h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

You can see into the Pope's mind, Andrew?




az

'I didn't feel happy with the idea that God knew everything I was up to, until I cam across the specifically Christian concept of Divine Filiation: that we are children of God, so he looks after us as such and loves us.'

So why didn't 'He' look after all the abused children that suffered at the hands of 'His' priests?


Alji

<> (me)
<> (az)

Hi az... Er, you spotted the weak point in my defence, I admit!

<>

True, Alji: the problem of pain is a deep one (deep, that is, for a Christian - I can see that it might not be deep for everyone). I mean, pain in its widest sense, including suffering of all kinds. I think suffering is still compatible with a loving God; of course Christianity is shot through with this belief. Judaism must be too, since one of the classic texts on the subject is the book of Job, in the Old Testament.

This would be a big topic...!

<>

So they don't have to say it's ok for me to have a job without running a household because it "never happens"? Now if that's not sexist, what is it?

Everyone runs a household, Athena, even if they live alone. My brother was an example - he lived alone, and was a better housekeeper than me - you could have eaten off his floors (if for any odd reason, you had wanted to. He was what I believe in the USA, is called a 'Neat-nik".)
I am not sure what you think the church said is anywhere in there at all!

Hi All

Well I am back from the sweltering tropic that is Oslo and see you lot have clocked up 406 posts in my absence. I hope you do not feel insulted when I say that there is no way that I am wading through all that?

I see that all the regulars are still here - good. Any really significant moments I have missed? i.e. Della declaring she is a servant of Anton Lavey or Jez finding a piece of the true cross?

One quick recommendation before i go an make breakfast for the kids - King Arthur the movie. Give it a go. Despite the Hollywood spin it does portray the early Romn Church in all its gory glory. Justin would have been completely at home .

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.

<>

Adelaide: It would be, if anyone ever claimed that to be true... In fact, I have heard that point of view, from some New Agey type reincarnationists, and a woman who was a naturopath claimed that my mother had died of polymyositis, because of her "bad mental attitude" but I have never heard such sh1te from anyone in any "Triple-O" religion!"

I think there's two differing things here, both attempting to sort out the so-called 'problem of pain'.

Beginning with the Christian perspective: unless you're a Deist, pain has to come from God or his agent, or else he is not omnipotent. The story of Job is one take on this. Also, in (IIRC) I Cor chapter 10 there is a statement that God will not test you beyond your strength; this is one reason why suicide was considered a sin, as you were denying this promise as well as the power/authority of God.

Evangelicals tend to view pain and suffering as a trial during which they pray for the strength to endure it and the discernment to understand what God is trying to teach them. The logical extension, which some Christians adopt simply because they are baffled by the subtleties used to disguise this conclusion, is that pain and suffering is sent by God, though not necessarily as a punishment.

As for some of the so-called New Age apporaches, such as that put forward by Chopra (IIRC), these try to consider illness and healing from an holisitic approach, which means a positive attitude is as healing as any other medicine. There seems to be patchy evidence this may help with some forms of cancer. Again, the reverse is that a bad attitude will hinder. But, personally, I cannot see any point at all in blaming someone for their attidue, as that is not likely to help healing.

"I won't go on about the difference, but suppose 'If p, then q', you surely can conclude 'If p&r, then q' and also 'If ~q, then ~p. What you can't conclude is 'If p, then q&s' or 'If ~p, then ~q'!"

OK, toxx. The logic you are using seems to be along the lines of that I used to whimsically apply to my course assignments when I studied for my degree: if my first essay scored 75% for the full 1000 words, and my second 85% for 700 words, then, by wrigin nothing, I should obtain full marks!

Sorry about the typos this morning - I'm working on the laptop and my fingers don't seem to be able ot hti th e kayburd....

"I think it was a case of as societies developed and came into conflict a warrior caste came into being and as it came to dominate society gods in its image became more important"

But Stone Age societies were just as much at war as Bronze Age. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of burned out settlements.

On the whole, the myth of the 'Great Goddess' of the Stone Age cultures of Europe/the world were very popular among some archaeologists, historians and prominent writers such as Renault and Graves, in the 30s and 40s, but have since been discredited. Only Gimbutas, a US feminist archaeologist and her acolytes still stick with it.

For a more balanced take read (if you can find a copy) Professor Ronald Hutton's "The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles". Ron's an historian specialising in pagan religion.

HS, read A Review of Ronald Hutton's 'The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles' @ http://www.suppressedhistories.net/articles/hutton_review.html

quote;
"I was staggered by the intense anti-feminism of this book, whose author has been praised as a reliable source and a rigorous scholar. He clearly has this opinion of himself, but in addition to large helpings of opinion and polemic, his book contains factual errors, mischaracterizations, and outright whoppers. These range from minor (identifying authors Phyllis Chesler and Evelyn Reed as "Chester" and "Read") to major (his claim that female reliefs in Breton megaliths "are the only prehistoric monuments in western Europe to bear the figure of an unmistakable female.")"

Alji

"OK, toxx. The logic you are using seems to be along the lines of that I used to whimsically apply to my course assignments when I studied for my degree..."

I would assume that if logic is mentioned in this forum then, unless otherwise stated,it would be Aristotle's (or Aristotelian) logic and not some obscure form only taught in specialised university courses.

toxx's first premise was a subjective statement and he could give any conclusion he likes.

For quotes from 'The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles; Their Nature and Legacy by Ronald Hutton, 1991.' see

http://www.silver-gateway.com/grove/hutton/rh-quotes1.html


Alji

hi Andrew,

<>

Are you once again unintentionally talking down to people, Andrew?

<>

I don't. Would you care to elaborate? Yes, suffering does happen, but your God *requires* suffering and sacrifice as a means of showing 'love' to Him. How does that work?

Also, you have stated that you believe your God is the one and only True God. How do you back this up, other than simply saying you believe it to be so?

You also side-stepped Alji's very straightforward question about priests who have sexually abused children. I would like to hear you opinion on this. Many court cases are still pending. Many children's lives were upset if not destroyed by priests who sexually abused them. Are you going to tell us none of this happened?

Also, how do you justify your Pope's actions, stated in Fathom's posting 20473:

<>

And when I posted the following to you:

<>

Your comeback was to say that this was simply 'a nice epigram'. That you personally didn't see it in the letter or "in the Pope's mind". I found that a very slippery reply.

C'mon, Andrew. Both of us know that Opus Dei is all about power and control *and* money. Very little god stuff going on there, as far as I can see.

I am certainly not against anyone choosing whatever sort of religious belief that helps get them through the night. But I do take umbrage at vast global organizations that pretend they are preaching the word of God when in fact they are only about power and control.

As is Opus Dei.

Convince me I am wrong about this?


az

HS. The essay marks example you use seems to be more a misuse of mathematics than any system of logic. I'm reminded of the tail-end cricketer who is never got out and therefore has a batting average of infinity!

My examples are from the first-order propositional calculus. Do I need to include a truth-table proof too?

toxx

Hi az! Taking these points in order:

<>
<>

All I meant was, it's obviously a problem for a Christian like me, who believes in a loving God. If you didn't believe in a loving God, then I can see it might not be a deep problem.

<>
<>

Sacrifice and suffering is necessary in some degree in any loving relationship (although I hope this is sorted out in Heaven ). In some respects it goes back to the question of free will, as the will is the faculty associated with love and also rejection. So suffering should not lead us to reject God.

But as a Christian I go further than that, because Jesus (among other things) taught us that suffering can have a redemptive value if taken the right way. This is a conclusion of faith rather than philosophy. C.S. Lewis (not a Catholic) thought that suffering made it easier for people to submit to the will of God. This is also consistent with the tribulations of the Chosen People in the Old Testament (for example) - and their turning back to God, the return from exile, etc.

<>

It's simply a consequence of the kind of God I believe in. I mentioned earlier that I identify the Christian God with the omnipotent creator of everything. I cannot conceive of there being more than one omnipotent creator, more than one 'necessary being'. (In fact 'Yahweh' can be taken to signify this. I remember how much that impressed me as a teenager, and it still does.)

<>

No, I would never do that, and of course it's a disgrace. I wasn't sure how to reply to the original question and I took it as a riposte to what I said about God being a loving God - in fact it was. But of course abuse of children is not to be tolerated and should have been dealt with.

<<<>

I think the pro-condom campaigns are unlikely to help against the spread of HIV, because with every condom used there is a small risk of spread. And condom availability can actually promote promiscuity. If people abstained that would help rather more.

<>

Well, az, I honestly thought it was a witty slogan, and no more. It's what The Guardian said, not what the Papal letter says. The Pope is not a feminist, but I would think he can imagine men doing housework - in fact a successful marriage would require it. Also, other Papal pronouncements deal with women at work, equal rights, salaries, etc.

<>

I would love to, but how? This is not a slippery answer, and maybe it needs more time. But I did not join Opus Dei for any of those things, but because I wanted to try to be a saint while not leaving the job I was doing, and Opus Dei gives formation and spiritual guidance to help with this ('in the midst of the world', as they say).

I see I have not mentioned Opus Dei much in my posts about my religious beliefs. It has an influence insofar as members receive a formation in theology. But it doesn't affect points of basic Catholic doctrine (e.g. whether God exists), because I had already thought about these things for years before joining Opus Dei.

Hi az:

In the above post I wasn't happy with my response on suffering, so here's another attempt! The bit about free will is fine, and the comment about Jesus also. But the C.S. Lewis quotation doesn't look palatable to me - although it could be true sometimes in the sense that God might *allow* chastisement to occur in the form of a catastrophe.

But the key point in the Christian understanding is original sin. This puts us in a bad situation with a tendency to do evil. The facility that God initially gave us to do virtue has been lost. Our faculties work in a disordered way. This disorder brought suffering into the world - i.e. it is not really God who 'requires' us to suffer but rather we have brought it down upon ourselves.

The good news (as they say) is that God became man and willingly suffered to atone for our sins, and enable us once more to become children of God. When we unite ourselves to Jesus Christ by offering our suffering with him they acquire a special meritorious value.

How this works... well, it can only work if Jesus is true Man and true God. Hence the Christian belief. The rest is easy after that!

<>
I've decided I disagree with what C.S. Lewis said.
Either that or I've misunderstood it - more likely, perhaps.

Matholwch, I went to see the King Arthur movie about 11 days ago - it is brilliant!