Kathleen Flake is associate professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt University. The "On Faith" panelist teaches courses in new religious movements and the relation between church and state in America. She researches the effect of politics on religion and the strategies by which religious communities maintain a sense of fidelity to an originating vision, while changing over time. Her recent book, "The Politics of American Religious Identity: the Seating of Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle," addresses both questions in the context of twentieth-century Mormonism. Descended from Southern Mormon pioneers and Baptist dust bowl migrants who ended up in Arizona, she now lives in Nashville, and is a practicing Latter-day Saint. Prior to her appointment to Vanderbilt, she was a litigation attorney in Washington, D.C., representing the government in civil rights and professional liability cases.
Close.
Kathleen Flake
Associate Professor, Religious History
Kathleen Flake is associate professor of American religious history at Vanderbilt University.
more »
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, utilizing your words Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? What has been establisned now?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
Lastly, though this is a side note of the stream, in LDS theology Jesus is a hyper-evolved guy, not "God" in a traditional Jewisn or Christian sense. That is worshiping the creature and not the creator...unless one just redefines what "God" means to "big guy". Similar to making "establish" a synonym for "privelege".
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, operating from your definitions Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? Who is priveleged and what is established then?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
And since Jesus is a highly evolved human, not the eternal God, in Mormon theology, it seems as though there is at the very least a hint of worshiping the creature...not the Creator. But let's just change what "God" means. Who cares if anyone knows what anyone else is talking about?
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, operating from your definitions Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? Who is priveleged and what is established then?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
And since Jesus is a highly evolved human, not the eternal God, in Mormon theology, it seems as though there is at the very least a hint of worshiping the creature...not the Creator. But let's just change what "God" means. Who cares if anyone knows what anyone else is talking about?
It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!
I had a very unorthodox upbringing.
TBM Grandparents. Dad was raised Mormon, but was never active as an adult. (I'd always just assumed he was Atheist. But since we never really had a religious discussion I didn't know anything for sure.) Mom was a nevermo artist/teacher/feminist, but pretty spiritual in a humanist, very secular sort of way.
I basically had very little organized religious upbringing, other than the fact that my TBM grandparents saw to it that I was baptized at 8, along with all their grandkids. No explanation, no consent, just dunk, wham-bam-thank-you-mam. It was really pretty meaningless to me.
I was however very influenced by Alex Haley and Roots and was deeply influenced by the book of rememberance my Grandmother had assembled about the whole history and geneology of my family. I was intrigued by my roots. I grew up fascinated with the complex lives of those people who were my heros, my fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.
I was an artist like my mother and took a real interest in the Arts, humanities, culture, anthropology, philosphy and psychology. I was a pretty precocious kid in high school. I signed myself up for night classes in art at University of Washington at age 16.
I became good friends with a teacher of mine who was a sculptor and a Jungian analyst and very spiritual.
He became my spiritual guide and mentor.
I grew deeply interested in Carl Jung, and through Jung, myth, dreams and how we are all connected through the collective subconscious.
I turned 18 and was accepted into an elite Art Institute and found myself surrounded by very talented artists who were much older and wiser than me. They were fascinating. Everyone of them had wonderful stories to tell about their world travels and all the great books they had read and experiences they'd had.
By contrast, I had nothing to say. I was just a white kid from suburbia who grew up with a cynical Boeing engineer for a father and a frustrated artist for a mom.
I took a history class from a genius of a history professor who made me realize that I really knew nothing about the world about which there was so much to learn. I was at a major crossroads in my life. Here I was studying to become an artist and I had nothing to say. My life was a giant void. I felt like a fraud. I had no roots. I had no clue what my purpose was or what my place was in society. I didn't know if I wanted to be an artist. I didn't even know what purpose artists served in society.
So I decided I really needed to go find out about the world before I decided what place I would take in it. I dropped out of college and travelled around the entire US, Europe and Africa for 9 months, in search of my roots. I went to the places where my forefathers had come from. Walked the streets they walked. Worshipped in the churches they worshipped in. Marched in the candlelight processions they marched in. Listened to the gregorian chants echo off of the same cathedral rock arched ceilings they had helped build.
Where ever I went in the world, I was drawn to holy places. From Mega christian churches in Texas with 8 cameras and a guy in a polyester yellow suit named "Brother Bob" and his bleach blonde buffont hairdooed wife begging for money to the TV cameras, to Mountain tops. The Rothko Temple in Houston to Cathedrals in Europe. From Stonehenge to Tibetan Budhist temples in the French Alps and Mosques in Africa. It was clear to me that religion was the center of culture and had a major impact on the people and communities that practiced the religion. Whereever I went in the world there was a different religion that suited the people who lived there and connected them in their own way to the cosmos, universe, God, Tao, whatever name you gave it, it was all the same to me. People just had different ways of expressing their respect to the same God.
I'd had some very spiritual experiences in Europe. Since my family had joined the Mormon church in England I decided to go visit the Mormon church there where the Mormon side of my family had come from. The people were lovely. To be honest, that was the first time I'd ever felt the spirit in my life the way I did that day. As I listened to these girls sing in that masonry chappel, I could have sworn there were angels accompanying them they were so beautiful. I was very influenced by a particular Mormon family there who took me in and treated me like a son. I will never be able to repay their graciousness, kindness and hospitality. I was very touched by them and decided that was one thing I wanted in my life was a loving family, united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives.
I eventually wound up in North Africa and became fascinated by the culture and the religion. They were the most devoted people I'd ever met. Even the men digging ditches stopped digging ditches when the Imam called for prayer.
Allaaaah Akbar. Alllaaaah Akbar. Achado ana La. Illah ha Illah. Achado wanna Mohamed. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.
Whenever I hear that call, I am trasported back to an oasis I grew to love in North Africa. Where date palm trees sway in the Saharan breeze, as women wash their clothes in the sweet stream where I first learned the ritual Muslim washing. Great frogs live peacefully in the watery gardens around the mosque. Where sparrows turn into bats as twilight falls. And the Imam calls out for the people to come to the mosque for the final prayer of the day.
The ditch diggers would roll out their mats and face mecca and pray right there next to their ditch, next to the business men who were also prostrate in the same position. They were equals before God. I had never known anyone so devoted to their religion.
I made fast friends in Morocco who taught me daily, everything about Islam. I learned the prayers in Arabic, they taught me their beautiful ritual washing, TaWadat, required before entering a Mosque. When I had learned everything I needed to learn I went to the inner sanctum when the Imam called me to prayer and washed alongside the other worshippers.
At first I could tell that he was skeptical of this Western interloper. He asked me in Arabic if I had performed TaWadat. If I believed in one God, Allah. If I believed Mohamed was his prophet.
I knew all the answers to his questions and as I looked into his eyes, I saw that he accepted me as a brother.
I realized at that moment that deep down, there was no difference between us.
I could just as easily have been born in North Africa as North America. I was not Mormon or Muslim or American or African, I was just human making a deep spiritual connection with another human.
We didn't even speak the same language, but we managed to connect on a deep spiritual level and see beyond our superficial differences. I felt at home in that beautiful oasis. I loved it there. It was really like a paradise on earth.
I had acheived what I had come to achieve. I had totally integrated myself into another culture. I wore their clothes, ate their food, lived in their houses, learned their customs, learned their language, worked beside them, learned their religion, made friends there, was accepted into their inner sanctums, their families, and made deep spiritual connections.
Then as summer approached and my oldest sister's wedding grew near, my heart yearned for my family back home and I decided to return.
When I got back to Spainish teritory in the North of Africa I went into a Catholic church and saw a crucifix behind the altar. I looked at Jesus hanging there on the cross and said, "I no longer believe in you."
That day was the worst day of my life, before or since. I was beaten badly and nearly lost my life.
It was a brutal fight for my life and I was afraid I killed a man. Luckily I didn't kill him and I managed to survive, bloody and beaten, but it was my darkest hour. I connected it to having renounced christianity.
There's this strange place on the Barbary Coast of Africa. It's a no man's land. So many battles have been fought here between Muslims and Christians. Today it is considered Spanish Teritory, but it is Spanish in name only. It is a place mostly ignored by the world. The populace is descended from the pirates who once called this place home. There's a port city called Mellilia on the Mediteranian Barbary coast of North Africa.
I got stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a ferry to take me back to Europe.
While I was waiting I met a man who asked me for some food, which I gave him.
He then asked me, "Comma me Casa?"
I had a vision of a white house on a hill somewhere with a lovely family waiting to host me. I said nothing, but shrugged my shoulders and followed him, since I had nothing better to do in this place.
He took me up inside this fortress on a hill by the sea and we entered into an apartment where he was apparently squating.
There was nothing there except a matress and the remnants of a fire he'd apparently lit in the corner of the room. The whole house had a sickening acrid smell from the fire that had been lit in the corner of the main room. I took pity on this poor young man and started asking about his family. He was obviously a street urchin. Before I knew it he picked up an empty bottle of African Star beer and asked if I wanted one. I said "No. I'm Muslim."
Then he disappeared without a word.
Something told me to get out of that hellhole, but I hesitated a moment too long.
Next thing I knew, he came back into the room with a guy who looked like Satan, dressed in white. Wearing a white turban, with an evil look in his eye. He was pure evil incarnate. I felt a very evil vibe the moment I saw him.
I knew this encounter would not have a happy ending.
I picked up my backpack and said I gotta go.
They insisted that I stay.
The more strongly I insisted I leave the more strongly they insisted I stay. To the point where they physically took my bags off my back and made it clear I was not getting out of there without a fight.
There was some small talk and before I knew it they were asking for money.
I told them I had very little money.
They told me they knew I was a rich American and must be traveling with plenty of money.
In the course of this conversation I noticed that Satan had a gun tucked into the front of his pants. I looked around the room to see what options I had.
There was a 2x4 leaning up against the wall in the corner. I figured that was my best option for getting out of this thing alive. As they grew more and more insistant that I give them my money I stood up and tried to force my way out of the room. They both tackled me but could not take me down. That's when I started throwing punches.
I managed to back up against the wall to where the 2x4 was leaned up against the wall. And I told satan that my money was in my backpack on the floor in front of us. I told him to take it. The struggle stopped and I had one guy holding onto me with my right hand on the end of a 2x4 and Satan in front of me digging through my belongings looking for money. I felt like I was in a movie. Everyting from that point happened in slow motion. I pushed the street urchin away from me with my left hand, raised the 2x4 up over my head and swung for the fences. I actually knocked the guy's turban off his head when I hit him and he collapsed. I thought I'd killed him and had a vision of spending the rest of my life in a prison like the guy on Midnight Express.
Before I knew it the street urchin pulled out a knife and cut me twice before I was able to get a good shot at him. Fortunately I didn't get stabbed or I probably wouldn't be here writing this. The fight went on, but I was so scared I'd killed the guy that I kind of went into shock and just managed to defend myself from being killed. I didn't want to kill two guys in one day, but I didn't want to die either.
In the end I managed to get out of there and go get the cops.
When we came back they were both gone, with some of my stuff. Fortunately they left my passport and some travelers checks so I could make it home.
I was on the next boat, grateful I'd escaped with my life, and one fight wiser.
I learned from that experience to trust my instincts.
I arrived home two weeks later, my own man, having traveled accross 3 continents on my own. Surivived some serious battles and made some great friends. I had stories to tell, but nobody was interested.
My homecoming was overshadowed by my sisters upcoming wedding in the Mormon temple. I had never taken Mormonism seriously but I had a new appreciation for the religion of my forefathers when I got home. It was my heritage, my tribe, the legacy I'd inheirited, my roots.
I got home and found that the Mormon family I had visited in England had written my parents basically asking why they let their son travel around the globe when I should be preparing for a mission. Nobody had ever said that to me before. Nobody had ever expected that of me before.
My parents were pretty offended, since they didn't "let" me do anything, I was an adult and responsible for my own life, and for that matter they didn't really care if I served a mission or not since they were not even Mormon. They would have rather I joined the Peace Corps. They thought the guy was pretty presumtuous to write to them and rip them a new one for not taking the church seriously. (and they were probably pretty right on with that assessment)
But I thought it was interesting that out of all the people I had met on my journey, the only one who'd bothered to keep in contact with me and take an interest in me enough to inquire about my well being was this one Mormon father I'd been impressed with. I decided I should take a serious look at Mormonism for once. As I did, it seemed like it was a good lifestyle. I didn't find a whole lot wrong with the religion, it was just didn't make a heck of alot of sense. But my grandparents were Mormon, my sisters were all mormon, most of my relatives were mormon and I had all this Mormon geneology and roots I could identify with. There were definitely some absolutely gorgeous mormon women I knew, which didn't hurt.
Most of my friends who were mormon were relatively on the ball and mature, out serving missions, in college, married, kids the whole nine yards.
I'd been to nearly every other holy place I could think of but the one place I was not allowed to go was inside a mormon temple. That was sort of a challenge to me, so I decided make it a goal to gain acceptance into a Mormon temple, like I had the Muslim Mosque. The way I saw it, it was just a different way to worship the same God.
I naievely went in and talked to my sister's bishop about what it would take for me to go to the temple and the rest is history.
Now I'm back to where I started before I got sidetracked--my own religion, with a whole lot more stories to tell my grandkids.
Life has come full circle and that's good.
I'm fortunate that I got what I wanted. A loving family united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives, to contribute to the world. Hopefully I can acheive what my father set out to acheive, to leave behind better individuals than ourselves. Only time will tell.
I'm glad that I'm able to add my story to that of my forefathers, in the book of life. Perhaps somebody in a couple of generations will read my story and recognize something of themselves in it and gain the courage to follow their consicence and become their authentic selves as a result.
That is my hope anyways.
"capitalized earth was referring to the importance placed on the issue of the earth by green christians-
"it was never about respect, lack of respect (besides, she CAPITALIZED IT!!)"
Well, the point there was that Earth is *ordinarily* capitalized, so I don't see why she's so alarmed or dismissive about 'Green Christians' capitalizing it, as though it were somehow 'idolatrous.'
"and you think the war is stupid, but you'll "theoretically" go and die in it?"
Oh, believe me, it wouldn't be the *first* stupid situation I've walked into when people in it needed help. :) I've even got a short-form prayer that goes along the lines of, "Oh, Gods, this is stupid, Yep, I'm going in." :)
no one wants another to define them for themselves, apparently pagans also fit into this group.
"as a muslim i get blamed for what people are doing across the planet-
it is stupid, but thats what people to- look for a scapegoat (kind of like the taurobulium concept)"
Well, Muslims getting blamed for what other people do is wrong, ...at the same time, that doesn't mean
Mithraism has little to do with modern paganism in the first place, particularly such practices. As I've pointed out, it wasn't mainstream practice at the time.
Scapegoats actually come from Jewish practice.
"if you want to be repsected, you have to extend the respect and allow others to define themselves and express themselves as they will."
I certainly do. This doesn't mean they get to defame *me* and not be called on it. It doesn't mean they get to govern *me* based on their religious beliefs and then turn around and say I can't question their policies cause they're religious.
"for all the bad rap i experience from the ignorant by being a muslim, it still doesnt give me any right to tell other people what to be-
and youve never seen me do it- ever"
Not quite sure what you're on about, here.
As for the capitalization, Wiccantexan, yes, there are many peoples on the Earth that can be called Pagan, just as there are many who could be called Buddhist or Christian or Muslim, even with widely-divergent practices.
Simply put, though, especially for purposes of this debate, we're a group called Pagans. It's a done deal: changing that isn't even on the table right now, even if a large number Pagans were really all that dissatisfied about it.
Not capitalizing it is usually a means to try and put us on an unequal footing with people of other religions. Just like the author was alarmed that people were capitalizing Earth as though it were taking away from their God-of-capitalized-pronouns, when it's just the proper way to spell the name.
Yes, there are a lot of peoples on the Earth that you could call, 'pagan peoples' or even possibly 'Pagan peoples,' who may have widely-divergent practices from the average Neopagan, (and they have names other than Pagan for themselves, generally not liking to be called that,) ...but this doesn't mean that Pagans aren't an identifiable group with as much cohesion and common religious and ethical culture as the more mainstream ones.
Applying the label and then trying to spread it out into meaninglessness is a tactic of our disenfranchisement, not about precision of speech. Let's have some perspective, here.
capitalized earth was referring to the importance placed on the issue of the earth by green christians-
it was never about respect, lack of respect (besides, she CAPITALIZED IT!!)
or any imagined slights.
and you think the war is stupid, but you'll "theoretically" go and die in it?
no one wants another to define them for themselves, apparently pagans also fit into this group.
as a muslim i get blamed for what people are doing across the planet-
it is stupid, but thats what people to- look for a scapegoat (kind of like the taurobulium concept)
if you want to be repsected, you have to extend the respect and allow others to define themselves and express themselves as they will.
for all the bad rap i experience from the ignorant by being a muslim, it still doesnt give me any right to tell other people what to be-
"if one wants to be Pagan and not erased on the basis we don't have authoritative dogma."
*snort* I don't feel erased in the least by using proper English. Paganism is not a religion unto itself, it doesn't need to be capitalized.
It's not just "our" name. It covers literally hundreds of belief systems, many with vastly different practices and views then what Westerns would define as pagan. We don't own it.
And I'll note again that the Taurubolium was in fact a Mithraic cultic practice, imported by the Romans from eastern Asia Minor and vicinity: it was not a mainstream practice, especially not of the Greeks, at any time, though it did influence Christianity.
Paul, himself, was doubtless a real person: you couldn't invent that kind of damage. He profiles out as ....well, diplomatic no to spell that out,but notice how he pretty much says the opposite of everything Jesus is supposed to have, only using him for a source of authority?
Before the Internet, you'd barely see it in words that way. :)
Anyway, ...Jan:
"Concerned....
"I actually don't care that much about the claims of the Pagans.
This is all much ado about not all that much."
Unless, I suppose, if you're a non-Christian soldier or the family of such.
You know, those dead you can't see.
In Concerned's terms: Only about four thousand, why should we care about 'so few?'
Just don't question the war itself, or you aren't 'supporting the troops.'
Just don't try to support your religion's troops, or you're 'unamerican' Cause they're 'so few.'
Sorry to trouble you.
How bout you stand for fairness and this *will* be a non-issue?
"I actually am not sure as to why the US armed services are in the business of providing chaplain service to our troops."
Cause it's reasonable accommodation of the free exercise of religion while our troops sign away much of their freedom to go fight Bush's wars cause they couldn't pay for college and trusted *us* *not to screw them.*
Apparently, Paganism *does* need to be capitalized, Wiccantexan, if one wants to be Pagan and not erased on the basis we don't have authoritative dogma.
It's our name. Last I heard we ain't getting another at this point.
"Paganism" is not a religion unto itself, and does not need to be capitalized as such. It's the umbrella term for hundreds of non-Abrahamic faiths, each with their own tenets and dogma.
I actually don't care that much about the claims of the Pagans.
This is all much ado about not all that much.
I actually am not sure as to why the US armed services are in the business of providing chaplain service to our troops. They should employ trained, non-religious counselors for battlefield trauma, base conflicts, PDS, etc.
Religious personnel should definatly be made available to the soldiers on bases and the battlefield....on a volunteer basis. That way ALL religious sects, denominations, etc can send out their reps to tend to the needs of their flock.
The government CANNOT possibly be fair to all or make all happy. For instance I am a protestant but I would
Some of you folks need a hobby or a hug or something. I sympathize with the Pagans and every other tiny religion that is not adaquatly recognized by the government however, this issue is just not that big to 99.9% of Americans. You need LOTS of people to care before anything will change.
The problem is that the Pagans making commentary about the number of Pagans, Jews and Muslims in the US military are making the same comments on every comment page without presenting any references to their claims. This conduct is not appropriate and we note this as needed. Maybe you can substantiate their claims??????
http://www.milpagan.org/media/statistics.html is the cited source of the # of Pagans in the US military. A Defense Department reference would be the only real source of accurate information.
But let us do the math anyway: 4300 Pagans/6702 military bases (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm) or less than one Pagan per base on average.
There are probably more Pagans working for Wallmart. Maybe they should add a few Pagan chaplins to the "welcomers".
And there are probably a heck of a lot more atheists in the military. Another positive for atheism. No chaplins required!!
And with so few Pagans in the military, why are we discussing this issue?????
You must be careful not to go beyond where you are. The next step is to realize there is no reality, only perceived reality, as you search for God.
Because of that limitation alone, no reality one is a fool to believe the unverifiable claims of perceived people. We cannot verify God and it's a lot worse than that. The definition of God that stands today makes the identification of God impossible.
"Tell me what you believe and I will call that God." No problem until I tell you what I believe that must by the limitations of reality be less than God as God is defined. That leaves me, and you too with the terrifying possibility of calling Devil God. That's exactly what the Bible does.
Maybe a closer look at all the sacred scriptures is in order. What happened to those that made the mistake of calling Devil God?
The scientific process tells us that the fact that contradictory things are heard when God has spoken to people it wasn't God. Of course one or more of the talkers could be lying or actually in communication with Devil. What does the faith process tell us? The first amendment?
Maybe government shouldn't get involved in religion, faith? For sure we don't need leaders getting instructions from Devil mistaking Him for God. Our leaders are people subject to the same limitations as us. Is the same true for the clergy? Are they as limited as us or are they special people?
Could ancient Pagan ministers actually hear and understand voices in the wind? What's the difference between ancient Pagan ministers and today's college trained Christian ministers?
Russell
honestly and sincerely, THANK you for your heartfelt and passionately argued post. We both Truly admire your quest for meaning and truth, and we both agree wholeheartedly with you that it is the most difficult quest.
We think we understand you better as well after all the work you did to write what you did, and feel greater for that understanding. we ARE talking about things that are extremely difficult to Talk about, and you have made a most respectable effort.
some comments on your specific comments.
You wrote "The scientific method may improve the quality of life, but tells us almost nothing about the meaning of death."
We wholeheartedly agree. Why is there something rather than nothing? The unanswered question, as far as scientists are concerned.
Our best formulation of this very difficult problem is in the Book "The Denial of Death" by Ernst Becker, pulitzer winner in 1973 or so.
if you don't have time to read it, google the title to get a synopsis. But religion is surely an estimable tradition of dealing with the meaning of Death, and therefore life.
You wrote:
"Mine is that God, through a variety of means and methods, can and does communicate to his children"
this is the worthwhile question that underlies this whole web site on WaPo. We think it is another way of asking "how should man behave towards his fellow man?" moral behavior that is motivated by religious belief is just as moral as moral behavior that isn't. The important thing is moral behavior.
You wrote
"The only thing that my scriptures teach is that God speaks to those who, with an open-mind toward Mormonism's potential truth, sincerely ask God."
One of our favorite quotes is from the religious man who said to us "you dont believe in God? well, tell us what you DO believe in and we'll call that God."
you wrote:
"how I believe God reveals. He uses ALL faculties that he has given us."
we are left with the problem that many men have said that God has revealed truths to them. and these truths are often contradictory: if we believe one, we can't believe the other. how do we tell what to believe, even if we are useing ALL of our faculties.
"truth, I maintain, is only negligibly encapsulated in words."
we COMPLETELY agree. someone said, theologians are looking for truth, while scientists are just looking for theories that seem to work.
Popper had the concept of "truthlikeness" which is a bow to your observation.
Stephen Colbert notes that politicians aim for "truthiness."
totally seriously, thank you for an insightful and striving post.
William--I just assumed you, like Henry, only respected William and hence took his name. Since you ARE William, that means you actually died in 1910. You've risen from the dead! Can you deny now that reality of the supernatural? :)
Henry--To be frank (though hopefully kind), It doesn't really matter to me what generation Mormon you are and how many relatives you have. I disagree with all of them. Scriptures and truths (which that phrase is based on) must be balanced and counterbalanced with other truths and scriptures. And to rely on that phrase as the exclusive end-all answer to the revelation "problem" is, to me, a cop-out for being unwilling to engage in the philosophical question of God and his relationship with man.
Overmatched? Just FYI, I'm only a Latter Day Saint who has sincerely attempted to understand what he could and should believe. I've only done what any good inquirer of truth would do.
In answer to your question, yes I do believe that be the case. Hopefully, you will learn a little more about the verification system, though it is not a la Karl Popper. True, some gospel doctrines don't make for good traditional science (you can't falsify the teaching of the three degrees); but then again, some science does not make for good life skills (if you manipulate people like you manipulate specimen, people probably won't want to have too many drinks with you). So it's a wash.
My "incredible" statement about the scientific method is referring to its limitations in accessing truth, not just putting out the little fires of mortality. I may be able to cure a disease, but can I explain to someone, with science, why the disease exists in the first place? An architect may be able to build a grand house, but can s/he make that home one conducive to congenial human relations (I, of course, assume that such relations do exists and are not just a composite of chemical reactions). The scientific method may improve the quality of life, but tells us almost nothing about the meaning of death.
Our basic differences rely on basic assumptions. Mine is that God, through a variety of means and methods, can and does communicate to his children. However, to ask me to explain to you how to know if this state if this doctrine is true (in fact, let's use the sensory analogy of whether this doctrine "tastes good") would be like asking me to explain to you the taste of salt without using the word salt or without going into a number of chemical and biological terms that would mean NOTHING to your average schmo. One must "taste" the doctrine--does it taste it good? Does it taste ARTIFICIAL? Does it taste like cotton candy--sweet even though it melts on contact? If you notice, there is a difference between "good" and "sugarcoated"--folks often accuse religionists of the latter (an accusation I find odd, given the number of uncomfortable doctrines in the scriptures). The only thing that my scriptures teach is that God speaks to those who, with an open-mind toward Mormonism's potential truth, sincerely ask God.
I leave the revelation up to God; the mythology that has shrouded the phrase "burning in the bosom" is unfortunate. It has come to be associated with hippie feel-goodism and therefore is a sad distortion of how I believe God reveals. He uses ALL faculties that he has given us.
So what are we to make of "faith"? First of all, I would submit that I am under no obligation to accept Webster as my authority of what claims to be a divine being. As Chesterton put it, Webster just knows how to use words to define words. I want truth and truth, I maintain, is only negligibly encapsulated in words.
As I mentioned earlier and state again, I would submit that if you believe your scientific methods take you to the truth, that empiricism IS all we've got, then you my friend have exercised faith in empiricism. You have no evidence that empricism is the end all--you only know that it describes what you see. You might as well suggest that Antarctica does not exist because only a select few have been there or that all wine tastes bad because you've had a drink of '98 Thunderbird wine.
While I do not suggest that the scientific method is anything but good (it saved my life on more occasions than I care to count--I've been LifeFlighted 3 times and saved three times by modern technology), we delude ourselves if we believe that everything consists of what we see--as Chesterton notes: He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.
Take this 2 things away from this post--
1) Revelation should not be viewed from a simpleton secularist's point of view. Otherwise, you are bound to view it through an ill-informed and naive lens. Reason, logic, AND a belief in God's ability to communicate sometimes competing truths (see Neal A. Maxwell--"That they might believe"--a fascinating concept that actually helps to conceptualize the somewhat free-wheeling nature of LDS doctrine) is ESSENTIAL to grasping onto to God's revelation.
2) I do not request that we give up our mental faculties; in fact, I denounce vehemently those that would venture such a heresy.
Henry feels overmatched by you, so he asked me to weigh in as well.
As you know, I wrote the greatest book ever written on Religion, "the Varieties of Religious Experience."
In that vein, i want to respond to your statement that "We really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE. It's an act of faith, but as good secularists, I can see how you might get ruffled that I would dare use such a subversive word."
I was also a professor of physiology and philosophy, so am qualified to respond to your conceptual framework.
I just checked again on the Internets (george bush word) for definitions of "Faith."
the two major senses of the word are
1. to trust, or 2. to believe without reason.
we scientists do not "trust" anything or anyone. we, as reagan said, may "trust but verify," but we ALWAYS verify, so we don't "really" trust.
and we certainly NEVER "believe without reason."
Here are a few other typical definnitions:
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Neither Henry not I have "strong bellief in a supernatural power." we never have *complete* confidence in a person or plan.
we do NOT believe in a divine power.
we hold NO beliefs that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
call us crazy. i can tell you, based on my medical expertise, that i would much rather have a doctor who is like me and henry than a Faith Healer.
Russell: sorry that my response seemed to caricature your position. aside from the influence of my perverse sense of humor, i did believe i was responding to the positions you actually hold (AND I know YOU don't read entrails).
Let me ask you if this is an hypothesis your believe to be TRUE:
Joseph Smith's version of 3 degrees of heaven is an accurate portayal of a Heaven that actually exists.
We would both agree that this is a statement of supernatural belief, I think.
How, then, would we DETERMINE whether it was true or not? Though it *might* be, I can think of no way to verify its truth. Can you?
Without proof, we can say that on a strict probabilistic basis it is extremely unlikely. There have been thousands of versions of what heaven is like, and why should Smith's be any better than anyone else's? let me know. The only reason I have heard Mormons give (remember, I am a 5th generation Mormon with 5,000 mormon relatives) is the "Burning in the Chest" way that Smith himself described as his verification for his revelations.
Wbich verification do you use to believe that Smith's version is correct and all the others are wrong?
I am most willing to go beyond Positivism if you will give me another process to judge Smith other than Chest burns.
You say God Does NOT want everything to be revealed through the natural senses. Great. How do i choose between two revelations that completely contradict each other? Choose both? Choose neither? Abandon logic and reason? Rely on my intuition (with or without hallucinogenic drugs)?
You so far have given us no good method.
At least astronomers have been able to predict the orbits of planets with extraordinary accuracy. Even if they can't explain EVERYTHING, they have had pretty good success at explaining and predicting SOME things. Avoiding having our rocket ship hit the moon doesn't depend on Peer Review. But, do you totally reject the experiments that, for example, established that light acts as both a particle and a wave?
You say "we really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE." whew. i don't know where to begin to respond to that incredible statement, except perhaps to go back to my rocket ship that has so far avoided hitting the moon (goddess).
When a scientist does an experiment, she in NO way depends on Faith.
What can we take as accurate Supernatural observations?
I haven't been able to follow this whole conversation, but let me at least point out that Saul/Paul's "changing his name" was largely symbolic. He went from a specifically middle eastern Jewish world view and using the Hebrew/Aramaic language and its form Shaul or Saul. After Damascus he moved into a citizen-of-the-world viewpoint. The known world of that time spoke Latin, hence the form Paulus or Paul.
It would be analogous to my changing my name from Viejita to Little Old Lady. I'd be claiming a new vernacular, but keeping the same name. (I actually started out as Bruja Maldita, but didn't want to be offensive to Wiccans and old-school Christians.)
Is it even possible that Saul/Paul is a fictional person?
Constantine was a firm believer in the written word. He is the actual author of the Bible. Is 100% of those documents used to construct the Bible the rawboned originals "only" collected into the cannon? If any of it is "edited" versions then we can rest assured that he would also create. What better way to disguise the truth than a phony "chain of title"?
http://www.hoax-buster.org proves Jesus and Moses are the same person and for sure Jesus is "warped" in time. How much of that warp is accidental and how much is "edited" original Gospels? Will we ever know? The clever crook leaves evidence pointing to someone else.
Interesting thought: Were those Christians the Romans fed to the lions Jews that followed Jesus or is that a hoax. Constantine hated Jews. Jews were hunted and killed on the spot or brought to Rome for "games" after 70AD according to the record. Are we letting Constantine hoax us? Is it Christians or Jews that were persecuted? Strange how Jews don't follow Jesus today yet there were all those Jews that did then. Must have done a thorough job getting rid of them.
i dont think you understood my poiunt at all- it wasnt about what paul introduced or the gospel he claimed to spread - saul actually started out as a persecutor of the christians he later came to identify with-
but its all besides the point-
the point is not what paul taught, but that he was a VEHICLE through which christianity became acceptable to the masses by grafting chritian ideology onto existing cultural practices.
your information is incorrect.
i didnt get this information from doing a 3 second google, but from years of research and study from books- (actually i did a google just for fun, there was only one link, and it pretty much said what you just did)
however, a deeper study indicates exactly as i said-
while you tire dto discredit that it was an atonement ceremony- and a blood sacrifice was indeed the purpose of it-
the blood issued was for the purpose of cleansing the sins of the postulant.
no one would ever argue that the mithrians had some influence on the development of christian theology, however they share this honor with many others- the trinity in particular has corrollaries in hinduism, isis-osirus- there are many many- zorastrianism itself has a virgin birth similar to the biblical version-
by focusing on what you thought was one incorrect statement, you have missed the point entirely.
as the panelist brought up the similarities between christian lore and other religious (and they were religions) practices in the time of the flowering and construction of christian theology-
she was pointing out (imho) that they have far more common roots than is usually acknnowledged (or for that matter, even known) by mainstream christians.
i am by no means the first or only person who has seen the striking almost identical concepts popping up with different names-
it is as she says, skim milk or cream.
id reccomend to you something youre probably already familiar with, joseph campbells hero with a thousand faces and i think the golden bough also has some good correlations
"You for instance think that we should accept the superstitious explanations of thunder by primitive societies (versions of "Thor did it") rather than the "modern" meteorological system descriptions that have been verified by millions of cases of scientific observation in order to avoid the "sin" of Chronological Snobbery."
"That method doesn't rely on "assumptions." it relies on hypotheses that are tested by peer reviewed experimentation and evaluation of evidence."
"If Smith says there are 3 degrees of heaven, he and the mormons assume NO burden of proof other than that it makes theirs chests burn. which of course COULD be heartburn."
BGONE
No worries, my friend. Sometimes we don't always come across clearly in posts. Bygones are bygones. And this hardly qualifies as a fight. None of us have said, "your mom" or used any expletives. Hopefully, the civil tone will be able to continue.
Others:
It is remarkable to me the level of caricature folks are willing to bend to in order to make a strawman of their intellectual opponent, as though I ever suggested that we automatically default to any story someone feeds us, simply because we like it. Nor have I EVER suggested this "chest burn", entrails, or any other idea of this brand as a method for obtaining truth. If you do not recognize this as an outright misrepresentation of what I have stated, then your ability to engage in educated discourse should be under serious question.
I am an orthodox Latter Day Saint and you VASTLY simplify the picture. I do not accept this reductionist "chest burn" paradigm you ascribe to me. It simply does not fit my faith. I will be a professional historian, trained in historiography and method (everything from Hayden White to Von Ranke to Herodotus) Yet I find it odd that even though I am accused of being dogmatic and provincial, it is these secular critics who cling to their constructs of positivism.
I am suggesting that our minds have limits, that empiricism cannot stand the test of empiricism. It is an extraordinarily useful -ism to be sure, but the only "evidence others can give me is what they too observe. This almost says nothing about causation and implies that God WANTS everything to be revealed through the natural senses. In other words, secularists would expect God to monolingual--limited to the language of the eyes and ears. Who is being provincial here? You are asking that we discount every account of the supernatural wholesale. Why? Because it does not fit with your "peer reviewed" world, as though 3 men with Ph.D.s were world-makers, able to comprehend all with their microscopes. You do worship a God--only your god wears a lab coat.
If you want an appeal to "authority," I might point to Kuhn, who maintained that all of this "peer review" talk was simply a way to keep professors in business. We really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE. It's an act of faith, but as good secularists, I can see how you might get ruffled that I would dare use such a subversive word.
I didn't intend to move the conversation to native Americans being visited by Jesus. Great minds think alike, Jesus and Crazy Horse. My point was that both native Americans and Jesus believed the "dead" human body is "reproduced" like a copy machine making a copy of a document as the precursor to entry into the next life or, for sinners the "boot" into hell. That's all.
My question to professor Flake was an inquiry. Is she familiar with the above? Is it being taught at VU? I think of that as an "educator" and did not intend to start a fight. Sorry for the disruption.
you noted to brother Henry
"What I am suggesting is that "natural" assumptions can be just as problematic as supernatural assumptions." I don't think you understand the scientific method.
That method doesn't rely on "assumptions." it relies on hypotheses that are tested by peer reviewed experimentation and evaluation of evidence.
then the next hypotheses rely on what has been demonstrated in previous tests. NOT on "assumptions."
in contradistinction, when Joseph Smith writes that heaven has three levels, he "assumes" there IS a heaven, an hypothesis for which there is no evidence and likely never can be.
don't you see the difference here? If I hypothesize that the Tooth Fairy exists, it is incumbent on my to show evidence that is verifiable by others.
If Smith says there are 3 degrees of heaven, he and the mormons assume NO burden of proof other than that it makes theirs chests burn. which of course COULD be heartburn.
On native american beliefs lending credence to christ's visiting here: neither JD nor you has cited what that evidence/similarity is. You have alluded to it without introducing any specifics.
Then you criticize Henry for not giving counter evidence to the specifics that you have not given.
Logical gobble-de-gook, take it from this harvard philosophy don.
did ALL native americans believe christ came here? i don't think so. but show us your claim and then any evidence before you castigate us James's for not responding to nothing.
Yes Russell, i think our world views are so different that we have little common ground to speak from.
you for instance think that we should accept the superstitious explanations of thunder by primitive societies (versions of "Thor did it") rather than the "modern" meteorological system descriptions that have been verified by millions of cases of scientific observation in order to avoid the "sin" of Chronological Snobbery. How absurd!!!
There are many methods that humans have used to determine truth. My favorite was hallucinogenic drugs. Religious mystical revelation is very similar, with or without the mind altering substances.
You are free to rely on entrails, or mystical visions delivered by aliens, to explain the world for yourself. It is fun, often comforting, cuz one can make up systems that can't be altered by the facts.
So yes, scientific investigation is "just another paradigm." as galileo and the catholic church's contretemps showed, and has been shown countless times since, either is as NOT as apt to give an accurate picture of the universe, and of which orb revolves around which.
I don't know that i would call the possibility of Christ coming to the americas "absurd." It IS pretty far-fetched, and requires an extraordinary leap of faith. And at the same time there are many reasonable explanations for the phenomenon of belief-similarity other than this supernatural explanation. I would exhaust the natural ones before turning to the supernatural. Just my paradigm. Crazy I know.
Whether or not Jesus came to the Americas is BY NO MEANS central to Christian belief, so Chesterton needn't get exercised over my skepticism on this one.
I did meet Paul Bunyan once tho in 1864. I know it was him. blue Ox.
That is hardly what I mean. By the way, G.K. Chesterton is an excellent writer. While I'll be the first to acknowledge that he (along with every other thinker of note) makes some problematic assumptions; even Newton bought into alchemy.
What I am suggesting is that "natural" assumptions can be just as problematic as supernatural assumptions. Can naturalism withstand the tests of naturalism. It would be circular and delusional argument in self-ratification. You seem to imply that the possibility of Christ coming to the Americas is absurd. Why? Because supposedly all native religions held such beliefs (a sweeping argument you did not sustain through any citations incidentally; I would like to see some). The assumption, it appears, is that because all natives believed it, that it therefore must be illegitimate. I might as well suggest that because everyone drinks pure water, then the FDA must be a fraud since relatively few of us ever actually talk to the head of the FDA in person. And besides, secularists say, natives tend to believe in superstitions anyway--what they actually believe simply CAN'T have any relationship to truth, even if in symbolic form.
I'm afraid, Henry, that this provides an excellent case study in what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." Some simply are unwilling to give ANY credence to ancient peoples except to the extent that they are odd, in the same way a curious schoolboy might look over a frog. In other words, to paraphrase one author, religious convictions of any kind--past or present--are considered to be second-class convictions and are expected to get to the back of the bus without getting uppity about it.
Your paradigm, Henry, is just another paradigm as mine is. Just another -ism. No one can be proven right, just proven convenient. And to quote G.K. Chesterton yet again: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
"f God is an ineffable mystery, why can't they just shut up and be like Him? (Um, "Her"? "It"?)"
Well, maybe some of us aren't so big on 'Ineffability' much to the chagrin of others.
Watch the fireworks when you say, 'She's Effin' magic,' though. ;)
"Thomas Jefferson was not a chatterbox. He said this:
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
All we ask is the same wise consideration toward ourselves.
I note for Victoria that the entire civilization of the Roman Empire did not get together and say, 'Let's think of some freaky stuff for future Christians and Muslims to freak out about.'
actually if you look at pauline history, it is rife with examples of paganism."
Umm, no. But thanks for calling our potential presence 'rife' anyway.
Paul was a guy who pretty much set the standard for *anti-Paganism.*
"paul actually went to different communities (like ephesus where the cult of astarte or diana was very strong) and just grafted christian concepts onto existing pagan practices."
Actually, he exhorted people to burn the temples, torture the followers and do their best to obliterate all memory of these practices.
He had issues.
"today, ephesus is one of the strongholds of marian devotion in the world."
To my experience, Lady ain't about footnotes.
So there's no surprise there.
Like Paul could *stop* the Lady. :)
All he got was interpretation.
"in greece, there was a practice where a bull was sacrificed on a grill over a pit called a taurobilum."
Well, actually, that's a Roman from Assyria, I understand: it's called the Taurubolium, from the cult of Mithras, actually more similar to Christianity than the 'mainstream' Paganism of the time, ...they were kind of the Hare Krishnas of the day, only, with pointy things instead of paper flowers, socially speaking.
Sol Invictus and all that.
"some lucky sinner was stuffed into the pit and the blood from the bull showered over them, thus "washing them clean"
it was an atonement practice."
Eh, actually, it wasn't about 'sinners' so much as dedication. Different symbolic language. Blood and bulls and stuff.
"sound familiar to anyone?"
Quite.
Actually, if not for Christianity, the Roman army might have brought Mithraism in some form to the empire, instead.
Not too practical, but they liked it.
Not strictly Pagan in the modern sense, they hid from the regular folks cause it was a mystery in a cave and had to do with sacrifice and supremacy to an extent, but not so much as Christianity.
Say what you will about the various merits of Christianity v. paganism. Americans seem to be compulsive babblers about all their religions, buttonholing thousands on chat rooms and e-mail lists, publicly pressing their particular versions of personal belief with voluble persistence on whomever they can induce to listen or read. This web site itself is evidence of their effusion.
If God is an ineffable mystery, why can't they just shut up and be like Him? (Um, "Her"? "It"?)
Thomas Jefferson was not a chatterbox. He said this:
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
All Comments (73)
staphylinic beuniformed boral codelinquent gelatose substoreroom salinan babishly
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) :: West Yorkshire
http://www.busweb.com/busweb.asp
December 15, 2007 5:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on December 15, 2007 17:20
st paul traveler insurance Lark about
November 20, 2007 6:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 06:16
consolidate debt today The apple of my eye
November 20, 2007 3:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 20, 2007 03:16
unemployment insurance program Mouth-watering
November 19, 2007 9:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 21:26
card consolidate credit debt Paper tiger
November 19, 2007 6:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on November 19, 2007 18:40
cI think the use of "privelege" is strange.
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, utilizing your words Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? What has been establisned now?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
Lastly, though this is a side note of the stream, in LDS theology Jesus is a hyper-evolved guy, not "God" in a traditional Jewisn or Christian sense. That is worshiping the creature and not the creator...unless one just redefines what "God" means to "big guy". Similar to making "establish" a synonym for "privelege".
September 4, 2007 12:53 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 4, 2007 00:53
I think the use of "privelege" is strange.
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, operating from your definitions Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? Who is priveleged and what is established then?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
And since Jesus is a highly evolved human, not the eternal God, in Mormon theology, it seems as though there is at the very least a hint of worshiping the creature...not the Creator. But let's just change what "God" means. Who cares if anyone knows what anyone else is talking about?
September 4, 2007 12:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 4, 2007 00:44
I think the use of "privelege" is strange.
First of all, to be priveleged or to be established are two profoundly different things.
But secondly, operating from your definitions Dr. Flake, in pointedly choosing to "privelege" nothing aren't you establishing nothing? Aren't you ignoring a majority so that a minority of nihillists can worship in peace? Who is priveleged and what is established then?
Even with semantic juggling, one cannot avoid taking a side in this debate.
To verse infinitum:
Are you absolutely sure?
And since Jesus is a highly evolved human, not the eternal God, in Mormon theology, it seems as though there is at the very least a hint of worshiping the creature...not the Creator. But let's just change what "God" means. Who cares if anyone knows what anyone else is talking about?
September 4, 2007 12:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 4, 2007 00:44
It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!
August 5, 2007 12:02 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on August 5, 2007 00:02
I had a very unorthodox upbringing.
TBM Grandparents. Dad was raised Mormon, but was never active as an adult. (I'd always just assumed he was Atheist. But since we never really had a religious discussion I didn't know anything for sure.) Mom was a nevermo artist/teacher/feminist, but pretty spiritual in a humanist, very secular sort of way.
I basically had very little organized religious upbringing, other than the fact that my TBM grandparents saw to it that I was baptized at 8, along with all their grandkids. No explanation, no consent, just dunk, wham-bam-thank-you-mam. It was really pretty meaningless to me.
I was however very influenced by Alex Haley and Roots and was deeply influenced by the book of rememberance my Grandmother had assembled about the whole history and geneology of my family. I was intrigued by my roots. I grew up fascinated with the complex lives of those people who were my heros, my fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.
I was an artist like my mother and took a real interest in the Arts, humanities, culture, anthropology, philosphy and psychology. I was a pretty precocious kid in high school. I signed myself up for night classes in art at University of Washington at age 16.
I became good friends with a teacher of mine who was a sculptor and a Jungian analyst and very spiritual.
He became my spiritual guide and mentor.
I grew deeply interested in Carl Jung, and through Jung, myth, dreams and how we are all connected through the collective subconscious.
I turned 18 and was accepted into an elite Art Institute and found myself surrounded by very talented artists who were much older and wiser than me. They were fascinating. Everyone of them had wonderful stories to tell about their world travels and all the great books they had read and experiences they'd had.
By contrast, I had nothing to say. I was just a white kid from suburbia who grew up with a cynical Boeing engineer for a father and a frustrated artist for a mom.
I took a history class from a genius of a history professor who made me realize that I really knew nothing about the world about which there was so much to learn. I was at a major crossroads in my life. Here I was studying to become an artist and I had nothing to say. My life was a giant void. I felt like a fraud. I had no roots. I had no clue what my purpose was or what my place was in society. I didn't know if I wanted to be an artist. I didn't even know what purpose artists served in society.
So I decided I really needed to go find out about the world before I decided what place I would take in it. I dropped out of college and travelled around the entire US, Europe and Africa for 9 months, in search of my roots. I went to the places where my forefathers had come from. Walked the streets they walked. Worshipped in the churches they worshipped in. Marched in the candlelight processions they marched in. Listened to the gregorian chants echo off of the same cathedral rock arched ceilings they had helped build.
Where ever I went in the world, I was drawn to holy places. From Mega christian churches in Texas with 8 cameras and a guy in a polyester yellow suit named "Brother Bob" and his bleach blonde buffont hairdooed wife begging for money to the TV cameras, to Mountain tops. The Rothko Temple in Houston to Cathedrals in Europe. From Stonehenge to Tibetan Budhist temples in the French Alps and Mosques in Africa. It was clear to me that religion was the center of culture and had a major impact on the people and communities that practiced the religion. Whereever I went in the world there was a different religion that suited the people who lived there and connected them in their own way to the cosmos, universe, God, Tao, whatever name you gave it, it was all the same to me. People just had different ways of expressing their respect to the same God.
I'd had some very spiritual experiences in Europe. Since my family had joined the Mormon church in England I decided to go visit the Mormon church there where the Mormon side of my family had come from. The people were lovely. To be honest, that was the first time I'd ever felt the spirit in my life the way I did that day. As I listened to these girls sing in that masonry chappel, I could have sworn there were angels accompanying them they were so beautiful. I was very influenced by a particular Mormon family there who took me in and treated me like a son. I will never be able to repay their graciousness, kindness and hospitality. I was very touched by them and decided that was one thing I wanted in my life was a loving family, united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives.
I eventually wound up in North Africa and became fascinated by the culture and the religion. They were the most devoted people I'd ever met. Even the men digging ditches stopped digging ditches when the Imam called for prayer.
Allaaaah Akbar. Alllaaaah Akbar. Achado ana La. Illah ha Illah. Achado wanna Mohamed. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar. Allah Akbar.
Whenever I hear that call, I am trasported back to an oasis I grew to love in North Africa. Where date palm trees sway in the Saharan breeze, as women wash their clothes in the sweet stream where I first learned the ritual Muslim washing. Great frogs live peacefully in the watery gardens around the mosque. Where sparrows turn into bats as twilight falls. And the Imam calls out for the people to come to the mosque for the final prayer of the day.
The ditch diggers would roll out their mats and face mecca and pray right there next to their ditch, next to the business men who were also prostrate in the same position. They were equals before God. I had never known anyone so devoted to their religion.
I made fast friends in Morocco who taught me daily, everything about Islam. I learned the prayers in Arabic, they taught me their beautiful ritual washing, TaWadat, required before entering a Mosque. When I had learned everything I needed to learn I went to the inner sanctum when the Imam called me to prayer and washed alongside the other worshippers.
At first I could tell that he was skeptical of this Western interloper. He asked me in Arabic if I had performed TaWadat. If I believed in one God, Allah. If I believed Mohamed was his prophet.
I knew all the answers to his questions and as I looked into his eyes, I saw that he accepted me as a brother.
I realized at that moment that deep down, there was no difference between us.
I could just as easily have been born in North Africa as North America. I was not Mormon or Muslim or American or African, I was just human making a deep spiritual connection with another human.
We didn't even speak the same language, but we managed to connect on a deep spiritual level and see beyond our superficial differences. I felt at home in that beautiful oasis. I loved it there. It was really like a paradise on earth.
I had acheived what I had come to achieve. I had totally integrated myself into another culture. I wore their clothes, ate their food, lived in their houses, learned their customs, learned their language, worked beside them, learned their religion, made friends there, was accepted into their inner sanctums, their families, and made deep spiritual connections.
Then as summer approached and my oldest sister's wedding grew near, my heart yearned for my family back home and I decided to return.
When I got back to Spainish teritory in the North of Africa I went into a Catholic church and saw a crucifix behind the altar. I looked at Jesus hanging there on the cross and said, "I no longer believe in you."
That day was the worst day of my life, before or since. I was beaten badly and nearly lost my life.
It was a brutal fight for my life and I was afraid I killed a man. Luckily I didn't kill him and I managed to survive, bloody and beaten, but it was my darkest hour. I connected it to having renounced christianity.
There's this strange place on the Barbary Coast of Africa. It's a no man's land. So many battles have been fought here between Muslims and Christians. Today it is considered Spanish Teritory, but it is Spanish in name only. It is a place mostly ignored by the world. The populace is descended from the pirates who once called this place home. There's a port city called Mellilia on the Mediteranian Barbary coast of North Africa.
I got stuck there for a couple of days waiting for a ferry to take me back to Europe.
While I was waiting I met a man who asked me for some food, which I gave him.
He then asked me, "Comma me Casa?"
I had a vision of a white house on a hill somewhere with a lovely family waiting to host me. I said nothing, but shrugged my shoulders and followed him, since I had nothing better to do in this place.
He took me up inside this fortress on a hill by the sea and we entered into an apartment where he was apparently squating.
There was nothing there except a matress and the remnants of a fire he'd apparently lit in the corner of the room. The whole house had a sickening acrid smell from the fire that had been lit in the corner of the main room. I took pity on this poor young man and started asking about his family. He was obviously a street urchin. Before I knew it he picked up an empty bottle of African Star beer and asked if I wanted one. I said "No. I'm Muslim."
Then he disappeared without a word.
Something told me to get out of that hellhole, but I hesitated a moment too long.
Next thing I knew, he came back into the room with a guy who looked like Satan, dressed in white. Wearing a white turban, with an evil look in his eye. He was pure evil incarnate. I felt a very evil vibe the moment I saw him.
I knew this encounter would not have a happy ending.
I picked up my backpack and said I gotta go.
They insisted that I stay.
The more strongly I insisted I leave the more strongly they insisted I stay. To the point where they physically took my bags off my back and made it clear I was not getting out of there without a fight.
There was some small talk and before I knew it they were asking for money.
I told them I had very little money.
They told me they knew I was a rich American and must be traveling with plenty of money.
In the course of this conversation I noticed that Satan had a gun tucked into the front of his pants. I looked around the room to see what options I had.
There was a 2x4 leaning up against the wall in the corner. I figured that was my best option for getting out of this thing alive. As they grew more and more insistant that I give them my money I stood up and tried to force my way out of the room. They both tackled me but could not take me down. That's when I started throwing punches.
I managed to back up against the wall to where the 2x4 was leaned up against the wall. And I told satan that my money was in my backpack on the floor in front of us. I told him to take it. The struggle stopped and I had one guy holding onto me with my right hand on the end of a 2x4 and Satan in front of me digging through my belongings looking for money. I felt like I was in a movie. Everyting from that point happened in slow motion. I pushed the street urchin away from me with my left hand, raised the 2x4 up over my head and swung for the fences. I actually knocked the guy's turban off his head when I hit him and he collapsed. I thought I'd killed him and had a vision of spending the rest of my life in a prison like the guy on Midnight Express.
Before I knew it the street urchin pulled out a knife and cut me twice before I was able to get a good shot at him. Fortunately I didn't get stabbed or I probably wouldn't be here writing this. The fight went on, but I was so scared I'd killed the guy that I kind of went into shock and just managed to defend myself from being killed. I didn't want to kill two guys in one day, but I didn't want to die either.
In the end I managed to get out of there and go get the cops.
When we came back they were both gone, with some of my stuff. Fortunately they left my passport and some travelers checks so I could make it home.
I was on the next boat, grateful I'd escaped with my life, and one fight wiser.
I learned from that experience to trust my instincts.
I arrived home two weeks later, my own man, having traveled accross 3 continents on my own. Surivived some serious battles and made some great friends. I had stories to tell, but nobody was interested.
My homecoming was overshadowed by my sisters upcoming wedding in the Mormon temple. I had never taken Mormonism seriously but I had a new appreciation for the religion of my forefathers when I got home. It was my heritage, my tribe, the legacy I'd inheirited, my roots.
I got home and found that the Mormon family I had visited in England had written my parents basically asking why they let their son travel around the globe when I should be preparing for a mission. Nobody had ever said that to me before. Nobody had ever expected that of me before.
My parents were pretty offended, since they didn't "let" me do anything, I was an adult and responsible for my own life, and for that matter they didn't really care if I served a mission or not since they were not even Mormon. They would have rather I joined the Peace Corps. They thought the guy was pretty presumtuous to write to them and rip them a new one for not taking the church seriously. (and they were probably pretty right on with that assessment)
But I thought it was interesting that out of all the people I had met on my journey, the only one who'd bothered to keep in contact with me and take an interest in me enough to inquire about my well being was this one Mormon father I'd been impressed with. I decided I should take a serious look at Mormonism for once. As I did, it seemed like it was a good lifestyle. I didn't find a whole lot wrong with the religion, it was just didn't make a heck of alot of sense. But my grandparents were Mormon, my sisters were all mormon, most of my relatives were mormon and I had all this Mormon geneology and roots I could identify with. There were definitely some absolutely gorgeous mormon women I knew, which didn't hurt.
Most of my friends who were mormon were relatively on the ball and mature, out serving missions, in college, married, kids the whole nine yards.
I'd been to nearly every other holy place I could think of but the one place I was not allowed to go was inside a mormon temple. That was sort of a challenge to me, so I decided make it a goal to gain acceptance into a Mormon temple, like I had the Muslim Mosque. The way I saw it, it was just a different way to worship the same God.
I naievely went in and talked to my sister's bishop about what it would take for me to go to the temple and the rest is history.
Now I'm back to where I started before I got sidetracked--my own religion, with a whole lot more stories to tell my grandkids.
Life has come full circle and that's good.
I'm fortunate that I got what I wanted. A loving family united and supportive in every aspect of each others lives, to contribute to the world. Hopefully I can acheive what my father set out to acheive, to leave behind better individuals than ourselves. Only time will tell.
I'm glad that I'm able to add my story to that of my forefathers, in the book of life. Perhaps somebody in a couple of generations will read my story and recognize something of themselves in it and gain the courage to follow their consicence and become their authentic selves as a result.
That is my hope anyways.
Now you know my whole life story.
July 28, 2007 9:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 28, 2007 21:55
"paganplace, you never did get it-
"capitalized earth was referring to the importance placed on the issue of the earth by green christians-
"it was never about respect, lack of respect (besides, she CAPITALIZED IT!!)"
Well, the point there was that Earth is *ordinarily* capitalized, so I don't see why she's so alarmed or dismissive about 'Green Christians' capitalizing it, as though it were somehow 'idolatrous.'
"and you think the war is stupid, but you'll "theoretically" go and die in it?"
Oh, believe me, it wouldn't be the *first* stupid situation I've walked into when people in it needed help. :) I've even got a short-form prayer that goes along the lines of, "Oh, Gods, this is stupid, Yep, I'm going in." :)
no one wants another to define them for themselves, apparently pagans also fit into this group.
"as a muslim i get blamed for what people are doing across the planet-
it is stupid, but thats what people to- look for a scapegoat (kind of like the taurobulium concept)"
Well, Muslims getting blamed for what other people do is wrong, ...at the same time, that doesn't mean
Mithraism has little to do with modern paganism in the first place, particularly such practices. As I've pointed out, it wasn't mainstream practice at the time.
Scapegoats actually come from Jewish practice.
"if you want to be repsected, you have to extend the respect and allow others to define themselves and express themselves as they will."
I certainly do. This doesn't mean they get to defame *me* and not be called on it. It doesn't mean they get to govern *me* based on their religious beliefs and then turn around and say I can't question their policies cause they're religious.
"for all the bad rap i experience from the ignorant by being a muslim, it still doesnt give me any right to tell other people what to be-
and youve never seen me do it- ever"
Not quite sure what you're on about, here.
As for the capitalization, Wiccantexan, yes, there are many peoples on the Earth that can be called Pagan, just as there are many who could be called Buddhist or Christian or Muslim, even with widely-divergent practices.
Simply put, though, especially for purposes of this debate, we're a group called Pagans. It's a done deal: changing that isn't even on the table right now, even if a large number Pagans were really all that dissatisfied about it.
Not capitalizing it is usually a means to try and put us on an unequal footing with people of other religions. Just like the author was alarmed that people were capitalizing Earth as though it were taking away from their God-of-capitalized-pronouns, when it's just the proper way to spell the name.
Yes, there are a lot of peoples on the Earth that you could call, 'pagan peoples' or even possibly 'Pagan peoples,' who may have widely-divergent practices from the average Neopagan, (and they have names other than Pagan for themselves, generally not liking to be called that,) ...but this doesn't mean that Pagans aren't an identifiable group with as much cohesion and common religious and ethical culture as the more mainstream ones.
Applying the label and then trying to spread it out into meaninglessness is a tactic of our disenfranchisement, not about precision of speech. Let's have some perspective, here.
July 17, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 17, 2007 12:32
paganplace, you never did get it-
capitalized earth was referring to the importance placed on the issue of the earth by green christians-
it was never about respect, lack of respect (besides, she CAPITALIZED IT!!)
or any imagined slights.
and you think the war is stupid, but you'll "theoretically" go and die in it?
no one wants another to define them for themselves, apparently pagans also fit into this group.
as a muslim i get blamed for what people are doing across the planet-
it is stupid, but thats what people to- look for a scapegoat (kind of like the taurobulium concept)
if you want to be repsected, you have to extend the respect and allow others to define themselves and express themselves as they will.
for all the bad rap i experience from the ignorant by being a muslim, it still doesnt give me any right to tell other people what to be-
and youve never seen me do it- ever
July 15, 2007 11:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 15, 2007 11:51
"if one wants to be Pagan and not erased on the basis we don't have authoritative dogma."
*snort* I don't feel erased in the least by using proper English. Paganism is not a religion unto itself, it doesn't need to be capitalized.
It's not just "our" name. It covers literally hundreds of belief systems, many with vastly different practices and views then what Westerns would define as pagan. We don't own it.
July 12, 2007 9:20 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 12, 2007 09:20
Christians are constantly screaming at Pagans here that we're 'not supporting our troops' cause we generally say this war is a *bad idea.*
You want "Support Our Troops."
Let us support *our* troops.
Stop trying to 'prove' they 'don't exist in sufficient numbers to be humans or Americans.'
These are *our* troops.
This war is stupid, but give me a plane ticket, a flak vest, and a big bottle of Advil, and I'll go. It'd croak me, but I'd go.
If no one else will.
Get it?
July 12, 2007 12:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 12, 2007 00:07
And I'll note again that the Taurubolium was in fact a Mithraic cultic practice, imported by the Romans from eastern Asia Minor and vicinity: it was not a mainstream practice, especially not of the Greeks, at any time, though it did influence Christianity.
Paul, himself, was doubtless a real person: you couldn't invent that kind of damage. He profiles out as ....well, diplomatic no to spell that out,but notice how he pretty much says the opposite of everything Jesus is supposed to have, only using him for a source of authority?
Before the Internet, you'd barely see it in words that way. :)
Anyway, ...Jan:
"Concerned....
"I actually don't care that much about the claims of the Pagans.
This is all much ado about not all that much."
Unless, I suppose, if you're a non-Christian soldier or the family of such.
You know, those dead you can't see.
In Concerned's terms: Only about four thousand, why should we care about 'so few?'
Just don't question the war itself, or you aren't 'supporting the troops.'
Just don't try to support your religion's troops, or you're 'unamerican' Cause they're 'so few.'
Sorry to trouble you.
How bout you stand for fairness and this *will* be a non-issue?
"I actually am not sure as to why the US armed services are in the business of providing chaplain service to our troops."
Cause it's reasonable accommodation of the free exercise of religion while our troops sign away much of their freedom to go fight Bush's wars cause they couldn't pay for college and trusted *us* *not to screw them.*
Good enough?
July 12, 2007 12:00 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 12, 2007 00:00
Apparently, Paganism *does* need to be capitalized, Wiccantexan, if one wants to be Pagan and not erased on the basis we don't have authoritative dogma.
It's our name. Last I heard we ain't getting another at this point.
May as well speak it as such.
July 11, 2007 11:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 11, 2007 23:42
"Paganism" is not a religion unto itself, and does not need to be capitalized as such. It's the umbrella term for hundreds of non-Abrahamic faiths, each with their own tenets and dogma.
July 11, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 11, 2007 09:32
mvjeunp fnjc dajebq xmne ynotwc blsop lorinbdeq
July 10, 2007 11:04 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 23:04
Concerned....
I actually don't care that much about the claims of the Pagans.
This is all much ado about not all that much.
I actually am not sure as to why the US armed services are in the business of providing chaplain service to our troops. They should employ trained, non-religious counselors for battlefield trauma, base conflicts, PDS, etc.
Religious personnel should definatly be made available to the soldiers on bases and the battlefield....on a volunteer basis. That way ALL religious sects, denominations, etc can send out their reps to tend to the needs of their flock.
The government CANNOT possibly be fair to all or make all happy. For instance I am a protestant but I would
Some of you folks need a hobby or a hug or something. I sympathize with the Pagans and every other tiny religion that is not adaquatly recognized by the government however, this issue is just not that big to 99.9% of Americans. You need LOTS of people to care before anything will change.
July 10, 2007 5:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 17:20
Jan,
The problem is that the Pagans making commentary about the number of Pagans, Jews and Muslims in the US military are making the same comments on every comment page without presenting any references to their claims. This conduct is not appropriate and we note this as needed. Maybe you can substantiate their claims??????
July 10, 2007 12:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 10, 2007 00:04
Concerned the Blah.......
You are incredibly lame for cutting and pasting the same whiney tripe from thread to thread.
Get a life.
July 9, 2007 11:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 9, 2007 23:56
http://www.milpagan.org/media/statistics.html is the cited source of the # of Pagans in the US military. A Defense Department reference would be the only real source of accurate information.
But let us do the math anyway: 4300 Pagans/6702 military bases (http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/01bases.htm) or less than one Pagan per base on average.
There are probably more Pagans working for Wallmart. Maybe they should add a few Pagan chaplins to the "welcomers".
And there are probably a heck of a lot more atheists in the military. Another positive for atheism. No chaplins required!!
And with so few Pagans in the military, why are we discussing this issue?????
July 8, 2007 11:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 23:37
RUSSELL, HENRY, WILLIAM
You must be careful not to go beyond where you are. The next step is to realize there is no reality, only perceived reality, as you search for God.
Because of that limitation alone, no reality one is a fool to believe the unverifiable claims of perceived people. We cannot verify God and it's a lot worse than that. The definition of God that stands today makes the identification of God impossible.
"Tell me what you believe and I will call that God." No problem until I tell you what I believe that must by the limitations of reality be less than God as God is defined. That leaves me, and you too with the terrifying possibility of calling Devil God. That's exactly what the Bible does.
Maybe a closer look at all the sacred scriptures is in order. What happened to those that made the mistake of calling Devil God?
http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul to see what happened to those who mistook Devil to be God. That's a big oops good buddy.
The scientific process tells us that the fact that contradictory things are heard when God has spoken to people it wasn't God. Of course one or more of the talkers could be lying or actually in communication with Devil. What does the faith process tell us? The first amendment?
Maybe government shouldn't get involved in religion, faith? For sure we don't need leaders getting instructions from Devil mistaking Him for God. Our leaders are people subject to the same limitations as us. Is the same true for the clergy? Are they as limited as us or are they special people?
Could ancient Pagan ministers actually hear and understand voices in the wind? What's the difference between ancient Pagan ministers and today's college trained Christian ministers?
July 8, 2007 9:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 21:56
Russell
honestly and sincerely, THANK you for your heartfelt and passionately argued post. We both Truly admire your quest for meaning and truth, and we both agree wholeheartedly with you that it is the most difficult quest.
We think we understand you better as well after all the work you did to write what you did, and feel greater for that understanding. we ARE talking about things that are extremely difficult to Talk about, and you have made a most respectable effort.
some comments on your specific comments.
You wrote "The scientific method may improve the quality of life, but tells us almost nothing about the meaning of death."
We wholeheartedly agree. Why is there something rather than nothing? The unanswered question, as far as scientists are concerned.
Our best formulation of this very difficult problem is in the Book "The Denial of Death" by Ernst Becker, pulitzer winner in 1973 or so.
if you don't have time to read it, google the title to get a synopsis. But religion is surely an estimable tradition of dealing with the meaning of Death, and therefore life.
You wrote:
"Mine is that God, through a variety of means and methods, can and does communicate to his children"
this is the worthwhile question that underlies this whole web site on WaPo. We think it is another way of asking "how should man behave towards his fellow man?" moral behavior that is motivated by religious belief is just as moral as moral behavior that isn't. The important thing is moral behavior.
You wrote
"The only thing that my scriptures teach is that God speaks to those who, with an open-mind toward Mormonism's potential truth, sincerely ask God."
One of our favorite quotes is from the religious man who said to us "you dont believe in God? well, tell us what you DO believe in and we'll call that God."
you wrote:
"how I believe God reveals. He uses ALL faculties that he has given us."
we are left with the problem that many men have said that God has revealed truths to them. and these truths are often contradictory: if we believe one, we can't believe the other. how do we tell what to believe, even if we are useing ALL of our faculties.
"truth, I maintain, is only negligibly encapsulated in words."
we COMPLETELY agree. someone said, theologians are looking for truth, while scientists are just looking for theories that seem to work.
Popper had the concept of "truthlikeness" which is a bow to your observation.
Stephen Colbert notes that politicians aim for "truthiness."
totally seriously, thank you for an insightful and striving post.
love
william and henry
July 8, 2007 8:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 20:27
To Henry and William:
William--I just assumed you, like Henry, only respected William and hence took his name. Since you ARE William, that means you actually died in 1910. You've risen from the dead! Can you deny now that reality of the supernatural? :)
Henry--To be frank (though hopefully kind), It doesn't really matter to me what generation Mormon you are and how many relatives you have. I disagree with all of them. Scriptures and truths (which that phrase is based on) must be balanced and counterbalanced with other truths and scriptures. And to rely on that phrase as the exclusive end-all answer to the revelation "problem" is, to me, a cop-out for being unwilling to engage in the philosophical question of God and his relationship with man.
Overmatched? Just FYI, I'm only a Latter Day Saint who has sincerely attempted to understand what he could and should believe. I've only done what any good inquirer of truth would do.
In answer to your question, yes I do believe that be the case. Hopefully, you will learn a little more about the verification system, though it is not a la Karl Popper. True, some gospel doctrines don't make for good traditional science (you can't falsify the teaching of the three degrees); but then again, some science does not make for good life skills (if you manipulate people like you manipulate specimen, people probably won't want to have too many drinks with you). So it's a wash.
My "incredible" statement about the scientific method is referring to its limitations in accessing truth, not just putting out the little fires of mortality. I may be able to cure a disease, but can I explain to someone, with science, why the disease exists in the first place? An architect may be able to build a grand house, but can s/he make that home one conducive to congenial human relations (I, of course, assume that such relations do exists and are not just a composite of chemical reactions). The scientific method may improve the quality of life, but tells us almost nothing about the meaning of death.
Our basic differences rely on basic assumptions. Mine is that God, through a variety of means and methods, can and does communicate to his children. However, to ask me to explain to you how to know if this state if this doctrine is true (in fact, let's use the sensory analogy of whether this doctrine "tastes good") would be like asking me to explain to you the taste of salt without using the word salt or without going into a number of chemical and biological terms that would mean NOTHING to your average schmo. One must "taste" the doctrine--does it taste it good? Does it taste ARTIFICIAL? Does it taste like cotton candy--sweet even though it melts on contact? If you notice, there is a difference between "good" and "sugarcoated"--folks often accuse religionists of the latter (an accusation I find odd, given the number of uncomfortable doctrines in the scriptures). The only thing that my scriptures teach is that God speaks to those who, with an open-mind toward Mormonism's potential truth, sincerely ask God.
I leave the revelation up to God; the mythology that has shrouded the phrase "burning in the bosom" is unfortunate. It has come to be associated with hippie feel-goodism and therefore is a sad distortion of how I believe God reveals. He uses ALL faculties that he has given us.
So what are we to make of "faith"? First of all, I would submit that I am under no obligation to accept Webster as my authority of what claims to be a divine being. As Chesterton put it, Webster just knows how to use words to define words. I want truth and truth, I maintain, is only negligibly encapsulated in words.
As I mentioned earlier and state again, I would submit that if you believe your scientific methods take you to the truth, that empiricism IS all we've got, then you my friend have exercised faith in empiricism. You have no evidence that empricism is the end all--you only know that it describes what you see. You might as well suggest that Antarctica does not exist because only a select few have been there or that all wine tastes bad because you've had a drink of '98 Thunderbird wine.
While I do not suggest that the scientific method is anything but good (it saved my life on more occasions than I care to count--I've been LifeFlighted 3 times and saved three times by modern technology), we delude ourselves if we believe that everything consists of what we see--as Chesterton notes: He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters — except everything.
Take this 2 things away from this post--
1) Revelation should not be viewed from a simpleton secularist's point of view. Otherwise, you are bound to view it through an ill-informed and naive lens. Reason, logic, AND a belief in God's ability to communicate sometimes competing truths (see Neal A. Maxwell--"That they might believe"--a fascinating concept that actually helps to conceptualize the somewhat free-wheeling nature of LDS doctrine) is ESSENTIAL to grasping onto to God's revelation.
2) I do not request that we give up our mental faculties; in fact, I denounce vehemently those that would venture such a heresy.
July 8, 2007 7:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 19:52
Russell
Henry feels overmatched by you, so he asked me to weigh in as well.
As you know, I wrote the greatest book ever written on Religion, "the Varieties of Religious Experience."
In that vein, i want to respond to your statement that "We really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE. It's an act of faith, but as good secularists, I can see how you might get ruffled that I would dare use such a subversive word."
I was also a professor of physiology and philosophy, so am qualified to respond to your conceptual framework.
I just checked again on the Internets (george bush word) for definitions of "Faith."
the two major senses of the word are
1. to trust, or 2. to believe without reason.
we scientists do not "trust" anything or anyone. we, as reagan said, may "trust but verify," but we ALWAYS verify, so we don't "really" trust.
and we certainly NEVER "believe without reason."
Here are a few other typical definnitions:
"a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
# complete confidence in a person or plan etc; "he cherished the faith of a good woman"; "the doctor-patient relationship is based on trust"
# religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Neither Henry not I have "strong bellief in a supernatural power." we never have *complete* confidence in a person or plan.
we do NOT believe in a divine power.
we hold NO beliefs that do not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
call us crazy. i can tell you, based on my medical expertise, that i would much rather have a doctor who is like me and henry than a Faith Healer.
William
July 8, 2007 6:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 18:18
Do youse guys
put
Skim Milk
or
Cream
on your
Flakes?
July 8, 2007 6:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 18:06
Russell: sorry that my response seemed to caricature your position. aside from the influence of my perverse sense of humor, i did believe i was responding to the positions you actually hold (AND I know YOU don't read entrails).
Let me ask you if this is an hypothesis your believe to be TRUE:
Joseph Smith's version of 3 degrees of heaven is an accurate portayal of a Heaven that actually exists.
We would both agree that this is a statement of supernatural belief, I think.
How, then, would we DETERMINE whether it was true or not? Though it *might* be, I can think of no way to verify its truth. Can you?
Without proof, we can say that on a strict probabilistic basis it is extremely unlikely. There have been thousands of versions of what heaven is like, and why should Smith's be any better than anyone else's? let me know. The only reason I have heard Mormons give (remember, I am a 5th generation Mormon with 5,000 mormon relatives) is the "Burning in the Chest" way that Smith himself described as his verification for his revelations.
Wbich verification do you use to believe that Smith's version is correct and all the others are wrong?
I am most willing to go beyond Positivism if you will give me another process to judge Smith other than Chest burns.
You say God Does NOT want everything to be revealed through the natural senses. Great. How do i choose between two revelations that completely contradict each other? Choose both? Choose neither? Abandon logic and reason? Rely on my intuition (with or without hallucinogenic drugs)?
You so far have given us no good method.
At least astronomers have been able to predict the orbits of planets with extraordinary accuracy. Even if they can't explain EVERYTHING, they have had pretty good success at explaining and predicting SOME things. Avoiding having our rocket ship hit the moon doesn't depend on Peer Review. But, do you totally reject the experiments that, for example, established that light acts as both a particle and a wave?
You say "we really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE." whew. i don't know where to begin to respond to that incredible statement, except perhaps to go back to my rocket ship that has so far avoided hitting the moon (goddess).
When a scientist does an experiment, she in NO way depends on Faith.
What can we take as accurate Supernatural observations?
July 8, 2007 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 17:55
I haven't been able to follow this whole conversation, but let me at least point out that Saul/Paul's "changing his name" was largely symbolic. He went from a specifically middle eastern Jewish world view and using the Hebrew/Aramaic language and its form Shaul or Saul. After Damascus he moved into a citizen-of-the-world viewpoint. The known world of that time spoke Latin, hence the form Paulus or Paul.
It would be analogous to my changing my name from Viejita to Little Old Lady. I'd be claiming a new vernacular, but keeping the same name. (I actually started out as Bruja Maldita, but didn't want to be offensive to Wiccans and old-school Christians.)
July 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 15:12
VICTORIA, all:
Is it even possible that Saul/Paul is a fictional person?
Constantine was a firm believer in the written word. He is the actual author of the Bible. Is 100% of those documents used to construct the Bible the rawboned originals "only" collected into the cannon? If any of it is "edited" versions then we can rest assured that he would also create. What better way to disguise the truth than a phony "chain of title"?
http://www.hoax-buster.org proves Jesus and Moses are the same person and for sure Jesus is "warped" in time. How much of that warp is accidental and how much is "edited" original Gospels? Will we ever know? The clever crook leaves evidence pointing to someone else.
Interesting thought: Were those Christians the Romans fed to the lions Jews that followed Jesus or is that a hoax. Constantine hated Jews. Jews were hunted and killed on the spot or brought to Rome for "games" after 70AD according to the record. Are we letting Constantine hoax us? Is it Christians or Jews that were persecuted? Strange how Jews don't follow Jesus today yet there were all those Jews that did then. Must have done a thorough job getting rid of them.
July 8, 2007 12:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 12:43
anyway, its all good, were here to share, not tear each other up
July 8, 2007 1:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 01:22
sorry paganplace, youre getting mixed up.
the information is as stated-
i dont think you understood my poiunt at all- it wasnt about what paul introduced or the gospel he claimed to spread - saul actually started out as a persecutor of the christians he later came to identify with-
but its all besides the point-
the point is not what paul taught, but that he was a VEHICLE through which christianity became acceptable to the masses by grafting chritian ideology onto existing cultural practices.
your information is incorrect.
i didnt get this information from doing a 3 second google, but from years of research and study from books- (actually i did a google just for fun, there was only one link, and it pretty much said what you just did)
however, a deeper study indicates exactly as i said-
while you tire dto discredit that it was an atonement ceremony- and a blood sacrifice was indeed the purpose of it-
the blood issued was for the purpose of cleansing the sins of the postulant.
no one would ever argue that the mithrians had some influence on the development of christian theology, however they share this honor with many others- the trinity in particular has corrollaries in hinduism, isis-osirus- there are many many- zorastrianism itself has a virgin birth similar to the biblical version-
by focusing on what you thought was one incorrect statement, you have missed the point entirely.
as the panelist brought up the similarities between christian lore and other religious (and they were religions) practices in the time of the flowering and construction of christian theology-
she was pointing out (imho) that they have far more common roots than is usually acknnowledged (or for that matter, even known) by mainstream christians.
i am by no means the first or only person who has seen the striking almost identical concepts popping up with different names-
it is as she says, skim milk or cream.
id reccomend to you something youre probably already familiar with, joseph campbells hero with a thousand faces and i think the golden bough also has some good correlations
peace
July 8, 2007 1:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 01:21
"You for instance think that we should accept the superstitious explanations of thunder by primitive societies (versions of "Thor did it") rather than the "modern" meteorological system descriptions that have been verified by millions of cases of scientific observation in order to avoid the "sin" of Chronological Snobbery."
"That method doesn't rely on "assumptions." it relies on hypotheses that are tested by peer reviewed experimentation and evaluation of evidence."
"If Smith says there are 3 degrees of heaven, he and the mormons assume NO burden of proof other than that it makes theirs chests burn. which of course COULD be heartburn."
BGONE
No worries, my friend. Sometimes we don't always come across clearly in posts. Bygones are bygones. And this hardly qualifies as a fight. None of us have said, "your mom" or used any expletives. Hopefully, the civil tone will be able to continue.
Others:
It is remarkable to me the level of caricature folks are willing to bend to in order to make a strawman of their intellectual opponent, as though I ever suggested that we automatically default to any story someone feeds us, simply because we like it. Nor have I EVER suggested this "chest burn", entrails, or any other idea of this brand as a method for obtaining truth. If you do not recognize this as an outright misrepresentation of what I have stated, then your ability to engage in educated discourse should be under serious question.
I am an orthodox Latter Day Saint and you VASTLY simplify the picture. I do not accept this reductionist "chest burn" paradigm you ascribe to me. It simply does not fit my faith. I will be a professional historian, trained in historiography and method (everything from Hayden White to Von Ranke to Herodotus) Yet I find it odd that even though I am accused of being dogmatic and provincial, it is these secular critics who cling to their constructs of positivism.
I am suggesting that our minds have limits, that empiricism cannot stand the test of empiricism. It is an extraordinarily useful -ism to be sure, but the only "evidence others can give me is what they too observe. This almost says nothing about causation and implies that God WANTS everything to be revealed through the natural senses. In other words, secularists would expect God to monolingual--limited to the language of the eyes and ears. Who is being provincial here? You are asking that we discount every account of the supernatural wholesale. Why? Because it does not fit with your "peer reviewed" world, as though 3 men with Ph.D.s were world-makers, able to comprehend all with their microscopes. You do worship a God--only your god wears a lab coat.
If you want an appeal to "authority," I might point to Kuhn, who maintained that all of this "peer review" talk was simply a way to keep professors in business. We really don't know that our scientific method takes us ANYWHERE. It's an act of faith, but as good secularists, I can see how you might get ruffled that I would dare use such a subversive word.
July 8, 2007 12:16 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 8, 2007 00:16
Henry, William, Russell, John D, all who care.
I didn't intend to move the conversation to native Americans being visited by Jesus. Great minds think alike, Jesus and Crazy Horse. My point was that both native Americans and Jesus believed the "dead" human body is "reproduced" like a copy machine making a copy of a document as the precursor to entry into the next life or, for sinners the "boot" into hell. That's all.
My question to professor Flake was an inquiry. Is she familiar with the above? Is it being taught at VU? I think of that as an "educator" and did not intend to start a fight. Sorry for the disruption.
July 7, 2007 11:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 23:41
Russell
you noted to brother Henry
"What I am suggesting is that "natural" assumptions can be just as problematic as supernatural assumptions." I don't think you understand the scientific method.
That method doesn't rely on "assumptions." it relies on hypotheses that are tested by peer reviewed experimentation and evaluation of evidence.
then the next hypotheses rely on what has been demonstrated in previous tests. NOT on "assumptions."
in contradistinction, when Joseph Smith writes that heaven has three levels, he "assumes" there IS a heaven, an hypothesis for which there is no evidence and likely never can be.
don't you see the difference here? If I hypothesize that the Tooth Fairy exists, it is incumbent on my to show evidence that is verifiable by others.
If Smith says there are 3 degrees of heaven, he and the mormons assume NO burden of proof other than that it makes theirs chests burn. which of course COULD be heartburn.
On native american beliefs lending credence to christ's visiting here: neither JD nor you has cited what that evidence/similarity is. You have alluded to it without introducing any specifics.
Then you criticize Henry for not giving counter evidence to the specifics that you have not given.
Logical gobble-de-gook, take it from this harvard philosophy don.
did ALL native americans believe christ came here? i don't think so. but show us your claim and then any evidence before you castigate us James's for not responding to nothing.
July 7, 2007 9:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 21:40
Yes Russell, i think our world views are so different that we have little common ground to speak from.
you for instance think that we should accept the superstitious explanations of thunder by primitive societies (versions of "Thor did it") rather than the "modern" meteorological system descriptions that have been verified by millions of cases of scientific observation in order to avoid the "sin" of Chronological Snobbery. How absurd!!!
There are many methods that humans have used to determine truth. My favorite was hallucinogenic drugs. Religious mystical revelation is very similar, with or without the mind altering substances.
You are free to rely on entrails, or mystical visions delivered by aliens, to explain the world for yourself. It is fun, often comforting, cuz one can make up systems that can't be altered by the facts.
So yes, scientific investigation is "just another paradigm." as galileo and the catholic church's contretemps showed, and has been shown countless times since, either is as NOT as apt to give an accurate picture of the universe, and of which orb revolves around which.
I don't know that i would call the possibility of Christ coming to the americas "absurd." It IS pretty far-fetched, and requires an extraordinary leap of faith. And at the same time there are many reasonable explanations for the phenomenon of belief-similarity other than this supernatural explanation. I would exhaust the natural ones before turning to the supernatural. Just my paradigm. Crazy I know.
Whether or not Jesus came to the Americas is BY NO MEANS central to Christian belief, so Chesterton needn't get exercised over my skepticism on this one.
I did meet Paul Bunyan once tho in 1864. I know it was him. blue Ox.
July 7, 2007 9:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 21:23
That is hardly what I mean. By the way, G.K. Chesterton is an excellent writer. While I'll be the first to acknowledge that he (along with every other thinker of note) makes some problematic assumptions; even Newton bought into alchemy.
What I am suggesting is that "natural" assumptions can be just as problematic as supernatural assumptions. Can naturalism withstand the tests of naturalism. It would be circular and delusional argument in self-ratification. You seem to imply that the possibility of Christ coming to the Americas is absurd. Why? Because supposedly all native religions held such beliefs (a sweeping argument you did not sustain through any citations incidentally; I would like to see some). The assumption, it appears, is that because all natives believed it, that it therefore must be illegitimate. I might as well suggest that because everyone drinks pure water, then the FDA must be a fraud since relatively few of us ever actually talk to the head of the FDA in person. And besides, secularists say, natives tend to believe in superstitions anyway--what they actually believe simply CAN'T have any relationship to truth, even if in symbolic form.
I'm afraid, Henry, that this provides an excellent case study in what C.S. Lewis called "chronological snobbery." Some simply are unwilling to give ANY credence to ancient peoples except to the extent that they are odd, in the same way a curious schoolboy might look over a frog. In other words, to paraphrase one author, religious convictions of any kind--past or present--are considered to be second-class convictions and are expected to get to the back of the bus without getting uppity about it.
Your paradigm, Henry, is just another paradigm as mine is. Just another -ism. No one can be proven right, just proven convenient. And to quote G.K. Chesterton yet again: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."
July 7, 2007 8:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 20:47
"f God is an ineffable mystery, why can't they just shut up and be like Him? (Um, "Her"? "It"?)"
Well, maybe some of us aren't so big on 'Ineffability' much to the chagrin of others.
Watch the fireworks when you say, 'She's Effin' magic,' though. ;)
"Thomas Jefferson was not a chatterbox. He said this:
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
All we ask is the same wise consideration toward ourselves.
The rest is chatter.
If you don't mind so much.
July 7, 2007 6:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 18:48
I note for Victoria that the entire civilization of the Roman Empire did not get together and say, 'Let's think of some freaky stuff for future Christians and Muslims to freak out about.'
It meant things to them.
And it wasn't just one 'it.'
The idea didn't exist yet.
July 7, 2007 6:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 18:39
"Victoria:
actually if you look at pauline history, it is rife with examples of paganism."
Umm, no. But thanks for calling our potential presence 'rife' anyway.
Paul was a guy who pretty much set the standard for *anti-Paganism.*
"paul actually went to different communities (like ephesus where the cult of astarte or diana was very strong) and just grafted christian concepts onto existing pagan practices."
Actually, he exhorted people to burn the temples, torture the followers and do their best to obliterate all memory of these practices.
He had issues.
"today, ephesus is one of the strongholds of marian devotion in the world."
To my experience, Lady ain't about footnotes.
So there's no surprise there.
Like Paul could *stop* the Lady. :)
All he got was interpretation.
"in greece, there was a practice where a bull was sacrificed on a grill over a pit called a taurobilum."
Well, actually, that's a Roman from Assyria, I understand: it's called the Taurubolium, from the cult of Mithras, actually more similar to Christianity than the 'mainstream' Paganism of the time, ...they were kind of the Hare Krishnas of the day, only, with pointy things instead of paper flowers, socially speaking.
Sol Invictus and all that.
"some lucky sinner was stuffed into the pit and the blood from the bull showered over them, thus "washing them clean"
it was an atonement practice."
Eh, actually, it wasn't about 'sinners' so much as dedication. Different symbolic language. Blood and bulls and stuff.
"sound familiar to anyone?"
Quite.
Actually, if not for Christianity, the Roman army might have brought Mithraism in some form to the empire, instead.
Not too practical, but they liked it.
Not strictly Pagan in the modern sense, they hid from the regular folks cause it was a mystery in a cave and had to do with sacrifice and supremacy to an extent, but not so much as Christianity.
Probably not what Mithras had in mind, either.
But what can you do. :)
July 7, 2007 6:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 18:37
Say what you will about the various merits of Christianity v. paganism. Americans seem to be compulsive babblers about all their religions, buttonholing thousands on chat rooms and e-mail lists, publicly pressing their particular versions of personal belief with voluble persistence on whomever they can induce to listen or read. This web site itself is evidence of their effusion.
If God is an ineffable mystery, why can't they just shut up and be like Him? (Um, "Her"? "It"?)
Thomas Jefferson was not a chatterbox. He said this:
"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone. Its evidence before the world is to be sought in my life: if it has been honest and dutiful to society, the religion which has regulated it cannot be a bad one."
July 7, 2007 6:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on July 7, 2007 18:35