A Conversation for The Freedom From Faith Foundation

New member!

Post 3501

Mal

I see you've found your way here, Mal. Welcome to the FFFF... if they accept you...
Don't worry. I hope you enjoy your stay.
Teletubbies, indeed.


Foolish "commandments"

Post 3502

Madent

Night, night, Az ...

smiley - zzz


Foolish "commandments"

Post 3503

Albaus

Here we go round the Mulberry bush...

>Yep, you did in post #3436 where you said, "Yes I get that point". So exactly why are we having thios discussion?

Because you brought it up again in the post previous to my last one.

Here's the thing - I have been quoting from your posts. I have been answering questions you yourself have asked. You do not seem to be able to keep track of what you have written. I do.

>I suspect that "I disagree entirely with your idea ... ten commandments ... any merit ... for any society", means that you are putting words in to my mouth.

The only person putting words into your mouth is you. The context raised was as I stated before. I stated that the 10 c's had not even as much merit as Be Excellent to each other. You asked me to elaborate. I did. End of context. No words were put in your mouth. I quoted from your own and my own posts. Pretty simple really.

>In the context raised, my main proposition was that the ten commandments had merit for the society in which the were derived. I'm sorry if this has caused confusion, especially because of all of these really long posts.

If that is what you had been saying then I would have ignored your comments completely. It was not, and until now it has not been. I have re-read the comment that I responded to and re-read your responses several times. Let's try this again. The context was "are the 10 c's a moral guideline". My answer - No and this is why. Simple.

>Sidetrack? The context of the discussion was already set. So who is sidetracking?

No, you wanted clarification of why the 10 c's were nonsensical and I gave you it. When that did not suit you attempted to use the bible to back you up. I explained why that was unacceptable.

>Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Einstein, Socrates - to name but a few. Interesting, intelligent and probably educated men. Should you live your life in a certain way because they say so? Hell no. Work it out for yourself, anything else is based on laziness and/or fear.

>I take issue with what this viewpoint suggests. Language and communication are a fundamental element of learning. If one is not to learn of differing viewpoints through reading and either agreeing with or rejecting the conclusions, allusions and metaphors of the writer(s), how can one expand on one's own personal experiences sufficiently for one to form meaningful conclusions regarding one's own manner? We learn through not only our own experiences, but also the experiences of others. Should I reject Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Da Vinci, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Archimedes just because I have failed to experience the things that they experienced?

At what point did I say we should not "learn of differing viewpoints"? At what point did I say we should reject conclusions etc. of writer(s)? At what point did I say we should not expand on our personal experiences? At what point should I say we should reject the experiences of these learned men? My sole and extremely obvious point was that YES we read their works and learn from them NO we do not live our lives in a certain way because they say so. Just like the bible. We take the good and ignore the bad. That seemed so self evident I didn't realise you would need further clarification.

>Because they are a joke, if you are trying to say (as you were) that they are any sort of a guideline for life. At best a joke. In a historical sense they might be interesting, but they have no merit whatsoever as a moral guide.

>I take it that you chose to ignore the context.

The only "context" was that you asked for clarification and I gave it. The only context to take them in is as the word of god or not. That's it. It is actually quite fascinating how you continue to deliberately ignore that which you do not wish to deal with, I've never seen the like.

>However, I maintain that my original proposition was that the commandments were a relevant moral code for the time in which they were written. My apologies if this continues to be misunderstood.

No, that was not what you said. It is not misunderstood, it is simply that now that you realise there is no way to defend the 10 c's in a personal, literal, godly or contemporary sense you retreat to the idea that you might be able to defend them historically. By the by merely saying "you're wrong" is not a rebuttal.

>But for a bunch of nomads in a desert any killing might be best pre-judged as murder......the admonition against theft and jealousy takes on a new dimension (at least for me).

Which nomads? Which desert? At what time? Generalisations again. Please give specifics if you intend to continue this line of thought.

>Have you not read my postings? Of course I can see the difference!

Really? Where is that clear?

>The pertinent question is whether the Jews of Exodus could see the difference

No, the pertinent question is why you have resorted to historical and possibly fictional figures to back up your argument. You asked, I answered, you did not like the answer.

>As to my god? I'd refer you back to an earlier dialogue between myself, P-C, BtM and agcBen, but I wonder whether the concepts would have any meaning ... at all.

A nice try at a dig, but I'm not interested thanks.

>I read it and I'm sorry if this is the foundation of your argument. As an example - "All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all the peoples of the world." - is this a condemnation of the ten commandments? No.

Nor is it a justification of them - the point is that without christianity or any other religion those laws were in force anyway. *Sigh*. Is this all you got from that link? May I ask is English your first language?

>To me it reads as if Ingersoll has at least grudgingly accepted that the there is some merit in them

I find it amazing that I have to explain this, but No, he is saying that there are some basic and obvious tenets people live their lives by and all societies reflect those tenets to some extent regardless of religion.

>His further disection of the other books of the bible does little to support your argument and lends further weight to my own.

This is an attempt at humour, right?

>Again, it turns out that saying it is so doesn't make it so, so instead of making statements without any foundation because you wish it were true, how about supporting your comments? I can certainly support mine. MYOB is a beautiful rule and should be applied throughout all societies in conjunction with Do Unto Others..... If you disagree, explain why.

>Fair enough. So when you are lying, broken, in the midst of a car crash, I'll just drive on, shall I? MYOB in action. If do unto others is a valid moral position, then one cannot wander through life ignoring the situations of others. One must be prepared to lend unconditional aid to those in need, which means keeping your eyes open, not shut.

Ah, now I see the problem. You read, but you do not actually absorb the information. Again, I wonder, is English your first language? I'm serious.

It was quite, quite clear that my two rules were to be taken in conjunction. Do unto others and Mind your own business, both together. Very simple, one would have thought. Unless, I suppose, you were determined to misunderstand.

>Stick to the point? Which was?

One more time for the record. You asked why the 10 c's could not be a moral guide. I told you.

>>I know as well as you that they aren't a suitable long-term moral code.

>So why did you indicate that they were?

>I didn't (or least certainly didn't intend to, even if I did).

And yet, you did. You might want to pay more attention to what you are writing before you post it in future.

>However, what I do recognise is that there is a certain level of insight required to arrive at them in the first place. It is this that particularly interests me. Not what was actually written (which would be shaped by the language and circumstances of the person at the time), but what they were actually thinking and feeling at the time. I suspect that Moses had reached that point that Fowler (see A937767 for an overview and most of the rest of the Belief project) might have described as Stage VI in his thinking, but would have had to frame his personal opinions in a manner that could be understood by others who were largely Stage III and below.

All quite interesting and not at all what you were talking about when you spoke of the 10 c's being moral guidelines.

>>You ably demonstrated that they don't work when taken out of context.

>No, they do not work at all, they are narrow and almost without merit. In any society they would be the same.


Continued on next post:


Foolish "commandments"

Post 3504

Albaus

And on we trudge.....

>I disagree. They may be without merit in modern society (I say may but I suspect that we would both agree that they ARE without merit in modern society) and your advocate Ingersoll agrees with me that they had merit at the time they were written. So would you like to reformulate your position or, shall we call it a day?

* Sigh *. It is absolutely amazing that you can actually read something and only see what you want to see. Sorry about the length of this post, everybody else, but needs must (I'll try to only quote the pertinent points.) And before anybody gripes about the length of the last two posts I say - don't read them then. I wouldn't.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
"What Would you Substitute for a Moral Guide: by Robert Ingersoll

YOU ask me what I would "substitute for the Bible as a moral guide."
I know that many people regard the Bible as the only moral guide and believe that in that book only can be found the true and perfect standard of morality. There are many good precepts, many wise sayings and many good regulations and laws in the Bible, and these are mingled with bad precepts, with foolish sayings, with absurd rules and cruel laws.

But we must remember that the Bible is a collection of many books written centuries apart, and that it in part represents the growth and tells in part the history of a people. We must also remember. that the writers treat of many subjects. Many of these writers have nothing to say about right or wrong, about vice or virtue.

The book of Genesis has nothing about morality......

In Exodus we have an account of the manner in which Jehovah delivered the Jews from Egyptian bondage. We now know that the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians; that the entire story is a fiction......

Certainly Exodus was not written to teach morality. In that book you cannot find one word against human slavery. As a matter of fact, Jehovah was a believer in that institution.

The killing of cattle with disease and hail, the murder of the first-born, so that in every house was death, because the king refused to let the Hebrews go, certainly was not moral; it was fiendish. The writer of that book regarded all the people of Egypt, their children, their flocks and herds, as the property of Pharaoh, and these people and these cattle were killed, not because they had done anything wrong, but simply for the purpose of punishing the king. Is it possible to get any morality out of this history?

All the laws found in Exodus, including the Ten Commandments, so far as they are really good and sensible, were at that time in force among all the peoples of the world. (Note to Madent, this means that the good bits of the ten commandments were already in force, not that the ten commandments were good....would that I did not have to explain something so obvious"

Murder is, and always was, a crime, and always will be, as long as a majority of people object to being murdered. (Please note Madent, not killed, murdered)

Industry always has been and always will be the enemy of larceny.

The nature of man is such that he admires the teller of truth and despises the liar. Among all tribes, among all people, truth- telling has been considered a virtue and false swearing or false speaking a vice.

The love of parents for children is natural, and this love is found among all the animals that live. So the love of children for parents is natural, and was not and cannot be created by law. Love does not spring from a sense of duty, nor does it bow in obedience to commands.

So men and women are not virtuous because of anything in books or creeds. (You might want to take note here Madent)

All the Ten Commandments that are good were old, were the result of experience. The commandments that were original with Jehovah were foolish. (Madent surely this must seem fairly clear).

The worship of "any other God" could not have been worse than the worship of Jehovah, and nothing could have been more absurd than the sacredness of the Sabbath.

If commandments had been given against slavery and polygamy, against wars of invasion and extermination, against religious persecution in all its forms, so that the world could be free, so that the brain might be developed and the heart civilized, then we might, with propriety, call such commandments a moral guide.

Before we can truthfully say that the Ten Commandments constitute a moral guide, we must add and subtract. We must throw away some, and write others in their places.

The commandments that have a known application here, in this world, and treat of human obligations are good, the others have no basis in fact, or experience.

Many of the regulations found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy, are good. Many are absurd and cruel.

The entire ceremonial of worship is insane.

Most of the punishment for violations of laws are unphilosophic and brutal. . . . The fact is that the Pentateuch upholds nearly all crimes, and to call it a moral guide is as absurd as to say that it is merciful or true.

(.....To spare the innocent I have not quoted the next few paragraphs....)

On the whole, the Old Testament cannot be considered a moral guide.

Jehovah was not a moral God. He had all the vices, and he lacked all the virtues. He generally carried out his threats, but he never faithfully kept a promise.

At the same time, we must remember that the Old Testament is a natural production, that it was written by savages who were slowly crawling toward the light. We must give them credit for the noble things they said, and we must be charitable enough to excuse their faults and even their crimes.

I know that many Christians regard the Old Testament as the foundation and the New as the superstructure, and while many admit that there are faults and mistakes in the Old Testament, they insist that the New is the flower and perfect fruit.

I admit that there are many good things in the New Testament, and if we take from that book the dogmas, of eternal pain, of infinite revenge, of the atonement, of human sacrifice, of the necessity of shedding blood; if we throw away the doctrine of non-resistance, of loving enemies, the idea that prosperity is the result of wickedness, that Poverty is a preparation for Paradise, if we throw all these away and take the good, sensible passages, applicable to conduct, then we can make a fairly good moral guide, -- narrow, but moral.

Of course, many important things would be left out. You would have nothing about human rights, nothing in favor of the family, nothing for education, nothing for investigation, for thought and reason, but still you would have a fairly good moral guide.

On the other hand, if you would take the foolish passages, the extreme ones, you could make a creed that would satisfy an insane asylum.

If you take the cruel passages, the verses that inculcate eternal hatred, verses that writhe and hiss like serpents, you can make a creed that would shock the heart of a hyena.

It may be that no book contains better passages than the New Testament, but certainly no book contains worse.

Below the blossom of love you find the thorn of hatred; on the lips that kiss, you find the poison of the cobra.

The Bible is not a moral guide.

Any man who follows faithfully all its teachings is an enemy of society and will probably end his days in a prison or an asylum.

What is morality?

In this world we need certain things. We have many wants. We are exposed to many dangers. We need food, fuel, raiment and shelter, and besides these wants, there is, what may be called, the hunger of the mind.

We are conditioned beings, and our happiness depends upon conditions. There are certain things that diminish, certain things that increase, well-being. There are certain things that destroy and there are others that preserve.

Happiness, including its highest forms, is after all the only good, and everything, the result of which is to produce or secure happiness, is good, that is to say, moral. Everything that destroys or diminishes well-being is bad, that is to say, immoral. In other words, all that is good is moral, and all that is bad is immoral.

What then is, or can be called, a moral guide? The shortest possible answer is one word: Intelligence.

We want the experience of mankind, the true history of the race. We want the history of intellectual development, of the growth of the ethical, of the idea of justice, of conscience, of charity, of self-denial. We want to know the paths and roads that have been traveled by the human mind.

These facts in general, these histories in outline, the results reached, the conclusions formed, the principles evolved, taken together, would form the best conceivable moral guide.

We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue.

All "inspired books," teaching that what the supernatural commands is right, and right because commanded, and that what the supernatural prohibits is wrong, and wrong because prohibited, are absurdly unphilosophic.

And all "inspired books," teaching that only those who obey the commands of the supernatural are, or can be, truly virtuous, and that unquestioning faith will be rewarded with eternal joy, are grossly immoral.

Again I say: Intelligence is the only moral guide."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Right, now that you have forced us all to a plough our way through that lot, I hope you understood it? Please tell me I don't have to explain it all again....

In fact, that's it for me, I give up. If you are so decidedly determined to actually ignore the written text and remember and believe what you want to remember and believe then good luck to you.

I couldn't be any clearer. Nor could Mr Ingersoll. If you must misunderstand, then so be it.

Cheers and drink some beers.


Madent

Post 3505

Albaus

One last thing. I am not trying to make you unwelcome here, please don't feel that you are. I am tired and irritated by the fact that you are not careful and meticulous in your postings. I do think some of your ideas are interesting and have some merit. I am not in charge of this thread, obviously, although I have hi-jacked it a bit recently, and I do not want you to feel unwelcome.

In short, although I am somewhat peeved with you at the moment (for good reason I think) I genuinely welcome you to this thread and although we may disagree on everything ad infinitum I am happy to do so and I do want you to feel you can post here comfortably.

Oh, and I apologise for the Is English your first language? comments. That was pretty low.

Smiling grimly and wishing you all the best despite my peevishness.

Albaus



Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3506

Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist

Well haven't you all had a busy night! I guess that you are all now snoozing away or dozing at work.

About three pages back I think it was Az who stated that she didn't feel that I was anti-christian. Nice assumption Az, but not entirely correct.

My original name on h2g2 was 'Matholwch the Apostate', and I meant it. As those of you who have talked to me before know I bear no malice against christians as individuals. I'll even goes as far as to say that I have friends who are active christians. In many debates here I have stood shoulder to shoulder with them and even defended JtP.

However, and I want you to all take careful note here:
I am anti-Christianity.
I am anti-Christ.
I am apostate.

I believe christianity is, at its philosophical heart, a wicked religion that glorifies a merciless and sadistic deity. It is a faith that encourages spiritual slavery and the abdication of responsibility. It is dogmatic and intolerant in its theory and its application.

There, I have said it now. I expect that a few people who look on me as 'good old Math' or 'tolerant old Math' will be shocked. I am sorry but I have never lied about this, and will not allow illusions or misconceptions about me to wander unchecked.

Hope, love and purpose,
Matholwch the Apostate /|\.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3507

azahar

hi good old Math, smiley - smiley

I am neither snoozing away nor dozing at work, despite the fact that Fnord *made* me stay up talking to him until 5am . . . am much too old for this sort of thing.

Well, you have certainly made your position clear. But why anti-Christ? I've never thought that he was actually personally responsible for Christianity. I can understand why you would feel anti-Christian - are you also anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish?

I can't feel strongly enough about religion to be anti-anything specifically. But I think the world would be a much better place if religions did not exist.

az
(going to make smiley - coffee )



Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3508

Mal


No matter how hard the followers try to dress it up nicely, they still can't make the snake seem like a rabbit.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3509

Mal

I *made* you do NOTHING, az! It's not like we were even having a big conversation! Plus, it was only about three o'clock over here, hahahahah.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3510

a Man from Mars

Math,

Is religion, a crutch? Something to hold onto/steady yourself, until you can stand on your own two feet, rather than BEING your own two feet?

Is it also a starting point, then we can race away ahead, get injured [crutch], get better and race on ahead again, get injured [crutch], etc etc,

Do we only need it occasionally because we have better things to do.?


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3511

Queex Quimwrangler (Not Egon)

Math-

"I'll even goes as far as to say that I have friends who are active christians."

"I believe christianity is, at its philosophical heart, a wicked religion that glorifies a merciless and sadistic deity."

So it's a case of 'hating the sin, loving the sinner', then? smiley - winkeye

I agree in principle, but I think there are aspects of Christianity that are to be applauded, even if the execution is often lousy. So I can't in good conscience throw out all of it. The organisations of the the various Christian churches I have little time for; although that is not to say that members of them don't do good work.

Give me a copy of the Good Book and a pair of shears and I'll whip you up holy text you'd have to grudgingly applaud...


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3512

a Man from Mars

"So it's a case of 'hating the sin, loving the sinner', then?" ....and so say all of us.smiley - smiley


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3513

Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist

Hi good young Az smiley - biggrin.

I am 'anti-Christ' because that is a term used by christian ministers for any person who chooses a spiritual path other than christianity.

I am not against people who find comfort or hope or purpose in their spiritual relationship with the man Jesus or the christian God. Nor similarly with those who follow the prophet and Allah or the jewish God.

It is the dogmatic and intolerant expression of their religions, especially in the organised form of the churches, temples and mosques that I am against. Dogmatic, monotheistic religions are dangerous to the spiritual well-being of their attendees.

It is strange to me that religions that preach loving kindness can be so brutal. Where I live in Wales I have done a lot of voluntary work with the congregations of the Pentecostal, Evangelical, Methodist and United Reformed churches over several years. Yet I know that if it became known in this town that I was druid I would be immediately declaimed by the ministers, banned from the churches, my children asked to depart their church clubs and Sunday school, and anathematized by about half of my 'friends'. I know this because a friend did admit to being Wiccan and this happened to her.

For the sake of my children I continue to practice in private and smile when the fox gnaws.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3514

Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist

Hi Martian smiley - smiley.

Religion can be a crutch, a refuge in times of stress and pain it is true. To many though it is more of an enabler.

As it is so personal a thing I can really only give you the example of my own life. I am sure the many other spiritual people who come here can supply more.

Imagine, if you can, walking in world where you can see the living spirit in all things. Where each tree is an individual being, where each place has its own personality, where you can build a relationship with Gods that exists every moment of your life.

This is the life of a druid.

I talk to gods and spirits on a daily, even hourly basis. I carry on silent (admittedly, mostly one-sided) conversations as I drive, type on the PC, work, eat, look after my children.

I see them in the trees, the rivers, the faces of people, in the light that precedes the dawn, the movement of cats?

I feel their joy within me and their sadness.

I hear their voices in the wind, the babbling of streams, the songs and cries of children.

They surround me as I meditate and as I perform my quiet rituals.

Daily I like to thank Brigidh for the fire in my head, Arawn for his comfort in the face of death, the Green Man for the peace of his forests, Dianecht for the health of my children, and Ceridwen for what little wisdom I possess?

I feel the Awen (the flowing spirit of inspiration and life) as I walk in a garden, in a forest glade, by the water’s edge, on the hilltop, before my altar, when I write poetry.

This is not a crutch, it is a whole perception shift and a way of life.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3515

a Man from Mars

Math,

Is this a cop out?..... "For the sake of my children, I continue to practice in private and smile when the fox gnaws." Will your children thank you for you "allowing" them to be taught of things which you find at odds with your own beliefs. Some of them you find quite offensive, and rightly so.

Do you have somewhere to practice if you didn't have children?

It should be an enabler but oh so few are enabled. Far too many step on the botton rung of the ladder and think that they have arrived. The enabler has become crutches, no less. Those that aspire to preach their own version of that religion have maybe moved up a few rungs but they are still using the crutches. This is mirrored beautifully in the current and unseemly splits within religions today. MAJOR splits within The Roman Catholic, Anglican and Islam faiths are tearing them apart because the beliefs that they have held dear for so long are now being challenged. I hope they realise, that they are challenging themselves. And it is evident that they are not up to the challenge. They are not interested in their beliefs, only in the survival of their church. What it is doing is destroying their church, slowly and painfully and very publicly.

The life of a druid is no different from the life of a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist or an agnostic. They just use different words to say/feel the same thing.

Or do you think that each of us is confined to a specific mindset which will preclude participation and understanding of another person. When you find a woman whom you can Love and she you, participation and understanding will enable you. But only if you use LOVE as the catalyst. So it is with religion. The problem at the moment with many of the churches is that they are confusing things, much in the same way that a couple will confuse sex with love. Pleasureable enough but in reality it doesn't even come close.
So even before we get started on the spiritual ladder we are being tempted with something we like but it hides the real prize and our selfish acceptance of the first thing which turns us on, takes away the inclination to look further.

With so many people to thank [Brigidh, Arawn, the Green Man et al]for such a simple thing as Intelligence, I fear that although druid, in spirit and soul, I can never be a druid. It is too limiting.

If you accept that LOVE is the basis of beliefs which become a religion. How can you accept teachings from a Church which does not teach LOVE. And then they wonder why they are used as a prostitute.

The crying shame is that there is GOD but nobody sees him and the very lucrative religion economy is happy to keep pumping money in to keep it afloat. But it is bankrupt. And ripe for a takeover which could also be a restructuring of management and company policies.

Big J mk2 is needed but what sort of a miracle? Maybe personal peace is all that is required...it is SO reassuring.





Madent

Post 3516

Madent

Albaus

Your postings deserve greater attention than I can spare right now, as I'm going off on holiday, but I do feel that we have a lot of common ground and I appreciate your candid approach.

However at the moment, I can really only blame myself for the way this conversation has gone.

I'll be back in a couple of weeks, when I will print out the last hundred posts or so and re-read everything.

Wishing you a peaceful couple of weeks ...

Madent


New member!

Post 3517

R. Giskard Reventlov

Name: R. Giskard Olivaw

Chair title: Chairrobot of the Seldon Institute for Psychohistory

Any beliefs you'd like to list so we can make fun- er... discuss them:

Hari Seldon is the prophet of the Galactic Spirit and Friend Daneel is an incarnation of the Galactic Spirit.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3518

Matholwch - Brythonic Tribal Polytheist

Hi Martian smiley - smiley.

OK long answer coming up:

“Is this a cop out?..... "For the sake of my children, I continue to practice in private and smile when the fox gnaws." Will your children thank you for you "allowing" them to be taught of things which you find at odds with your own beliefs. Some of them you find quite offensive, and rightly so.”

Simply put – no it is not a cop-out. My children want to go to Sunday School as all their friends do. At that age is it a social thing with some nice stories and activities thrown in. I have already begun teaching my children about the alternatives to Christianity and indeed giving them opportunities to take part in Divali, visit a Gurdwara, chat with a Buddhist Monk etc., attend a Druid camp. But I shall not force them to live my dreams. My seven year old is already causing consternation amongst the Sunday School teachers as she asks them very perceptive questions bless her.

”Do you have somewhere to practice if you didn't have children?”

Yes. Many places and I often visit them. I also have a box-altar at home. This is a sacred space that all folds away neatly and out of sight into a lovely wooden box. What I don’t do is carry out public celebrations amongst the Gorsedd Stones in our town park for all to see.

”It should be an enabler but oh so few are enabled…”. It would be interesting to explore your source data for this sweeping analysis. I am no fonder of the Christian churches than you seem to be, yet I do recognise that many people gain far more than a crutch from it. It can release people from lives of crushing despair and fill them with hope, love and purpose. I don’t have any stat’s for this either so I won’t belabour the point.

”The life of a druid is no different from the life of a Christian or a Muslim or a Jew or an atheist or an agnostic. They just use different words to say/feel the same thing.”

Really? You have first hand experience of this do you? Just how much comparative theology have you done regarding druids and christians. I’m not attacking you personally here but I find this statement specious and unsupported.

”Or do you think that each of us is confined to a specific mindset which will preclude participation and understanding of another person.”

No, I don’t. Nor have I indicated that I have. If your read what I say carefully you will find that it is the institution of the christian churches I dislike not the individual members.

You should perhaps read my statement on my h2g2 home page, especially where it touches upon love and my opinion of it.

”So even before we get started on the spiritual ladder we are being tempted with something we like but it hides the real prize and our selfish acceptance of the first thing which turns us on, takes away the inclination to look further.”

Not quite sure what you are driving at here?

”With so many people to thank [Brigidh, Arawn, the Green Man et al]for such a simple thing as Intelligence, I fear that although druid, in spirit and soul, I can never be a druid. It is too limiting.”

I thank these deities because through my relationship with them I have learnt much and feel that I have grown. It is not compulsory, it is not worship, it is simply good manners. I really don’t understand how you can come to the conclusion that druidry is in any way limiting. I doubt that there is another spiritual path that is so open minded and tolerant, or perhaps as diverse. To walk as a druid is to see the world through the eyes of a child and occasionally to sit at the feet of giants and listen.

”If you accept that LOVE is the basis of beliefs which become a religion. How can you accept teachings from a Church which does not teach LOVE. And then they wonder why they are used as a prostitute.”

OK, confused again. Love does not necessarily form the basis for the beliefs of a religion. A search for truth is surely the foundation?

”The crying shame is that there is GOD but nobody sees him and the very lucrative religion economy is happy to keep pumping money in to keep it afloat. But it is bankrupt. And ripe for a takeover which could also be a restructuring of management and company policies.”

This sounds like an analysis of the christian churches? Again I feel your argument has perhaps wandered off for a lie down?

So I think I shall lie down too smiley - biggrin.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\.


Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3519

a Man from Mars

Math,
If that is what they want, then as a responsible and dutiful father it is only right that they get it. I can imagine the beautiful consternation which such an enlightened seven year old could cause. Magic!

I am a free spirit, Math, and float in and out here but religion is about the spirit and we seem to think that we can find it in old teachings when it is a personal and continuing experience in Enlightenment. To remain earth bound is to talk of religion but to release your mind and THINK on the meaning of Life is to realise that there is only one "religion", it is there to help "sinners". I say "sinners" because there is no sin but its use has successfully focussed our attention on negativity since its inception.It is a sop to what we would describe today as "good taste", "consideration", "morals"....and this sort of control is necessary UNTIL we can do it ourselves. We can't have everyone fornicating whenever and wherever and with whoever or whatever, can we.
We have been there, done that! And it didn't take us long to find out because we enjoyed it too much. And now we are paying the "price".....been there, done that?????. The Garden of Eden!. It all started to go pear shaped from then and what we have in the world now is the result of our own bad management.

And how to fix it. EASY!. Go back to the beginning. And there are so many people who are going to tell me that I am wrong because THEY do not KNOW it is right.
Too clever is dumb!
Good to talk with you Math and your kids are going to be awesome!
Magic...it is.




Good Morning Insomniacs!

Post 3520

R. Daneel Olivaw -- (User 201118) (Member FFFF, ARS, and DOS) ( -O- )

"I am not against people who find comfort or hope or purpose in their spiritual relationship with the man Jesus or the christian God. Nor similarly with those who follow the prophet and Allah or the jewish God."

Exactly. It is more important to be tolerant of people than of institutions. And you are clearly tolerant of people--you're the one who called JtP a friend.


Key: Complain about this post