Mark Adams, the high and mighty, hypocritical, bloviator. (mail) (www):
I'm with you, but my conclusion wasn't so much an epiphany as an evolution coupled with a rejection of organized religion as more interested in political/power manipulation than making the world a better place.
Jesus? Great philosophy, same with Budda, the Dahli Lama and of course, Bill and Ted: Be Excellent To Each Other!
Once you have solidified your idea of good vs. bad, what more can the church teach you, except to validate that you are still a good person despite the horrible things you keep doing? But that's me.
I loved George Carlin's take years ago. "Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If it feels good, great. But let's stop nailing shoes on the natives' feet."
My book would be the Tao of Spock. The logic of Vulcan had great (and geeky) appeal to a teenager being raised by an emotional roller-coaster of a mom.
Good and bad? We all reach that conclusion in our own way based on our life experiences. A person doesn't need a "God" in order to radiate goodness and morality. I'd be willing to bet you that all 100% of the atheists that I know consider rape, incest, murder, burglary, domestic abuse, etc to be morally wrong... yet we acknowledge no God. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists, while some of the more immoral people I've run into claim to be Christians. Now, I know this is because there are more people claiming to be believers than non-believers, but that's just my personal observation.
The lamest excuse/justification I see from certain believers comes in the form of bumper stickers. "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." That is like a license to "sin." I mean, if you believe in a Holy and mighty divine being that sacrificed his son for the world, how can you encompass that with something a trivial as a fucking bumper sticker?!?
Tim- Could it be that you are reading more into the bumper sticker than there is? Could it be possible that the person just thought it was funny? I find it stupid for people to put any bumper stickers on their cars, but that is just me!
As for your obsevations as to the more immoral people being the believers...could it not be that you look for that type of justification for your beliefs? What are you using as a basis for moral/immoral behaviour? I find it best not to attack ones religious beliefs. My 17 year old neice (Catholic) is dating a Christian Reformer..he and his pastor have informed her that she is not a Christian because she is not part of the CRCC...Am I going to attack all CRCC members? No, in this case neice needs to work out her relationship. I and my family have the right to not accept him into our fold..not because of his religion, but because he is an asshole!
pam, I definately NOT looking for justification for my beliefs. Actually, I want to believe that God exists, but it ain't so.
On to the bumper sticker issue. Yes, perhaps it is petty and trivial for me to criticize believers who want us to "honk if you love Jesus" but to me, that sort of trivializes that person's expression of faith.
The entire issue with your niece pretty much sums up the ridiculous nature of organized religion when it comes to doctrine. Now, I know that organized Christianity has done far more good than bad in the last 75 years, so there is at least progress, but critical disagreements in doctrine underscore the fact that it's still just a power struggle over control. Additionally, denominations/sects that exclude others due to minor articles of faith (sprinkling versus immersion) are shallow and ultimately divisive in spreading the teachings of Jesus.
And all that disagreement and bickering over a supreme being that doesn't even exist. When was the last time a mob of atheists attacked a mosque, church, or temple to spread their lack of belief.
How laid back am I as an atheist? I'm not opposed to prayer before football games, or even the posting of the 10 Commandments in or outside a state courthouse. "In God We Trust" you say? Sure, knock yourself out. You don't see me trying to lynch Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (the tooth fairy? that's another story. I want to kill that little sprite!).
Thomas Jefferson said it best: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
And he may have been the most enlightened American in history. (With George Carlin coming in a close second.)
Tim, I think the reason atheism is so violently opposed by most Americans are atheist have made themselves the state relgion. Everyone is terrified of having a nativity scene on the lawn of the courthouse, but we can't say that atheism is a bad thing. That's offensive to atheist to call them a relgion, that's all ya'll are by and large. You're nuts! You're the Southern Baptists of anti-relgion. Too many atheists are out for POWER. They don't give a shit about anyone's views, beliefs, or Constitutional Rights. No one has rights to far too many atheists if they believe in God. You may be a different stripe of atheist, hell you may be agnostic but the flat out "it ain't so" indicates otherwise to me. Personally, I'm a neo-classical pagan. Crosses don't scare me, never have. The world will not grind to a halt if atheists are forced to see a cross on a tombstone in a public cemetary, or if a chaplain is in the military, or if there is an opening prayer at a graduation ceremony, if Bush places his hand on a Bible, or the Supreme Court has religious law givers pictured. Time for some spoilt-ass brats to grow-up and act like adults. That and pretend they think other Americans are entitled to the same rights they DEMAND at all times.
Oh, and the Tooth Fairy my friend is not a sprite. Though I do belive the little bastards are not part of the Seely Court...
Now, as for bumper stickers. I'll take those over tracts any day. I find them idiotic myself, but if that's how someone chooses to show their faith, that's their business. I can opt NOT to honk for Jesus.
Is there a God? All empirical evidence points to no. 2,000 years of data collection and nothing. However, in that 2,000 years of data collection, they estimated the age of the solar system in the BILLIONS of years. Scientists in the last 1000 years have come of with theories on how the universe &solar system started. The Big BANG theory being the most popular. But no one can be certain.
I believe in God. Because I have the faith to know that my being here didn't just happen because two amino acids got together a million or so years ago. Somehow, someway, SOMETHING brought me here. It wasn't just my Mom &Dad's desire to have a son after a run of bad luck (er, I mean 3 girls ). I know that if Rose had become Robert and my sister Jane was born on schedule. There would have been no Alice or Jerry.
Somehow, someway, SOMETHING brought me here. I believe that something to
be God.
Tim- Thanks for taking the time to answer me with good solid points! I appreciate that. Now I have a question about this statement...
"atheism is a religion too."
How can that be? I know that you are attributing it to others that question your non-belief, but in my mind, atheists are non religous people. No better nor worse than a believer. How than can someone claim that atheism is a religion?
How can that be? I know that you are attributing it to others that question your non-belief, but in my mind, atheists are non religous people.
Not addressed to me, but as a current atheist and a former Christian (even taught Sunday school), I frequently explain my beliefs that way (as a form of religion), especially to my kids. It's a belief system, like any other. I don't know for a fact, for example, what happens to us after we die. I believe that we just stop, but it's a belief. Faith, in other words. Similarily, my moral beliefs are founded on my personal understanding of the nature of humanity, but they too are based on faith rather than any proven fact.
pam, I am NOT claiming that atheism is a religion. In fact, it is NOT a religion for this atheist. What I stated was that Christians often point out that "atheism is a religion." In their defense, there are atheist groups that have regular meetings, and I've been to some of them, but they are not formal nor would they pass for anything resembling a religious group and they certainly aren't advocating violent revolution.
Good and bad? We all reach that conclusion in our own way based on our life experiences. A person doesn't need a "God" in order to radiate goodness and morality.
In other words, everyone decides right from wrong for themselves. You might believe that stealing, for example, is wrong. But if I believe stealing is fine, can you make a moral argument against it?
The concept of "atheism is a religion too" is usually intended towards the "militant atheist" or the "proslyterizing atheist" (or the "All organized religion, but especially X-ian-ity, is inherently evil and intolerant, and no I don't see the irony in saying that" atheists).
The atheism (small 'a', I would guess) of Tim the Soldier and Stephen den Beste is truly a-theism. Lack of theism. The others (Newdow-types) tend to be anti-theists, but they both are labelled, and label themselves as, a-theists.
Ted - I'm somewhat sympathetic towards your intended point, you might want to rephrase the argument, since the word 'stealing' axiomatically assumes wrongness.
An atheism allows everyone to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Um, so does a multitude of religions. Those not agreeing with the moral principles of a religion choose to not belong to it, right?
And I'd like to think that my neighbors are not robbing me and shooting at my cat because they believe those things morally wrong rather than simply because a book or minister has told them they shouldn't.
We all have the choice of what we want to believe. My point is, since atheists decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, there is no reason why they should think robbing you or shooting your cat is morally wrong. Some will think it is wrong and some will think it's OK. If you want to find out how many think it's OK to rob you, leave your house unlocked for a couple of days.
My point is, since atheists decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, there is no reason why they should think robbing you or shooting your cat is morally wrong.
Very probably. And I'm fine with people making up their own minds about what is moral behaviour and what is not.
I think you guys are sort of confusing morality with cultural norms. Societies decide what is taboo in the interest of the group as a whole and use laws to enforce the rules. The more civilized the society, the more protection the culture provides the individual's right to live without the interference of fellow citizens while still protecting the welfare of the society as a whole.
Laws are primarily intended to design a framework of respect for the rights of all individuals to live in safety and peace. Morality raises the ante a notch over mere legality IMO. Morals come from a devotion to a higher power whether it be to a belief in God or a belief in the ascendancy of man. Those who lack faith in the existence of God usually place their faith in something outside themselves such as humanity. All people of conscience have faith. It simply takes on a variety of expressions. Man's nature demands faith in order to keep striving in life to achieve. Without achievement, we are in dispair. Without faith, we achieve nothing. Hope and faith are inextricably intertwined. The key question is what is your faith placed in? God or Man?
I don’t know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts be they atheist or not, but I do know that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Light and the darkness couldn’t overcome it, and then the Word was made flesh and the ideal became located in the real. And in the real, mind and spirit evolved in a concrete way. Anyhow, as some may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it and without it nothing was made that was made. And it shines in the darkness, but most dorks don't comprehend. In addition, the world is intelligible because we are an image of the process that made it.
And so tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, I shall go to my church and have a person I do not know in funny clothing place ashes on my forehead as he pronounces the words, “ remember thou art dust and unto dust that shall return.” And in that act of humility, the process of Lent , the season of draining the psychic swamp begins and the eternal which is anterior to our surface being and anterior to our carefully reasoned rational thinking will find a place to reveal itself. Of course the psychic flatlanders will look at their clocks and wonder what are they talking about.
And it shines in the darkness, but most dorks don't comprehend. ... Of course the psychic flatlanders will look at their clocks and wonder what are they talking about.
At least the dorks aren't crass enough to label those who DO believe this as "dorks," or mistakenly assume that those who believe different from themselves are "flatlanders."
Well, perhaps some are, but I don't see them here.
By the way, regarding your announcement about your pious intentions tomorrow, you might want to give Matthew 6:5 a re-read.
I'd be more than happy to read Matthew 6:5 but I don't have any pious intentions. I am more interested in draining the psychic swamp. If you really want to know where I am coming from, be so kind enough to read:
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
Like I said, I don't know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts nor do you know any signs I may have on the back of my sweatshirt. Nor was I playing I'm better than anyone else.
I can only assume Matthew 6:5 involves those with chips on their shoulder.
So what is your real beef ?. The use of the word dorks ?
I have no beef, nor a chip, McK, I was just commenting on your unflattering labelling of those that don't "see the light." I hope you enjoy your act of humility tomorrow, and any subsequent draining.
McKiernan - thanks for your sentiments even though for some reason it appears that Dork is a huge insult to some readers. Actually, as a Protestant Christian, I'm inspired by your Catholic devotion to the season of Lent and will comtemplate this aspect of worship more deeply in the light of your comments.
John's characterization of God as "the Word" is most poetical and mystical of all the Biblical authors IMO. I find writings attributed to John as the most simple and sublime in all scripture even the imagery of the Book of Revelation. His Gospel and epistles are focused on God represented as "light" and how one recognizes those who live for God. Few of us reach the ideal he sets forth but the prime lesson throughout scripture of the Judeo-Christian relationship between God and man is not that ultimately we can achieve perfection on our own merit but that the God we worship is merciful in His Holiness and through His mercy we are forgiven our faults and even our intentional lapses of morality when we seek Him. We are frail creatures who often disappoint other humans. Thank the God of Heaven that He sees us as new-born-babes, innocent in our faith.
For many years of my life, I placed my faith in myself and mankind alone. Now I place it in God. God is better.
McKiernan - thanks for your sentiments even though for some reason it appears that Dork is a huge insult to some readers.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's a huge insult to some readers. A mild insult, like "idiot" or "dick" (remembering that "dork" actually means "penis").
I trust that some readers would then not be insulted if I referred to, say, Christians as idiots because they do not share my belief system? Or would "dicks" be less offensive?
I apologize for my ungracious Dork comment. You do seem to take personal umbrage at the oddest things but that is perhaps more an aspect of cultural differences between Canadians and Americans, I suppose. The underdog thing, maybe. I also think you may have a problem with the subtlities of hyperbole and sarcasm. "Huge" was hyperbole, a common technique for emphasis. I do regret even commenting on it (Dork) as you offered appreciation for my comments on the difference between legal and moral etc and I was pleased by your response. Most of the time I appreciate what you have to say on many subjects althougth I often disagree.
Anyway, dork in the US is akin to nerd and never "dick". It's acceptable in polite society much more than dick is (which here, is clearly a euphemism for penis). Dick head is the most common form I've seen for many years but is usually meant in a humorous way albeit not to flatter by any means. As my husband says, "dork" could be considered "a term of endearment" and is, as you say, only mildly disrespectful at least to most Americans.
Anyway, Matthew 6:5 does not preclude public forms of worship but only a censure of those who pray only for benefit of their public reputation and not for true worship and contemplation. I'm sure you didn't mean to judge McKiernan's motives for his observance of the Ash Wednesday ritural. Christ's teaching was meant to inspire real prayer, seeking God's will.
The verses following Matther 6:5 gave us the Lord's Prayer which is the example Christ wants believers to follow...acknowledging God's supreme position in Heaven, His Holiness, seeking His will in our lives, a supplication for our sustenance and well being and most importantly emphasizing our need for repentance and forgiveness.
Well enough of my sermonizing. Sorry to ramble on but I always am interested when non-Christians use the Bible to express their thoughts. I'll be quite now.
I'm sure you didn't mean to judge McKiernan's motives for his observance of the Ash Wednesday ritural.
Absolutely not, I have great repect for all who are devout, and who participate in acts such as these, which I'm sure are beneficial and which are usually done with respect for traditions well over a thousand years old. I also have no problems with public expression of religious devotion.
I was instead judging the motives behind publicly and proudly announcing a pious act of humility, which seem to somewhat inconsistent. I have considerably less respect for those who make such announcements, which is why I invoked the Gospel, which I think appropriate in this case.
Regarding "dork" - well, I hesitate to pull out the dictionary again, as that always causes a fluster here, but the word definitely means "penis," probably deriving from the similar word "dirk." It may not always be used in that sense, but then again, neither is "dick."
At any rate, my main point was that I consider it rude and arrogant (and decidedly un-Christian, for that matter) to, in one post, twice call people names simply because they don't share one's particular faith, regardless of what those names are. Doing so indicates contempt for others simply because of their belief.
To your credit it is good to know that you challenge others motives based solely on your own entrenched views. As a non-believer quoting the bible seems difficult as well. So tell us more please. You have a problem with my commentary in which I attacked no-one, used the word dorks once and psychic flatlanders once, and referred to Ash Wednesday and that I was going to attend church and somehow that ought not be a public act worthy of comment on the cyberspace of pure intention internet.
Now, please don't quote the bible, I'm not proddy. And please do hesitate and not pull out the dictionary or the bible again.
I doubt I have imposed any stress on the blogosphere as a result of my initial comment. And I'm sure Sgt.Snyder can well defend himself.
I'll give you a clue to my thinking. When something you read hits you in your comfort zone, its a wake up call.
And kindly inform us where the contempt part comes in.
To your credit it is good to know that you challenge others motives based solely on your own entrenched views.
What "entrenched views" are you referring to?
As a non-believer quoting the bible seems difficult as well.
I'm sorry, I can make neither head nor tail of that.
You have a problem with my commentary in which I attacked no-one...
Who did you refer to as "dorks" and "flatlanders"? Perhaps I misread your intent, or possibly you don't think that non-believers should be offended when they're called names, or possibly you don't think that name-calling is offensive. Please let me know which it is, and I will apologize if I misunderstood.
Now, please don't quote the bible...
Why on Earth not? There's a lot of good stuff in there.
I doubt I have imposed any stress on the blogosphere as a result of my initial comment.
I doubt it too.
I'll give you a clue to my thinking. When something you read hits you in your comfort zone, its a wake up call.
As I seem to have hit something in your comfort zone, you might apply the same thinking to your own situation.
Cool. We are making progress. Certainly, its content is something with which one may disagree. But, that was the parameter within which I was using the word dork and psychic flatlanders and I told you so. I wasn't attacking anyone's religious nor non-religious understanding. Those were his terms in his description of his worldview. That we live in a transcendental world which we do not understand independent of anyone's specific belief and those understandings can be interpreted within a horizontal and a vertical dimension. In a sense the dorks and the psychic flatlanders are those who refuse to acknowledge but only one of the two dimensions. .
So I transposed his words from:
“Consciousness is refracted through the lens of this nervous system, and is as boundless and inexhaustible as our dream life. ….In fact, consciousness is the reason why there is so much beautiful and meaningful novelty instead of mere chaos and ugliness. As you may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it, and without it nothing was made that was made. It shines in the dark, but the dorks don't comprehend it.”
to: my own terminology to engage the Tao of Christ mis-understandings that reduced the entire bible to two lines of Matthew 25. My words:
“I don’t know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts be they atheist or not, but I do know that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Light and the darkness couldn’t overcome it, and then the Word was made flesh and the ideal became located in the real. And in the real, mind and spirit evolved in a concrete way. Anyhow, as some may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it and without it nothing was made that was made. And it shines in the darkness, but most dorks don't comprehend. In addition, the world is intelligible because we are an image of the process that made it.”
then, I said:
“And so tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, I shall go to my church and have a person I do not know in funny clothing place ashes on my forehead as he pronounces the words, “ remember thou art dust and unto dust that shall return.”
Now kindly tell us how your oxen have been gored by a simple comment on QOAE which you seem determined to take out of context.
Answers do not require more questions unless only serious.
Now kindly tell us how your oxen have been gored by a simple comment on QOAE which you seem determined to take out of context.
Well, first of all, none of my oxen have been gored, as I've stated. But nevertheless, if you transpose someone else's words that include mild namecalling without stating that your intention is to quote other people's namecalling without wishing to suffer the consequences of namecalling (in this case some readers coming to the conclusion that you're arrogant about your beliefs, and think that those who don't share them are dorks), then should definitely say so at the time.
As for taking it out of context, as you didn't specify any context, and I am one of the unbelievers (aka "dorks"), I think I might be forgiven for concluding at that time that you are a nitwit.
You're close but you still missed the mark. The dorks and the psychic flatlanders can be either believers or non-believers. The requirement is that they are unaware or only acknowledge one dimension.
N'est pas ?
I'm afraid that I've still been labelled a dork, as I take your initial post to be cryptic superstitious mumbo-jumbo. Normally I don't make judgement on that sort of thing, but in this case I become a dork if I don't buy into it, so I feel the need.
Jesus? Great philosophy, same with Budda, the Dahli Lama and of course, Bill and Ted: Be Excellent To Each Other!
Once you have solidified your idea of good vs. bad, what more can the church teach you, except to validate that you are still a good person despite the horrible things you keep doing? But that's me.
I loved George Carlin's take years ago. "Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If it feels good, great. But let's stop nailing shoes on the natives' feet."
My book would be the Tao of Spock. The logic of Vulcan had great (and geeky) appeal to a teenager being raised by an emotional roller-coaster of a mom.
Good and bad? We all reach that conclusion in our own way based on our life experiences. A person doesn't need a "God" in order to radiate goodness and morality. I'd be willing to bet you that all 100% of the atheists that I know consider rape, incest, murder, burglary, domestic abuse, etc to be morally wrong... yet we acknowledge no God. Some of the most moral people I know are atheists, while some of the more immoral people I've run into claim to be Christians. Now, I know this is because there are more people claiming to be believers than non-believers, but that's just my personal observation.
The lamest excuse/justification I see from certain believers comes in the form of bumper stickers. "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." That is like a license to "sin." I mean, if you believe in a Holy and mighty divine being that sacrificed his son for the world, how can you encompass that with something a trivial as a fucking bumper sticker?!?
As for your obsevations as to the more immoral people being the believers...could it not be that you look for that type of justification for your beliefs? What are you using as a basis for moral/immoral behaviour? I find it best not to attack ones religious beliefs. My 17 year old neice (Catholic) is dating a Christian Reformer..he and his pastor have informed her that she is not a Christian because she is not part of the CRCC...Am I going to attack all CRCC members? No, in this case neice needs to work out her relationship. I and my family have the right to not accept him into our fold..not because of his religion, but because he is an asshole!
On to the bumper sticker issue. Yes, perhaps it is petty and trivial for me to criticize believers who want us to "honk if you love Jesus" but to me, that sort of trivializes that person's expression of faith.
The entire issue with your niece pretty much sums up the ridiculous nature of organized religion when it comes to doctrine. Now, I know that organized Christianity has done far more good than bad in the last 75 years, so there is at least progress, but critical disagreements in doctrine underscore the fact that it's still just a power struggle over control. Additionally, denominations/sects that exclude others due to minor articles of faith (sprinkling versus immersion) are shallow and ultimately divisive in spreading the teachings of Jesus.
And all that disagreement and bickering over a supreme being that doesn't even exist. When was the last time a mob of atheists attacked a mosque, church, or temple to spread their lack of belief.
How laid back am I as an atheist? I'm not opposed to prayer before football games, or even the posting of the 10 Commandments in or outside a state courthouse. "In God We Trust" you say? Sure, knock yourself out. You don't see me trying to lynch Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny (the tooth fairy? that's another story. I want to kill that little sprite!).
Thomas Jefferson said it best: "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
And he may have been the most enlightened American in history. (With George Carlin coming in a close second.)
Oh, and the Tooth Fairy my friend is not a sprite. Though I do belive the little bastards are not part of the Seely Court...
Now, as for bumper stickers. I'll take those over tracts any day. I find them idiotic myself, but if that's how someone chooses to show their faith, that's their business. I can opt NOT to honk for Jesus.
Is there a God? All empirical evidence points to no. 2,000 years of data collection and nothing. However, in that 2,000 years of data collection, they estimated the age of the solar system in the BILLIONS of years. Scientists in the last 1000 years have come of with theories on how the universe &solar system started. The Big BANG theory being the most popular. But no one can be certain.
I believe in God. Because I have the faith to know that my being here didn't just happen because two amino acids got together a million or so years ago. Somehow, someway, SOMETHING brought me here. It wasn't just my Mom &Dad's desire to have a son after a run of bad luck (er, I mean 3 girls
Somehow, someway, SOMETHING brought me here. I believe that something to
be God.
How can that be? I know that you are attributing it to others that question your non-belief, but in my mind, atheists are non religous people. No better nor worse than a believer. How than can someone claim that atheism is a religion?
Lay off the tooth fairy! I like her!
Not addressed to me, but as a current atheist and a former Christian (even taught Sunday school), I frequently explain my beliefs that way (as a form of religion), especially to my kids. It's a belief system, like any other. I don't know for a fact, for example, what happens to us after we die. I believe that we just stop, but it's a belief. Faith, in other words. Similarily, my moral beliefs are founded on my personal understanding of the nature of humanity, but they too are based on faith rather than any proven fact.
In other words, everyone decides right from wrong for themselves. You might believe that stealing, for example, is wrong. But if I believe stealing is fine, can you make a moral argument against it?
The atheism (small 'a', I would guess) of Tim the Soldier and Stephen den Beste is truly a-theism. Lack of theism. The others (Newdow-types) tend to be anti-theists, but they both are labelled, and label themselves as, a-theists.
Not to those that believe it is OK. An atheism allows everyone to decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Um, so does a multitude of religions. Those not agreeing with the moral principles of a religion choose to not belong to it, right?
And I'd like to think that my neighbors are not robbing me and shooting at my cat because they believe those things morally wrong rather than simply because a book or minister has told them they shouldn't.
Very probably. And I'm fine with people making up their own minds about what is moral behaviour and what is not.
Laws are primarily intended to design a framework of respect for the rights of all individuals to live in safety and peace. Morality raises the ante a notch over mere legality IMO. Morals come from a devotion to a higher power whether it be to a belief in God or a belief in the ascendancy of man. Those who lack faith in the existence of God usually place their faith in something outside themselves such as humanity. All people of conscience have faith. It simply takes on a variety of expressions. Man's nature demands faith in order to keep striving in life to achieve. Without achievement, we are in dispair. Without faith, we achieve nothing. Hope and faith are inextricably intertwined. The key question is what is your faith placed in? God or Man?
I don’t know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts be they atheist or not, but I do know that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Light and the darkness couldn’t overcome it, and then the Word was made flesh and the ideal became located in the real. And in the real, mind and spirit evolved in a concrete way. Anyhow, as some may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it and without it nothing was made that was made. And it shines in the darkness, but most dorks don't comprehend. In addition, the world is intelligible because we are an image of the process that made it.
And so tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, I shall go to my church and have a person I do not know in funny clothing place ashes on my forehead as he pronounces the words, “ remember thou art dust and unto dust that shall return.” And in that act of humility, the process of Lent , the season of draining the psychic swamp begins and the eternal which is anterior to our surface being and anterior to our carefully reasoned rational thinking will find a place to reveal itself. Of course the psychic flatlanders will look at their clocks and wonder what are they talking about.
At least the dorks aren't crass enough to label those who DO believe this as "dorks," or mistakenly assume that those who believe different from themselves are "flatlanders."
Well, perhaps some are, but I don't see them here.
By the way, regarding your announcement about your pious intentions tomorrow, you might want to give Matthew 6:5 a re-read.
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
Like I said, I don't know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts nor do you know any signs I may have on the back of my sweatshirt. Nor was I playing I'm better than anyone else.
I can only assume Matthew 6:5 involves those with chips on their shoulder.
So what is your real beef ?. The use of the word dorks ?
John's characterization of God as "the Word" is most poetical and mystical of all the Biblical authors IMO. I find writings attributed to John as the most simple and sublime in all scripture even the imagery of the Book of Revelation. His Gospel and epistles are focused on God represented as "light" and how one recognizes those who live for God. Few of us reach the ideal he sets forth but the prime lesson throughout scripture of the Judeo-Christian relationship between God and man is not that ultimately we can achieve perfection on our own merit but that the God we worship is merciful in His Holiness and through His mercy we are forgiven our faults and even our intentional lapses of morality when we seek Him. We are frail creatures who often disappoint other humans. Thank the God of Heaven that He sees us as new-born-babes, innocent in our faith.
For many years of my life, I placed my faith in myself and mankind alone. Now I place it in God. God is better.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that it's a huge insult to some readers. A mild insult, like "idiot" or "dick" (remembering that "dork" actually means "penis").
I trust that some readers would then not be insulted if I referred to, say, Christians as idiots because they do not share my belief system? Or would "dicks" be less offensive?
I apologize for my ungracious Dork comment. You do seem to take personal umbrage at the oddest things but that is perhaps more an aspect of cultural differences between Canadians and Americans, I suppose. The underdog thing, maybe. I also think you may have a problem with the subtlities of hyperbole and sarcasm. "Huge" was hyperbole, a common technique for emphasis. I do regret even commenting on it (Dork) as you offered appreciation for my comments on the difference between legal and moral etc and I was pleased by your response. Most of the time I appreciate what you have to say on many subjects althougth I often disagree.
Anyway, dork in the US is akin to nerd and never "dick". It's acceptable in polite society much more than dick is (which here, is clearly a euphemism for penis). Dick head is the most common form I've seen for many years but is usually meant in a humorous way albeit not to flatter by any means. As my husband says, "dork" could be considered "a term of endearment" and is, as you say, only mildly disrespectful at least to most Americans.
Anyway, Matthew 6:5 does not preclude public forms of worship but only a censure of those who pray only for benefit of their public reputation and not for true worship and contemplation. I'm sure you didn't mean to judge McKiernan's motives for his observance of the Ash Wednesday ritural. Christ's teaching was meant to inspire real prayer, seeking God's will.
The verses following Matther 6:5 gave us the Lord's Prayer which is the example Christ wants believers to follow...acknowledging God's supreme position in Heaven, His Holiness, seeking His will in our lives, a supplication for our sustenance and well being and most importantly emphasizing our need for repentance and forgiveness.
Well enough of my sermonizing. Sorry to ramble on but I always am interested when non-Christians use the Bible to express their thoughts. I'll be quite now.
Carry on.
Absolutely not, I have great repect for all who are devout, and who participate in acts such as these, which I'm sure are beneficial and which are usually done with respect for traditions well over a thousand years old. I also have no problems with public expression of religious devotion.
I was instead judging the motives behind publicly and proudly announcing a pious act of humility, which seem to somewhat inconsistent. I have considerably less respect for those who make such announcements, which is why I invoked the Gospel, which I think appropriate in this case.
Regarding "dork" - well, I hesitate to pull out the dictionary again, as that always causes a fluster here, but the word definitely means "penis," probably deriving from the similar word "dirk." It may not always be used in that sense, but then again, neither is "dick."
At any rate, my main point was that I consider it rude and arrogant (and decidedly un-Christian, for that matter) to, in one post, twice call people names simply because they don't share one's particular faith, regardless of what those names are. Doing so indicates contempt for others simply because of their belief.
To your credit it is good to know that you challenge others motives based solely on your own entrenched views. As a non-believer quoting the bible seems difficult as well. So tell us more please. You have a problem with my commentary in which I attacked no-one, used the word dorks once and psychic flatlanders once, and referred to Ash Wednesday and that I was going to attend church and somehow that ought not be a public act worthy of comment on the
cyberspace of pure intentioninternet.Now, please don't quote the bible, I'm not proddy. And please do hesitate and not pull out the dictionary or the bible again.
I doubt I have imposed any stress on the blogosphere as a result of my initial comment. And I'm sure Sgt.Snyder can well defend himself.
I'll give you a clue to my thinking. When something you read hits you in your comfort zone, its a wake up call.
And kindly inform us where the contempt part comes in.
What "entrenched views" are you referring to?
As a non-believer quoting the bible seems difficult as well.
I'm sorry, I can make neither head nor tail of that.
You have a problem with my commentary in which I attacked no-one...
Who did you refer to as "dorks" and "flatlanders"? Perhaps I misread your intent, or possibly you don't think that non-believers should be offended when they're called names, or possibly you don't think that name-calling is offensive. Please let me know which it is, and I will apologize if I misunderstood.
Now, please don't quote the bible...
Why on Earth not? There's a lot of good stuff in there.
I doubt I have imposed any stress on the blogosphere as a result of my initial comment.
I doubt it too.
I'll give you a clue to my thinking. When something you read hits you in your comfort zone, its a wake up call.
As I seem to have hit something in your comfort zone, you might apply the same thinking to your own situation.
Did you read One Cosmos website ?
So I transposed his words from:
“Consciousness is refracted through the lens of this nervous system, and is as boundless and inexhaustible as our dream life. ….In fact, consciousness is the reason why there is so much beautiful and meaningful novelty instead of mere chaos and ugliness. As you may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it, and without it nothing was made that was made. It shines in the dark, but the dorks don't comprehend it.”
to: my own terminology to engage the Tao of Christ mis-understandings that reduced the entire bible to two lines of Matthew 25. My words:
“I don’t know what signs people have on the backs of their sweatshirts be they atheist or not, but I do know that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was Light and the darkness couldn’t overcome it, and then the Word was made flesh and the ideal became located in the real. And in the real, mind and spirit evolved in a concrete way. Anyhow, as some may have heard somewhere, all things were made through it and without it nothing was made that was made. And it shines in the darkness, but most dorks don't comprehend. In addition, the world is intelligible because we are an image of the process that made it.”
then, I said:
“And so tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, I shall go to my church and have a person I do not know in funny clothing place ashes on my forehead as he pronounces the words, “ remember thou art dust and unto dust that shall return.”
Now kindly tell us how your oxen have been gored by a simple comment on QOAE which you seem determined to take out of context.
Answers do not require more questions unless only serious.
Well, first of all, none of my oxen have been gored, as I've stated. But nevertheless, if you transpose someone else's words that include mild namecalling without stating that your intention is to quote other people's namecalling without wishing to suffer the consequences of namecalling (in this case some readers coming to the conclusion that you're arrogant about your beliefs, and think that those who don't share them are dorks), then should definitely say so at the time.
As for taking it out of context, as you didn't specify any context, and I am one of the unbelievers (aka "dorks"), I think I might be forgiven for concluding at that time that you are a nitwit.
N'est pas ?