The Limits of Human Creation

PaganPlace,

Speaking of New Hampshire, Pagans and/or Wiccans might feel at home in New Hampshire for no other reason than that Robert Frost's poem,"The Witch of Coos", is set there.

Coos [pronounced ko-os] County is New Hampshire's northernmost and most remote and untamed county.

The poem begins:

The Witch of Coos
by: Robert Frost

I staid the night for shelter at a farm
Behind the mountains, with a mother and son,
Two old-believers. They did all the talking.

MOTHER Folks think a witch who has familiar spirits
She could call up to pass a winter evening,
But won't, should be burned at the stake or something.
Summoning spirits isn't 'Button, button,
Who's got the button,' I would have them know.

SON: Mother can make a common table rear
And kick with two legs like an army mule.

MOTHER: And when I've done it, what good have I
done?
Rather than tip a table for you, let me
Tell you what Ralle the Sioux Control once told me.
He said the dead had souls, but when I asked him
How could that be -- I thought the dead were souls,
He broke my trance. Don't that make you suspicious
That there's something the dead are keeping back?
Yes, there's something the dead are keeping back.

SON: You wouldn't want to tell him what we have
Up attic, mother?

....
(continued)
....

Regards.

PaganPlace,

There's a lot in what you say about a spiritual leader not leaving the members when they all live in a difficult situation.

I was thinking only of Terra Gazelle, who seemed to be living in a nest of intolerance. I should have thought of those close to her as well. It takes a noble person to want to hang on in such difficult circumstances, but Terra Gazelle certainly has that nobility.

On your thought about Blue people in Red states bunching up and moving to Blue states: the reverse of that has involved New Hampshire in the last couple of years.

Some right-wing organization (I forget the name) has been recruiting and encouraging Red state people to move to the Purple state of New Hampshire with a view to taking it over politically and socially, first at the town and county level, and then at the state level. Some folks have actually moved to NH with this in mind.

I'm quite sure the new in-migrants won't succeed, however. The new folks are very reactionary on social-religious issues and New Hampshireites aren't that way at all.

NH is more conservative than VT, but on social issues it's much more tolerant and live-and-let-live than your typical Red state.

I'm afraid the new transplants to NH are going to be disappointed (thank Heaven!). And besides, there was an unprecedented Democratic sweep in the 2006 NH election which may well continue.

Vermont's a very pretty and good place. :)

One thing about that term 'Reverend' is it does have the potential effect of putting qualified Pagan clergy on the same 'level' as others, which on the other hand may invite accusations of 'You're not a 'real' Reverend, anyway.'

On Norrie's suggestion,

"You might try crossing out "Reverend" and writing in "Lady." More likely than not no official will challenge the substitution, if they even notice it."

Maybe we could write in so it says "MirthandReverend" :)

I think, though, Norrie, there's always a factor of, 'If our clergy abandon places like Louisiana, what happens to Pagans down there? Well, at least, there's the simple fact that Pagans *are* all over the country, and sort of further isolating those who aren't in the friendlier places, well, that can be a tie, there, itself.

It'll be interesting to see if coming times might produce a 'bunching-up' effect, along with any sort of 'Blue Flight' from 'Red' states and intolerance... (it'd be interesting to see data on this: there are forces like the Internet which mean you don't necessarily have to *go* anywhere to interact with similar-minded people. But, let's face it, quite often the *idea* behind the intolerance we experience is meant to say, 'Go away.' ) The idea of what might happen (and is, really) among Pagan homesteads and enclaves has always been a fascinating and challenging one to me. :)

Terra Gazelle,

The thought had entered my mind that you might live in a southern or bible-belt state, but I never imagined that things would be as bad as you describe. I'm sorry.

All I can say is that here in Vermont (I used to be our House of Representatives' Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) the legislature would have taken care of your "Reverend" problem immediately and without any opposition whatever.

I imagine that there are many bonds and/or necessities that keep you in Louisiana. I'm sure you know that if you moved to many other states, including Vermont, you'd find yourself welcomed and socially at home.

We can't change our cold weather though. Maybe global warming will take care of that in a century or two.

I wish you all the best.

Thank you Norrie,
I live in Louisiana...two years ago a parish here finally gave up on appealing the federal case against them about segregation...34 years after the fact. The one federal judge retired, he was a new judge when he first got it...he handed it over to a new judge, then the parish wised up.

In the school system next to us, has been sued by the feds three times. Once for holding a child in a room that was holding a religious meeting during school...he wanted out, they locked the door. The ACLU won that one.

The past 10 years Wiccans have fought the VA to include the Pentacle as a emblem of belief on the headstones of the Pagan military fallen. We won a few weeks ago.

My Parish counsel presides with a poster of In God we Trust on one side behind them, and the 10 commandments on the other. They just passed a ban on "fortune tellers", even though there are none in the parish doing it for money.

My chance of getting my far right representative to do anything for me is on the far side of HA!

But I thank you for your help, and maybe someday people will see that there are no "but's" or "except's" in equality.

terra

Terra Gazelle,

The post above about the use of "Reverend" is mine.

Terra Gazelle,

You wrote:

'In Wicca I am clergy and legal in the state I live in..but I can not be called Lady Keir Gazelle...but have to be called Reverend. That is not part of my religion...my tradition is that once you reach a certain amount of learning and proof of character and leadership, then you have earned the title Lady or Lord. That is our "rules". But we have to follow rules that are not even ours.

'Reverend has no meaning to us...but we have to adopt it.'

I don't know what state you live in. I'm also not sure exactly what you're referring to, but suspect that it's one or more printed form documents that refer to the person solemnizing a marriage in a religious ceremony as a "Reverend".

If that's what it is, or something similar, I don't think it's too burdensome. The state needs to use some descriptive noun that's commonly understood. I agree it would be better if the term were more neutral, e.g., "officiating person", instead of "Reverend".

You might try crossing out "Reverend" and writing in "Lady." More likely than not no official will challenge the substitution, if they even notice it.

You could also have your local legislator sponsor a bill to change the statutory language to something you'd be comfortable with.

I imagine that no one in your state government has ever thought about this and wouldn't object to a change to accomodate you. That kind of thing happens all the time in my state.

I'm a retired lawyer and legislator with much experience in dealing with bureaucracies.

Best wishes.

Hello Marysville, you say, "Some religions are created by man to suit their own purposes, others are created by man, under the direction of God. God has not left us to devise our own systems of belief. He has organized religion that helps lead us back to him."

That's quite an assertion. How do you know that? did you determine it on your own? Did someone you respect teach you that? If so, what was their source? Is it in the bible, If so, where? Which religions were created by man and which ones by god?

Thanks - I hope you address these questions.

Gary: Zeus help you if you are wrong.

Some religions are created by man to suit their own purposes, others are created by man, under the direction of God. God has not left us to devise our own systems of belief. He has organized religion that helps lead us back to him.

" gary:

I GUESS WE WILL ALL FIND OUT WHO IS RIGHT IN THE END. G-D HELP YOU IF YOU ARE WRONG."

Well, provided there's an 'end' and in that 'end' 'who's right' in that way, actually matters as such?

I mean, there's a lot of assumptions, there. How bout we go with what's observably 'right' now, maybe even 'helpful,' and not be too afraid of *one* possibility out of the Infinite? :)

Thanks for the well-wishing, though. :) Capslock key should be under the left pinkie. You can turn that off, we can read lower-case since like, centuries ago, now. :)

Above: 'A lot less critical *than those,* it should read, in the fifth paragraph.

One of the 'problems with pain' is it can really mess up your concentration. Gonna have to call it quits for the night, soon. :)

I GUESS WE WILL ALL FIND OUT WHO IS RIGHT IN THE END. G-D HELP YOU IF YOU ARE WRONG.

"paganplace,
As to the unnamed 'ones' you speak of, you really can't know the condition of their hearts, so you can't really say they're making false professions of faith."

That's not really the point for me, anyway, just observing how it *looks.* Certainly, I don't find nastiness and fixation on harmless things others do while condoning obviously-bad things to be a good sign of 'faith,' anyway.

It's become obligatory in many circles to *say* you have it: certainly in secular life, one of those 'religious tests' has been imposed through the media where the Founding Fathers tried so hard to make sure there weren't any.

"Even if their walk is flawed (as everyone's is), the answer is to correct them, not to completely abandon moral standards so that people act unashamedly hypocritical like Spong."

Personally, he appears a lot less without standards and hypocritical that not only claim they shouldn't be questioned because of their 'faith,' but seem to demand *everyone* claim to have their 'faith,' ...whatever path they're *walking.*

"There's a wonderful quote from C.S. Lewis' 'Problems of Pain' - 'It is mad work to remove hypocrisy by removing the temptation to hypocrisy. The frankness of people sunk below shame is a very cheap frankness.'

C.S. Lewis was a bit of a pagan himself. Have you ever read any of his stuff?"

Actually, *yes!*

Frankly, he says a lot of stuff that I find *tremendously-offensive* about Pagans and my ancestors in general, sort of appropriating anything he likes for a Christianity that wasn't there yet, and blaming anything he doesn't *on* 'pagan belief,' (if he's 'a bit of a Pagan, himself, he sure doesn't seem to like us, much. ) ...but it's really pretty interesting thinking about the Christianity itself, and maybe spirituality in general.

I think a lot of his premises are skewed badly by his goals, but it's smarter than Bible-beating, anyway.

Spiritual practices may have some merit and usefulness; religions do not!
The Abrahamic traditions are particularily stupid with the Evangelical Christians taking the prize for the most stupid.
I can not determine what it is about humanity that makes such silliness seem valid in any way. It's only usefulness would seem to be a means to allow for the division of mankind into the "other which can be killed, tortured, maimed, and treated as not mankind. Oh, I see! And we Christians don't even need the 10 days of ritual cleansing!

Spongjohn Squarepantheist:

Why does it bother you so much that other people hold belief systems that differ from yours? Are you not comfortable in your own faith?

You seem to be very troubled by the idea that Bishop Spong is free to eludicate his views on faith (quite eloquently at that). You even see the need to condemn C.S. Lewis, one of the great modern apologists.

What's up with that?

paganplace,
As to the unnamed 'ones' you speak of, you really can't know the condition of their hearts, so you can't really say they're making false professions of faith.
Even if their walk is flawed (as everyone's is), the answer is to correct them, not to completely abandon moral standards so that people act unashamedly hypocritical like Spong.

There's a wonderful quote from C.S. Lewis' 'Problems of Pain' - 'It is mad work to remove hypocrisy by removing the temptation to hypocrisy. The frankness of people sunk below shame is a very cheap frankness.'

C.S. Lewis was a bit of a pagan himself. Have you ever read any of his stuff?

Not my row to hoe, really, but Bishop Spong seems to do a better job of representing your religion than the ones who want everyone to, well, *say* they have faith to be in office of some kind.

Mister Warmed, if my remarks were 'harbingers' of a profoundly inferior intellect, yours would seem the best candidate so far to fit the bill. Stick with words you know - trying to use big words of more than 2 syllables to impress us seems backfire for you.

In any case, you are the one who seems to be suffering from an advanced state of Backslidden Spong-iform Encephalopathy.
If you can't see the line of argumentation 'X is not completely comprehensible, therefore we cannot truly know any propositions about X' is a non-sequitur, the disease has probably reached such an advanced state, you'd better just repent now since you will soon lose the mental capacity to understand theological arguments.

Seriously though, I wish I could help you- I wish you'd be more open to the other side. Part of it is stubbornness, you know (Rom 1:18,21).
This 'God in the Box' rhetoric- don't you see how empty this is? Of course we don't (and maybe can never) know how the Trinity is possible, or how God actually did create ex-nihilo, but we can know certain facts about Him- that he did create and that he is omniscient, omnipotent, holy and righteous (and what that righteousness consists of).
To say that the God who created language is actually incapable of communicating propositions to us is absurd (or perhaps wishful thinking for us rebellious sinners).

And don't turn Spong into an idol - he stayed in the clergy after he had lost his faith insead of finding another profession (so much for 'honesty' and 'courage') and he makes racist, bigoted remarks about Africans. His teachings have alienated many faithful, orthodox Episcopalians and are the cause of the current schism.

I think, Spongnostic, that we see so much acrimony in these debates when all these *other* things hang upon the assertions of religions: often the debate becomes a surrogate for 'Should people be forced to accept the assertions from religious authorities.'

Most of those authorities, of course, do depend on the idea of a specific god 'existing,' (which, frankly, none of these arguments really address: even if you decide at least one divine entity exists in some way, that doesn't mean a *specific* one exists as advertised: this is a necessary but not sufficient condition for their assertions, in other words. ) ...but often the 'question' is really part of those religions anyway. "Does God Exist" is still seeing the world in terms of one of a few religious views.

It seems that a lot of folks involved in these religions may scuffle with great vitriol about what the existence of their God means in practice for them, but they do often seem to turn right around and agree that believers in different things than they, and nonbelievers, should be considered 'morally inferior' and be ruled by the 'religious' before they've even got their own beliefs figured out, themselves.

Now, I don't mind what someone else believes in, but when they start using the idea to make assertions about the world that cause harm, there's certainly something to be said for challenging the 'authority' that leads to the thought processes.

And, that is a beautiful post, Terra.

Have to say, on the matter of titles, ...does seem only fair, doesn't it? People want to insist we address Catholic priests as 'Father,' (often while not even capitalizing Pagan when it's used as a proper name) while not returning the courtesy with our own clergy.

On the other hand, while I'd be fine calling you Lady, myself, having some context for the tradition, I'm not sure how comfortable we'd all be with the idea of the government passing out those titles... :) (What the heck would they do in England, anyway? :) ) Not all Pagans even necessarily use them.

(*fishing out old credentials.* What am I, here. A 'minister'. Close enough. Does that make me a 'Reverend?' I seem to remember joking about that. :) )

But, I suppose, on the balance, it's mostly a matter of courtesy. Certainly, if a tradition calls its clergy 'Lord' or 'Lady' then that should be just as valid in common usage as any of the other titles people throw around, even if we picked some honorifics that are a bit problematic for certain purposes, out of their context. Would people *get what it means?* In terms of our autonomy and the functions in Circle? Do they have to? :) What about those of us who function as clergy but don't take on those titles? :)

Probably no more problematic than a bunch of Catholic priests getting together and being each others' 'Father' while saying 'Our Father,' though. :)

Though I'm more likely to support most of Dawkin's arguments than your own, you have so far had the best response as a theologan.

The problem with your argument, however, is that while horses cannot know what it's like to be a human, they can see them. Man cannot even prove the existence of a God, much less God's omnipotence or even its personal habits.

I'm obviously not the only one who has made this argument. The problem with faith is that it does not answer any of the higher questions without man made reasoning behind it. Even science itself does not prove that any of its arguments are completely conclusive -- thus the word "theory". But at least it tries to support the theories with observable evidence.

BTW, I like your idea, E Favorite...but I'd want Spong on the believers' side. Cal Thomas's reasoning is too circular to be illuminating.

Spong shows an understanding of not only why religions exist, but also why there are so many. We are all looking for ways express mystery, and to be comforted by community. Religion can do one or the other or both for many people, but it is futile to think we can prescribe what will work for someone else.
Terra: Your comments clarify Spong's column beautifully.

Mr Mark - my sentiments exactly regarding the "incompetent theologian" remark.

Regarding the debate - great idea - I'd pay too, but perhaps "discussion" is a better word, because I think Hitch and the Bishop would have difficulty being on truly opposite sides of a discussion on religion.

Maybe we could have Hitch and the Bishop on one side and Cal Thomas and NT Wright on the other, with the subject being "The future of religion."

Maybe others here can think of other teams and other questions?

Of course religion is man made. God can only be experienced, how can you read about god and think you understand god, or think that god is in the rules of any religion? God is a mystery that each person must journey and discover for themselves.

Can my idea of God fit into your experience of God? No...of course not. The God I experience is not between the pages of a book...but in the sight of a hummingbird sipping from my lantana and salvia. S/he is understood like love...can you explain love? Can you rule it? Can you limit it?

Religion is the rules that man invents to hold people...faith is the centeredness of spirit in connection to that otherness that we call god...

As a Wiccan, to be part of a "religion" that is protected by the First Ammendment, we have had to contort ourselves into rules that our Gods do not make...but man says we have to follow. But it is the same for all religions..the Pope changes the laws to suit that Pope's views...But supposedly they are God's laws? Martin Luther hammers a manifesto on the cathedral door..and God's laws are changed. Jerry Falwell points his chubby fingers at those he does not like, and talks for God.

In Wicca I am clergy and legal in the state I live in..but I can not be called Lady Keir Gazelle...but have to be called Reverend. That is not part of my religion...my tradition is that once you reach a certain amount of learning and proof of character and leadership, then you have earned the title Lady or Lord. That is our "rules". But we have to follow rules that are not even ours.

Reverend has no meaning to us...but we have to adopt it.

I do not much think that Christopher Hitchens is all that great a writer. I find him arrogant and obnoxious, but then that is just my opinion.

terra

"Religion dies without mystery and wonder." What a compelling argument for the death of religion.

Though on this:

"Can horses describe what it means to be human? Of course not!"

I'd say, to a human, of course they can.

If we pay attention. :)

*looking around a bit ...perplexed.*

You know, one of those unconsidered assumptions we seem to inherit from certain brands of religion is the idea that 'There is a perfection and humans must constantly find fault with each other by comparison.'

Well, Bishop, you lost me there. Hitchens is an "incompetent" theologian? He rejects the god that most thinking Xians also reject?

What you're saying makes no sense, unless you're saying that most thinking Xians believe the Bible is a bunch of BS.

How about a live debate? Hitchens against you or any other thinking Xian? I'd pay real money to see that.

Thank you, Bishop Spong,

You have always articulated what I've really felt in my heart and thought in my mind. Despite many decades of faithful attendance at [Episcopal and Presbyterian] churches and participation in Bible studies, I could never accept so much of the cant and the rigidity of doctrine.

Perhaps I'm simple (I do have an earned doctorate, so am not without intellectual capacity entirely), but how can the cruelty over the centuries - in the name of various religions, especially those from the fertile crescent - be ignored or rationalized away in the name of faith? Of course humans cannot comprehend G-D in any realistic way or fathom his/her/its intentions.

CME

See? Even in heaven we make mistakes.

It is not "be" but should have been "by".

Sorry for the error.

--Tillich

Any God that can be killed be advancing understanding; ought to be.

BTW -- the weather in heaven is fine.

--Tillich

Name calling and infantile sarcastic alliteration are harbingers of a profoundly inferior intellect. What exactly is the non sequitur? Only if you claim to have G-d neatly tied up in a very small human box would your view be true. Then Jack's initial thesis is proved by your assertion.

You have severe emotional and learning disabilities. Try some remedial counseling and schooling.

G-d is beyond all human reasoning and devices. Human thinking and language is ever a work in progress never to reach a destination. It cannot capture G-d ever. G-d can only be approached in honest and deeply thoughtful discourse and then only fleetingly -- never completely forever or for all time.

Jack is honest and courageous enough to face this and delve into it. You are not.

I am. Ba'al is. Join us -- we promise to help you face your fears.

sw

Congrats, ----Spongster, you've decimated the Anglican communion, and you've got supporters who call themselves Ba'al.

Your paragraph reduces to:
"God is not completely comprehensible by us, therefore we cannot understand any true
propositions about God."

This is a) a non-sequitur, b) self refuting.

For the most part, this forum has reached a state of advanced petrification where the questions are lacking in interest and the essays in response a predictable. Bishop Spong manages to find something interesting to say, still.