Originally posted by NemesioWhy not base the religion in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings then? If the veracity of the source cannot be trusted that surely undermines the entire edifice.
I don't think Christianity generally rests on details of Jesus' biography except, perhaps, upon the
details that are in least dispute -- that He died on the cross at the hands of a Romans because He
posed a certain threat to the normative way of life.
Regardless, Christianity is based in part on teachings attributed to Him and in the idea that He died ...[text shortened]... ple (but, who knows! some literalist's faith might
sadly hinge on such details).
Nemesio
Originally posted by scottishinnzReligion is an institution that reminds us that there are things bigger than ourselves that are
Why not base the religion in JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings then? If the veracity of the source cannot be trusted that surely undermines the entire edifice.
worthy of respect and honor. In the revering of those things which are bigger than ourselves,
we should be inspired to virtue, self-improvement and integrity.
That is why some people can find the pursuit of scientific discovery to be a religious sort of
experience (I know I do). It puts us in touch with the universe -- either the very big, or
very small, the beauty in simplicity or in complexity, the awe of the power of fusion or
even the exceptional utility of water! It serves to humble and inspire. I hope that you
this kind of experience from the work that you do.
Can Islam inspire a person as I described above? Yes, of course it can! Can Christianity?
Yes. Can Judaism? Yes. Can secular humanism? Yes. Can JRR Tolkein? I suppose, yes.
The question is, does the historical veracity undermine the potential inspiration? I don't think
that it should. For example, do you think the story of Bambi suffers because it isn't historical?
Of course it doesn't: the triumph of the weak over the strong, the overcoming painful loss, the
role of friends -- all of these things can serve as inspiration.
The participation in that tradition which formed around a corpus of inspiration (historical or not)
can serve as a reminder for a person, to offer a constant source of metaphorical (if not historical)
virtue from which to draw. A person who doesn't respect the story of Jesus (even if that person
rejects His Divinity) I think is poorer for it. A person who doesn't respect the Koran or the
Talmud, I think is poorer for it. And so on.
Does that mean that one should accept every tenet of every tradition? No. Most traditions have
some sort of exclusivity clause, or at least the presumption of being God's chosen people. Does
that mean one should start going to shabat on Saturday? Only if you hear 'God' speak to
you. If going bores you, or if you only go because you're scared you're going to make God angry,
then you're missing the point. A religious tradition is a vehicle for getting in touch with that which
is bigger than yourself. For some it works; for others it's silly pomp and circumstance.
And, so, you could base a religion on the Simarilian, I suppose. If such a religion drove
people to virtue, then I'd be all for it. If it becomes a vehicle for siphoning power from the
masses to the elite, then I'd be against it. (This is why I am generally in favor of theologians
but not the theocracy, I might add.)
At least for me, historical veracity plays almost no role in my religious leanings. The symbolism
employed in the ritual, the significance of that which is articulated and gestured, that's what
brings me closer to God, helps me to remember humility, compassion, and a generous spirit. If
you can get that from JRRT, then you have my explicit blessing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioGood thinking. However Nem, you are one person who doesn't let religion cloud your judgement. You believe in God. That's fine. I don't. That's also fine.
Religion is an institution that reminds us that there are things bigger than ourselves that are
worthy of respect and honor. In the revering of those things which are bigger than ourselves,
we should be inspired to virtue, self-improvement and integrity.
That is why some people can find the pursuit of scientific discovery to be a religious sort of
e . If
you can get that from JRRT, then you have my explicit blessing.
Nemesio
The difference between Bambi and the bible is that people who watch Bambi do not tend to try and set up a Bambocracy, where the teaching that film existed before Bambi is repressed!!
Likewise, I can see similarities too. Anyone believing in Bambi the way that some people believe in the bible would be led to self delusion. The delusion that they are Bambi's chosen people, and would use that to try and wield power over others, even leading to Bambi inspired wars.
[edit; a question though, what if everything in the bible could be shown to be an elaborate hoax (maybe not that elaborate), would you still believe?]
Originally posted by NemesioEven if those 'bigger things' are imaginary?
Religion is an institution that reminds us that there are things bigger than ourselves that are worthy of respect and honor. In the revering of those things which are bigger than ourselves, we should be inspired to virtue, self-improvement and integrity.
That is why some people can find the pursuit of scientific discovery to be a religious sort of experience (I know I do). It puts us in touch with the universe -- either the very big, or very small, the beauty in simplicity or in complexity, the awe of the power of fusion or even the exceptional utility of water! It serves to humble and inspire. I hope that you
this kind of experience from the work that you do.
A 'religious experiences' puts us in touch with the universe? How so? Most things described a 'religious experiences' are exactly the opposite - a journey into the imagination, insanity or dreamland.
A religious tradition is a vehicle for getting in touch with that which
is bigger than yourself. For some it works; for others it's silly pomp and circumstance.
But surely you can only get in touch with it if it exists?
And, so, you could base a religion on the Simarilian, I suppose. If such a religion drove people to virtue, then I'd be all for it. If it becomes a vehicle for siphoning power from the masses to the elite, then I'd be against it. (This is why I am generally in favor of theologians but not the theocracy, I might add.)
So to you, religion has a specific purpose (to drive people to virtue) and the validity of any claims is irrelevant?
Originally posted by twhitehead
Even if those 'bigger things' are imaginary?
Well, if you mean 'God the Old Man with a White Beard sitting on a Golden Throne floating in the
sky' or something, then, yes that entity is imaginary. If you mean the symbolic embodiments of
Pure Love and Self-Sacrifice and Humility, then, I don't think anyone denies that such concepts
exist. It's how (or whether) one decides (as a matter of faith) to attribute those characteristics
singularly to one entity. I find the idea compelling. Others may not and be richer for it.
A 'religious experiences' puts us in touch with the universe? How so? Most things described a 'religious experiences' are exactly the opposite - a journey into the imagination, insanity or dreamland.
A lot of people have this idea about 'a personal Jesus,' that 'Jesus died for ME.' I think
this is the height of arrogance. If God exists (and I am a theist), that He would do something
so that people can say 'God loves me no matter what' and sit on their butts all day and do
nothing to contribute to the world, well, that's just totally bogus. That is self-centeredness at
its worst and have no respect for that.
A person who is in touch with the Divine is a person who is in a state of perpetual wonder and
awe. A religious service isn't supposed to be about ME ME ME, but about how the 'ME' can
contribute to the 'YOU' and the 'Y'ALL' at large. I didn't mean that religious services put you
in touch with Mars, but that they ought to make you aware that you are a part of a whole and
have a certain (virtuous) duty to the people and world around you, that you're part of the
holistic unfolding of the universe, small but significant (just like the butterfly flapping its wings).
So to you, religion has a specific purpose (to drive people to virtue) and the validity of any claims is irrelevant?
If I found out Joe-Schmoe told the story about the Prodigal Son and St Luke didn't like Joe and
attributed to Jesus instead, then it would make no difference to me (just like I still like pieces
that are no longer attributed to J.S. Bach). The validity of the story is not wedded to the storyteller.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioWhat if your religion called for female circumcision for driving people to virtue? It's all well and fine to say you're for the promotion of virtue, but the difficulty is defining what virtue is exactly. The problem with religion is that their particular version of virtue becomes codified and inflexible (it is, after all, the word of god). So we are left with religions upholding clearly barbaric practices as being necessary for virtue.
And, so, you could base a religion on the Simarilian, I suppose. If such a religion drove people to virtue, then I'd be all for it.
Originally posted by NemesioThat a Jewish man at that age would be unmarried is at the very least unusual.
Are you suggesting that Jesus knew that He was going to die, say, from
the time He was a pre-pubescent kid? Keep in mind that most people
think that Jesus was around 30 or so when He was crucified. That a
Jewish man at that age would be unmarried is at the very least unusual.
Why do you think that a healthy sexual relationship would make
'being foc ...[text shortened]... as a distraction from
focusing on other things rather than sexual fullfillment.
Nemesio
Unusual, perhaps. Unheard of -- are you claiming there were no unmarried 30-year-olds in Judea?
