and cults of self and weather gods proliferate.
How to stem the tide? South Park & memer mockery are the front line, pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. In the U.S., a return to first principles, and defending our founding and our constitution as inherently good may be a secular uniting factor.
Truth is the only foundation to build a stable society. For generations, the west has been rebuilt on a foundation of lies. Boys can become girls. Children dont need fathers. Masculinity is toxic. The patriarchy is destructive to women. Etc, Etc. At least the tenets of most religions, even if there dogma can not be proven, laid a foundation of the family that is based in truths. A stable family with a mother and a father nurturing there children. The greatest lie ever sold was the one told by feminists, the idea that seeking some soulless career in management was the path to success and happiness for the modern woman. Not being a mother, being a good wife, and nurturing and caring for the next generation. Then telling them that they could have it all, a career and kids, and no need for a man. The reciepts are in for that lie, and we are enjoying its fruits. Unstable, depressed, confused kids that have no what to believe. Entitled crybabies that believe the world revolves around them. You can say what you will about christianity, or religion, but its foundation in family and believing there is a higher power are much healthier for society, then the current narcissitic views that the world revolves me, and my feelings must be accepted and affirmed, no matter how rooted in falsehoods they are.
By your fruits, you will be known--Secular progressive thought has produced bad apples!!
The more I read in this thread, the more sure I am that I must and will spend time on my knees imploring God's mercy, and that many will turn to Him. The litany of events and attitudes and actions that demonstrate the world's rejection of God--and following a trajectory so close to one drawn by satanic forces--would otherwise be overwhelming. Just in the last few minutes, I hear that Yemen has declared war and is launching a barrage of rockets against Israel. Can we be seeing the start of the final battle?
Jordan Peterson talks about the death of foundational stories as well. We’ve made a huge mistake with our young people by encouraging them to dream, reach, aspire, etc without understanding that roots are important. Is the foundation from which to reach sturdy? Many parents don’t provide a firm foundation and schools want children to run before they can walk, which disables them.
All of this 👆
With some 7.5-8 billion individual neural universes existing and interacting, I believe the need for common narratives becomes ever more difficult yet important. Organized religions accomplished this as they provided symbolic narratives and universal truths couched in story -- i.e., parable. As the world religion built, crumbles, the Racial, National, and other superficial tribal narratives become the easy way out for many and will lead to conflict and pain. A story without purpose and a narrative without hope is indeed a bleak prospect. Narrative is everything. Here's to hoping for better ones (South Park and the memes both give me hope). Cheers.
As a Catholic, let me assure you that using a phrase like "truly oppressive popery" shows you do not yet understand the history or theology of that time period (it was neither "popery" or "oppressive," but was experienced by every people that converted as the pathway from oppression and hopelessness to freedom--the pathway that elevated women and children and the poor, led to the end of slavery, created the hospital and the university, and otherwise transformed pagan Europe). But as someone who trod this same path, let me assure you what I myself would have once scoffed at: If "the views of folks like jung and joseph campbell on these matters as expressions (or perhaps mirrors) of the human subconscious and the quest of the hero for even if they are not entirely true or provable, they possess an internal (and perhaps eternal) elegance" then you are stilll only seeing half the truth and you are stuck like poor Jordan Peterson -- deconctructing things into pieces small enough for you to appreciate but not have to actually pay attention to, but unable (yet) to put them back together. It's like taking an old watch apart and lovingly keeping the pieces in separate boxes. Sure, you can "appreciate" the elegance of gears and how the sweeping hands of the watch might "symbolize the passage of time" and "help mankind to grapple with the truth that his days are numbered and each passing hour leads to the inscrutable reality of death" etc. etc. but in reality you're just delaying dealing with the reality that that thing TELLS TIME ({"and that's damned important!" as he might say), and that you're not being aloof and dealing with timed death, and the watch separately, you're deliberately keeping the watch in parts so that you don't have to deal with time, the watch, death, and the watchmaker. And when you finally do, you're not LESS free, you're MORE free.
so your argument is that popes never waged wars of venality and covetousness and used the bureaucracy of their church to amass vast wealth and power in predatory fashion?
that the medieval church did not rapaciously steal land and treasure from those it purported to shepherd?
what of the inquisition?
No, my argument is that all people in all time have done waged wars but the Church tried (and still tries) to teach people NOT to. I have no idea what you mean by "wars of venality and covetousness" but no, the Church has not used its bureaucracy to amass vast wealth and power in predatory fashion, it did not rapaciously steal land and treasure from those it purported to shepherd, and the truth about the Inquisition is very, very easy to find out -- the Inquisition was not run by the Church, but by the state. Clerical inquisitors ran its trials, and they were much preferred to secular trials, because Inquisitors were more fair, more interested in the truth, and more merciful. Medieval countries didn't have prisons, death and disfigurement were frequent punishments everywhere - as true in pre-Christian days, and the Renaissance, and the 1700s and 1800s. That's not because of the Church, that's because of human nature. Christian countries were not, and never have been, worse than other countries around them. People converted because Christian life, though imperfect, is better.
The Church, many of its bishops and priests and lesser clergy, and even some of its popes, have been bad and sinful men. Some of them obviously are now too. But this view of history is simply false.
Interesting El Gato, that you wrote this article on this Reformation Day, when Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis on the door of the church in Wittenberg, Germany. 95 statements dealing with the selling of indulgences and of other errors that he saw in the church. He challenged the conspiracy theories, he did the Biblical research, and he debunked them. Then, he pointed out that if people can forgive the sins of the living and the dead, then why not just forgive them all and save them the money! If the popery can write an indulgence or stamp it and say, "Yes, those sins are forgiven, why not do it for free? Why must the people pay the Pope with money? Luther pointed out that the greater love is to forgive and do what is right without payment. I agree with Gail Fine that the Church was the "pathway from oppression and hopelessness to freedom, " but it also came with a price: indulgences as a way to Heaven. Luther saw the truth.
Luther was a sad, troubled man who saw severe problems of the Church in his day, and if the stupid men in charge had fixed them, Luther wouldn't have gone on to destroy Christendom and create his own church--which split immediately, and has been splitting ever since. The clergy at the time were abusing indulgences, but the above description is not what they are. We still have indulgences. And the Counter-Reformation not only fixed those problems, but it created many news saints and a great flowering of faith, art, architecture, and scholarship that lasted until a few decades ago.
"pseudoscientific thermometer priesthoods"
*nods slowly* Perfect.
I have no faith personally either.... but I do think (like many others) that religion is the natural state of humanity.... and Enlightenment rationalism has been a three century aberration. One whose day is now done.
Don't be lazy. Go to the source and read about the Prime Fact: Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead. Then live accordingly.
"and Enlightenment rationalism has been a three century aberration."
Rationalism is probably what caused our ancestors 125 millennia since to seek an explanation for everything. With minimal evidence - collaboration quickened the pace of this accumulation - they were unable to attribute much natural behavior to anything lacking agency.
Thus, it came to pass that Man created The Gods in His Own Image.
Best yet! I woke this morning thinking about the college students who have been droning on for years about DEI and Tolerance and Woke have suddenly, with an attack and war half a world away, decided that they must now tear apart (literally) anyone who is not from their culture, ancestry, religion, or politically correct flavor of the moment. They have revealed the utter fallacy of what they thought they bought into with the tiniest scratch in the fabric of their belief. Their professors have been preaching not from the elevated soapbox of enlightened wisdom and credentialed authority but from a cat box that is in bad need of cleaning. I hope that some of the people will see this and repent of their foolish and dangerous "isms". Sometimes it takes a cat to point this out and he wants his box cleaned and given back.
The first sentence of the Bible states this: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth….” If this is not a true statement then the truth of all that follows cannot be trusted as true. Can the truth of the “In the beginning” statement be tested independently from the statement itself? Why yes it can! Something cannot be created by itself. This is a logical impossibility. The only possibility then that avoids a creation by an outside force is an infinitively old Universe - one that has always existed. But this is a physical impossibility due to The Second Law of Thermodynamics. If our Universe were infinitely old, It would be cold (no energy left), dark and dead. We could not exist.
Now the truth of the creation by an outside force (God) does not prove the truth of the rest of the Book. But it does raise the distinct possibility that the God of The Universe is surely capable do doing anything in the Universe that follows His Creation.