Seasonal religion discussion

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

So you've said.

Might I suggest that God really isn't functionally an AR-15? Neither in the NRA's framing, nor that of reasonable-gun-control advocates? And never intended to be either?

Why is it that this is, for you, where belief or disbelief or relevance hinges?

My question wasn't about guns necessarily, but also fire. If God cannot, or will not, render the church fireproof or a gun inside a church inoperable, my question of "Why is he relevant?" seems appropriate.

I'm pretty sure those inside a church are believers. I'm also pretty sure that if a guy comes in with a gun, they all pray not to get shot or killed.

Believers will make excuses, but I find them hollow. I've often heard people thank God for little successes, such as a ball player hitting a home run, but I've never seen a ball player blame God when he strikes out. I don't think God had a hand in either.

My position has been that everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Even those who don't believe. I'd like to think I've been clear.

What people believe is important. Whether what they believe is true or not is less important.

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

As to the question of miracles and the reality that most of the info about the "miracles" were written at least several decades after the alleged events took place, is it not possible that the writers were acting as "Tout men" in order to sell the product, in this case the religion of Christianity.

Further, would it not also be possible that these bronze age "fabulists", and I use the term cautiously, would be attempting to impress and dazzle a less than educated populace in order to control and extract revenue, servitude, construction of facilities all with the "promise" of a better life in the "next" life?

Take raising the dead. In our lifetimes or maybe just a bit before there was the literal term "dead drunk" where an individual was so inebriated they were thought to be dead and were sometimes buried prematurely. This gave rise to that other well known term; "an Irish wake" where the "deceased" was laid out in the living room of a home for at least 3 days to ensure that they were in fact dead.

In Mexico there's the custom of installing a bell above a coffin buried in the ground with a string running through the ground and into the coffin in case the "deceased" woke up so they could ring the bell in order to escape the grave.

Would it not be a great parlor trick if a historical figure such as Jesus or anyone else for that matter came upon a "dead drunk" individual, recognized the condition and timed a bit of sleight of hand with a smelling salts equivalent or they simply had an understanding as to when the individual was likely to "come to their senses" and they miraculously "raised" the individual from the dead?

We can see magicians on tv performing tricks that would have been seen as miracles back then.

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

You're being too hard on John in this case. What he keeps bringing up is a version of the 'problem of evil', which wiser people than any of us have been struggling with for millennia.

Probably the classic version is Hume paraphrasing Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?” It's a very real problem with the idea of a loving omnipotent God.

That's a complex way of stating it, but it is pretty much what I've been asking. I just limited it to keeping people safe from harm while in one of God's houses. He either won't, or he can't, but either way it begs the question of his relevance.

[John Smith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

No, but it's always good to think. Repeating the same ideas over and over gets you nowhere.

True, and multi-directional.

What I find strange, and perhaps I'm missing something, is I've often stated everyone is entitled to believe as they wish. I just ask they don't force those beliefs upon others.

[CWSmith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

True, and multi-directional.

What I find strange, and perhaps I'm missing something, is I've often stated everyone is entitled to believe as they wish. I just ask they don't force those beliefs upon others.

I get the sense that you combine two different matters.

In one set, people vote their conscience such as their position on abortion. You don't agree with them, so you complain that they are trying to force their religion on you. And yet, you vote your conscience regardless of where it originates (you vote for laws that prevent sexist or racist hiring practices, for instance). That's okay with you because they are your beliefs. If you want to make progress, you need to understand that the playing field is level.

In the other set, some people really do try to force their religious views on others. Posting the Ten Commandments in schools and town halls is a good example. Bringing prayer back into public schools is another. I object to that as well. So did Martin Luther King, Jr.

These are not the same thing. In a free society, we are allowed to make decisions about what powers we have as individuals and what powers the state is allowed. One of those decisions has been, and should be, freedom of religion. That doesn't mean I can't vote my conscience on matters of importance to society. It does mean that you have a right to not be inundated with theological beliefs you do not share.

[Durnik]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

You folks are having a very Christian-centric discussion, there is a wide range of other gods/goddesses/higher powers followed on this planet. There is a bit of narcissism involved in assuming you've picked the right one(s).

ya think?

again, maybe our.. contestants can revisit pascal's wager in light of this?

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

My question wasn't about guns necessarily, but also fire. If God cannot, or will not, render the church fireproof or a gun inside a church inoperable, my question of "Why is he relevant?" seems appropriate.

I'm pretty sure those inside a church are believers. I'm also pretty sure that if a guy comes in with a gun, they all pray not to get shot or killed.

Believers will make excuses, but I find them hollow. I've often heard people thank God for little successes, such as a ball player hitting a home run, but I've never seen a ball player blame God when he strikes out. I don't think God had a hand in either.

Thank you. This helps clarify things.

Biblical scholar Tim Mackie argues that the massive change in framing between ancient Judaism and the religions of the surrounding peoples in the region was Judaism's rejection of a transactional relationship between people and God. On the order of "We'll do this for you, so you'll do that for us." This is the key, distinctive line running through virtually all of Hebrew scripture, the pivot upon which every iconic biblical story turns when read in an accurate understanding of the time. The underpinning is always that God's setting up the context in which to be in relationship with Israel, not Israel setting up the processes to get what they want.

It's a very long and involved conversation to demonstrate this, filled with "well what about that story" instances, but frankly it's historically accurate. We can have that thread elsewhere; in part we have had that thread elsewhere.

Whenever biblical narratives show the People of Israel "fell away" from their covenant with God, that's how they fell. They started into trying to be transactional with God, telling God what to do. That's the story of the Tower of Babel. That's the story of the making a Golden Calf. That's the story of all the muck that the prophets like Elijah or Micah or Amos were responding to as well. Because the religious context among Israel's neighbors was "we'll do this thing, to make our God do that thing - or to prevent that God from doing X." The key point in Israel's story with God is that God not only doesn't work in that transactional way, but that God is seeking (and unilaterally committing to having) a very different kind of relationship.

What we see in transactional models of Christianity - where God'll smite folks for doing X or not doing Y, or where God'll answer requests for a Mercedes-Benz, or a pneumonia cure, or for prosperity - is the dogged re-emergence of exactly the kind of religion which the Hebrew prophets rejected. Which Jesus, in his time, also rejected. But it's become a dominant version of Christianity (especially in American evangelicalism) in our time, just as transactional and syncretic Judaism was the dominant version of Judaism in the time of the prophets Amos, Hosea, Micah etc.

You're not wrong, John, in observing that a transactional version of Christianity doesn't work. That we simply don't see God acting the way one would expect, if God were transactional. God doesn't keep Christians from getting shot in their churches, doesn't even keep clergy from abusing kids they're supposed to nurture and protect. If you think - like most of the folks in ancient Palestine did - that religion is about controlling the deity and calling in favors through doing sacrifices, prayers etc., then you're spot on in recognizing that the model's screwed. It doesn't work. Performance on those metrics is crap.

What the 8thC prophets (and Jesus) say is that what's crap is that model, which puts humans in charge of setting up metrics for God's performance evaluation. That wasn't God's objective, when creation occurred. We aren't in charge of what God does, or how God does it, or whether God's doing well at being God. Relationship is different from control, and for whatever reason, God's indicated (in scripture, and elsewhere) that it's relationship which is the core objective. The thread running through all of the stories, Hebrew scripture and New Testament, is that God's the source of all that is, is life and love itself. And that we're being offered guidance on how to try to align ourselves so we can have our own lives characterized by more of that life and love.

If one doggedly persists in thinking that the Canaanites (old and new) were correct in their view of what religion was for, one's gonna continue stuck in theodicy problems.

[CWSmith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

^ Tom, that is eloquent. I couldn't begin to do as well. I'll be rereading and thinking about this in the days to come.

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

^ Tom, that is eloquent. I couldn't begin to do as well. I'll be rereading and thinking about this in the days to come.

Thanks CW.

That's what the book of Jonah's about too, and Job.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

That's a complex way of stating it, but it is pretty much what I've been asking. I just limited it to keeping people safe from harm while in one of God's houses. He either won't, or he can't, but either way it begs the question of his relevance.

The 'problem of evil' is something people have been trying to figure out for a long time; Epicurus wrote that some 2300 years ago. There isn't an easy solution. With human evil, you can default to 'God lets us do what we want', even though some of us want to do horrible things. But pretty much every region talks about how God will change people's hearts and minds - so why doesn't he do that with somebody about to shoot up an elementary school (or at least mess up his aim)?

It's particularly jarring with varieties of religion that think God responds to requests for assistance in all sorts of small ordinary ways. Tom can talk about not being 'transactional' all he wants, but there are an awful lot of churches that teach and believers who believe that prayers really are answered by divine intervention. But never the prayers of those about to be murdered by a lunatic? Huh?

And then there's the problem of 'natural evil'; all the horrible things that happen with no human will involved at all. There have been lots of attempts at answers, none of them very good IMHO. My remark about requiring a course in parasitology for anyone who believes in a merciful God is only halfway a joke, since most believers sort of stick the problem in the back of the closet and don't think about it too hard. But there's no simple answer; maybe no answer at all. Tom's answer is about as good as you get, but reconciling that with a God that supposedly loves us and cares about us is damnably difficult. I can't do it, anyway.

[CWSmith]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Thanks CW.

That's what the book of Jonah's about too, and Job.

I think I know a bunch of people who don't read them that way. That was illuminating.

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

... is about as good as you get, but reconciling that with a God that supposedly loves us and cares about us is damnably difficult. I can't do it, anyway.

I think, honestly that it can't be reconciled without first abandoning the idea of a transactional relationship where we set the metrics and conduct God's performance evaluation. Epicurus was correct: in a transactional model between humans and the deity, if there's no reliable value or return on our investment, what's the point? God is at best irrelevant. We'd be far better off risk-managing our own wellbeing (to the degree we can define it) without the distraction.

Do you remember that 1970s movie "Oh God!"? There was this great exchange where George Burns (as God) said something like: "OK, I gotta go, got another meeting" and Denver's character exploded in dismay and irritation.

Burns' God puffed on his cigar and said "What? You think you're the only person I talk to?"

I think God loves humans, but not only humans. As Auden memorably put it:

For the error bred in the bone
Of each woman and each man
Craves what it cannot have,
Not universal love
But to be loved alone.

I dunno why God decided the cosmos might do well if stuff could evolve and make their appearance which makes others' lives hideous. It's really hard to give my head a shake and ponder that just maybe God has priorities besides me, or even my species. That's hubris talking, and me being a toddler.

It just isn't about me.

FWIW, the actual biblical story arc focuses incredibly little about what we're now convinced is Christianity's point: individuals having a grand narrative arc culminating in the finale of Judgement and going to Heaven or Hell. That's an understandable preoccupation, but in terms of biblical focus it's bullsh#t, and narcissistic. The biblical narrative doesn't revolve around us. It's God's storyline. About some of the stuff God's doing with multiple levers to get that "...on Earth as it is in Heaven" thing happening.

We're bit players - and not even the only bit players God loves madly and irresponsibly. I've certainly found that when I take steps to follow up on the relationship God wants my life is loads more manageable even when there's sh#t happening in it. Especially when there's sh#t happening, actually. Makes me a whole lot more resilient. I've needed that a lot at times.

But my thing with God doesn't preclude God doting on botflies and parasitic worms too, I guess. For reasons that I can't begin to fathom.

Job couldn't fathom it either.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

I find it very hard to tell the difference between a deity that cares about everything, and one that cares about nothing. Or isn't there at all. But what do I know?

[TomF]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

why would a deity which created everything not care about everything?

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Seasonal religion discussion

Don't ask me. What I don't know about deities would fill libraries.