The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
Your powers of recollection are impressive.
Yes, Julia and I attended a few services at a tiny and very traditional (by US southern Baptist standards) church near Jacksonville, NC, and then later a gigantic megachurch in Chicago (The Moody Church), and finally a small neighborhood congregation which met in the auditorium of a local public elementary school and was the "home church" of a south-African couple with whom she had attended college in San Luis Obispo, and who now resided fairly nearby my present location. We also had Christmas dinner at their home, which was a wonderful culinary treat.
I excluded that experience earlier, as she was raised in the church from an early age and remained active in it, rather than being converted later as an adult.
And, during that time, I actually did try to convert myself.
I independently attended Sunday services at a variety of different churches of various denominations, to see if I could somehow "fit in" to that environment. Nothing clicked. Every place I went was some variation of what I remember from childhood; a social gathering in which people recited song lyrics (or merely clapped while listening to actual talented musicians perform) and then put money into a basket, before listening to a motivational speaker attempt to re-frame for a contemporary audience a collection of stories written in a time when the predominant view was that the sun revolved around the earth, and use them as a conduit for explaining why we should all feel pretty good about ourselves.
In the end, I just could not find a way to make myself believe in any of it.
Now, I absolutely do understand and respect the "community" aspect of the present-day Christian church in the US. It provides a forum for gathering as a collective around a shared set of beliefs and ideas, engenders a network of social and emotional support for those in need, and basically just attempts to re-create that sense of belonging in a collective towards a shared goal which was the default system of organization during the countless millennia in which humans were a pre-industrial agrarian species.
Yes, Julia and I attended a few services at a tiny and very traditional (by US southern Baptist standards) church near Jacksonville, NC, and then later a gigantic megachurch in Chicago (The Moody Church), and finally a small neighborhood congregation which met in the auditorium of a local public elementary school and was the "home church" of a south-African couple with whom she had attended college in San Luis Obispo, and who now resided fairly nearby my present location. We also had Christmas dinner at their home, which was a wonderful culinary treat.
I excluded that experience earlier, as she was raised in the church from an early age and remained active in it, rather than being converted later as an adult.
And, during that time, I actually did try to convert myself.
I independently attended Sunday services at a variety of different churches of various denominations, to see if I could somehow "fit in" to that environment. Nothing clicked. Every place I went was some variation of what I remember from childhood; a social gathering in which people recited song lyrics (or merely clapped while listening to actual talented musicians perform) and then put money into a basket, before listening to a motivational speaker attempt to re-frame for a contemporary audience a collection of stories written in a time when the predominant view was that the sun revolved around the earth, and use them as a conduit for explaining why we should all feel pretty good about ourselves.
In the end, I just could not find a way to make myself believe in any of it.
Now, I absolutely do understand and respect the "community" aspect of the present-day Christian church in the US. It provides a forum for gathering as a collective around a shared set of beliefs and ideas, engenders a network of social and emotional support for those in need, and basically just attempts to re-create that sense of belonging in a collective towards a shared goal which was the default system of organization during the countless millennia in which humans were a pre-industrial agrarian species.
I applaud you for testing out the waters in so many ways, although your "way" may just be trying to be a good person on your own, not in a group.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
1: The vast majority of successful US presidential candidates have professed to be adherents to some denomination of mainstream Christianity. Regardless of whether they are truly believers in the invisible man in the sky in the genuine and authentic way that my sister is, no one who not professed to be a Christian has been elected since Abraham Lincoln. It's become a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. A box you need to check to placate the not-insignificant proportion of the population which also professes that belief, while still mainstream enough to not alienate you from the rest of the population.
2: Majority-black churches in the US have historically placed a greater emphasis on collectivism and solidarity than majority-white churches. I personally speculate that this is an artifact of the segregation and "other-ism" which blacks in the US experienced not just under slavery, but throughout the Jim Crow era and, as an artifact of historical redlining and gerrymandering, into the present day in some regards. That the message of "unity against the white devil" also informs a sense of unity against the figurative red one with pointy horns is unsurprising.
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, than the concept of individual free will doesn't actually hold up. Otherwise, why act surprised when the humans you put in the garden eat the fruit which you told them not to?
And why deliberately set up the starting conditions from that point in such a way that they lead to you needing to deliberately drown every single person on the planet aside from one guy and his sons and their wives two thousand years later?
It just doesn't work.
Reply
1
1
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,221
Total Cats: 296
From: Round Pond, ME
If God is omnipotent and omniscient, than the concept of individual free will doesn't actually hold up. Otherwise, why act surprised when the humans you put in the garden eat the fruit which you told them not to?
And why deliberately set up the starting conditions from that point in such a way that they lead to you needing to deliberately drown every single person on the planet aside from one guy and his sons and their wives two thousand years later?
It just doesn't work.
And why deliberately set up the starting conditions from that point in such a way that they lead to you needing to deliberately drown every single person on the planet aside from one guy and his sons and their wives two thousand years later?
It just doesn't work.
Second question begs another question - doesn’t taking out a huge chunk of humanity sound appealing? I mean, the OT is largely metaphorical, so it was probably more like every single person in the Middle East, not the whole globe. Doesn’t seem so unreasonable in that context, hmmm?
Reply
0
0
yet I cannot remember what I had for dinner last night.
Did you try any non-Christian places? My hindu friends are pretty awesome but I like hamburgers too much, and being able to choose my own wife was a plus too.
I independently attended Sunday services at a variety of different churches of various denominations, to see if I could somehow "fit in" to that environment.
Reply
0
0
Back to the graphic about Christmas songs written by Jewish songwriters, it would be useful to note that at least one of those titles is blatantly in error. The song "Do You Hear What I Hear" was written by a man who was born Catholic in France and later in life converted to Unitarianism. He also changed his name from Leon to Noel, as in he spelled his name backward. He did that with his last name as well, albeit while dropping the first letter.
Additionally, the song's lyrics are referring to a child being born under a star and people bringing gifts of silver and gold to him and him bringing goodness and light to the world. Reasonably good chance that is a baby Jesus reference.
I have less to say about the Dr. Seuss inspired favorite, "You're a Mean One, Mr. Mensch." Definitely could be Jewish.
Additionally, the song's lyrics are referring to a child being born under a star and people bringing gifts of silver and gold to him and him bringing goodness and light to the world. Reasonably good chance that is a baby Jesus reference.
I have less to say about the Dr. Seuss inspired favorite, "You're a Mean One, Mr. Mensch." Definitely could be Jewish.
Reply
1
1
Mxdad, I am very sorry for your loss. That's not something you ever get over. And you are not supposed to. The way I understand it, you just carry her with you as you move forward through life. It is something that makes you who you are.
Some good advice I heard was not to make any major life changes or choices for a full calendar year after the loss of a long-time spouse.
I'm not really a people person and I've never been the life of the party, but I'm not very good at being alone. I desire affection and companionship. And I can imagine that you really need someone with a generous spirit and a kind heart to share your thoughts and feelings with.
Some good advice I heard was not to make any major life changes or choices for a full calendar year after the loss of a long-time spouse.
I'm not really a people person and I've never been the life of the party, but I'm not very good at being alone. I desire affection and companionship. And I can imagine that you really need someone with a generous spirit and a kind heart to share your thoughts and feelings with.
Reply
1
1
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
One thing which I have encountered over and over is that the Abrahamic religions, in general, seem to appeal to people who are uncomfortable dealing with, or in some cases even conceptualizing, the concept of uncertainty.
Cordycord alluded to this a few posts ago (post 31979) when he said "Catholicism--current pope notwithstanding--seems to be resurgent. The most-cited reason is that it provides a base of belief that doesn't waver, and doesn't change over time."
That reminded me of a conversation which I had a few years ago with a man whose name I cannot remember. He was an associate of Ken Ham the famous young earth creationist, and was delivering a lecture in which he strongly implied (but was very careful never to actually state) that he was a paleontologist. Towards the end of this lecture, he said something which radically altered my understanding of young earth creationists in a way which was like a filter that I'd not previous been aware of being peeled away from my vision for the first time.
He said: "Scientists are always changing their minds. But the truth of God's word never changes."
And that made it finally click for me. I immediately understood how very attractive of a proposition this must be for many people. No need to deal with doubt or uncertainty; if you join this club, then you will know the absolute truth, and you need never worry about new information coming along which might alter that unshakable certainty.
The most logical explanation for this which I can work out is that these people were also, without exception, biblical literalists. Their faith in the perfection of God seems to require that every word in the Bible be inerrant and perfectly accurate, both the OT and the NT.
(You should have heard some of the justifications that my own mother came up with to explain the contradictions between the order of the events of creation as told in Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2, back in the days of my youth when I still argued with her about such things in response to her ongoing efforts to evangelize to me. She and I did, thankfully, reach an eventual armistice.)
I do not fully comprehend the reasons for requiring this doctrine of literal inerrancy, however I accept that it is a necessary article of faith for many. And it is that requirement, I suspect, which leads to the necessity for a young earth model, based on the supposition that "In the beginning" represents the literal origin of the universe itself, six days after which two naked people were lounging in a garden of paradise amongst the animals which they had recently named and been given dominion over.
So, to answer your question directly: It does not seem unreasonable to me, however I can attest to the fact that it most certainly does seem unreasonable to many, if not most, of the more "hardcore" evangelical Christians whom I know personally.
Reply
1
1
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
I want to continue this thought as a separate narrative, in order to permit others to reply to individual portions of it in an easier and more linear fashion.
Going back to the idea of a literal, global flood, it has been explained to me (by YECs) as being absolutely necessary, because "God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.'"
(God, mind you, does not make inaccurate or misleading statements.)
And then "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."
And, in their minds, it *must* be this way, because that then enables the leap of faith which lands upon the concept of Flood Geology.
This is a school of thought which claims to be rooted in plausible science, and which allows for all known laws of physics to be suspended for a brief time during this cataclysmic global event, in order to allow all of the fossil records and the sedimentary layers and literally every other aspect of physical geology which we can all drive out into the western desert and observe with our own eyes (and actually climb up and camp on, which I highly recommend) to be completely discounted and explained away....
.... because *that* then allows for a ten-thousand year old Earth to be plausible, in their eyes.
It's all one big circle.
Going back to the idea of a literal, global flood, it has been explained to me (by YECs) as being absolutely necessary, because "God said to Noah, 'I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.'"
(God, mind you, does not make inaccurate or misleading statements.)
And then "The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered."
And, in their minds, it *must* be this way, because that then enables the leap of faith which lands upon the concept of Flood Geology.
This is a school of thought which claims to be rooted in plausible science, and which allows for all known laws of physics to be suspended for a brief time during this cataclysmic global event, in order to allow all of the fossil records and the sedimentary layers and literally every other aspect of physical geology which we can all drive out into the western desert and observe with our own eyes (and actually climb up and camp on, which I highly recommend) to be completely discounted and explained away....
.... because *that* then allows for a ten-thousand year old Earth to be plausible, in their eyes.
It's all one big circle.
Last edited by Joe Perez; Dec 18, 2024 at 10:20 PM.
Reply
0
0
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,221
Total Cats: 296
From: Round Pond, ME
Maybe this needs a separate thread. This stuff isn’t really fun
"Scientists are always changing their minds. But the truth of God's word never changes."
A few hundred years ago, the Catholic Church would have gladly burned you at the stake for doubting that statement, but even they have moved off the absolutist position about the Bible, the OT in particular.
In a college philosophy course years ago, I was introduced to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was a big-time geologist/paleontologist/archeologist about 100 years ago. He was also a Jesuit priest who was controversial for trying to reconcile the contradictions between science and religion. He was denounced for a while, but the last few popes seemed to admire him.
Just for fun, I like to suggest that, being God, he isn’t constrained by human limitations- like existence in linear time (thank you, DS9). Maybe creation is a work in process and it’s only Thursday in the 7-day week.
A few hundred years ago, the Catholic Church would have gladly burned you at the stake for doubting that statement, but even they have moved off the absolutist position about the Bible, the OT in particular.
In a college philosophy course years ago, I was introduced to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who was a big-time geologist/paleontologist/archeologist about 100 years ago. He was also a Jesuit priest who was controversial for trying to reconcile the contradictions between science and religion. He was denounced for a while, but the last few popes seemed to admire him.
Just for fun, I like to suggest that, being God, he isn’t constrained by human limitations- like existence in linear time (thank you, DS9). Maybe creation is a work in process and it’s only Thursday in the 7-day week.
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
So while I grew up around their customs (and, more importantly, their food), this never interested me during the time in my 20s when I was attempting to "find" religion. For me, that quest was not so much about spiritual enlightenment was it was trying to figure out what I was apparently missing, which made religion and the Church so important to members of my family, and perhaps to be able to "fit in" with them in that aspect of their lives.
I eventually stopped trying. More importantly, I also stopped arguing with my mother about her views of the Bible (she was a YEC and a believer in Biblical inerrancy), and in time she toned down the efforts to save my soul. It was an agreeable truce which improved the harmony of our relationship.
Since then, my attitude towards religion and spirituality can mostly be summed up as "Don't be a dick." I think that's an excellent philosophy which is pretty much universally applicable.
Reply
1
1
This is a school of thought which claims to be rooted in plausible science, and which allows for all known laws of physics to be suspended for a brief time during this cataclysmic global event, in order to allow all of the fossil records and the sedimentary layers and literally every other aspect of physical geology which we can all drive out into the western desert and observe with our own eyes (and actually climb up and camp on, which I highly recommend) to be completely discounted and explained away....
.... because *that* then allows for a ten-thousand year old Earth to be plausible, in their eyes.
It's all one big circle.
.... because *that* then allows for a ten-thousand year old Earth to be plausible, in their eyes.
It's all one big circle.
Here's an interesting short debate on the subject. I don't think it answers the questions any better than these posts, but it's respectful, which is worth it alone for the watch.
Last, apparently Google just created a new chip (Willow) that can do amazing things. I saw because of this chip, scientists are now postulating that there is a multiverse....crazy stuff, especially in light of an esoteric religious discussion.
Reply
0
0
An actress weighs in on God and spirituality...interesting.
https://twitter.com/justinebateman/status/1869897377424834918?s=46
https://twitter.com/justinebateman/status/1869897377424834918?s=46
Reply
0
0
An actress weighs in on God and spirituality...interesting.
https://twitter.com/justinebateman/status/1869897377424834918?s=46
https://twitter.com/justinebateman/status/1869897377424834918?s=46
Reply
2
2
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,221
Total Cats: 296
From: Round Pond, ME
Hunter S. Thompson is a longtime favorite writer of mine. I think his take on religious people is reasonable -
“I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright... Or maybe "stupid" is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I.”
“I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright... Or maybe "stupid" is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I.”
Reply
0
0
Next, Joe has been telling us about all the times he's spent going to different religious services and how they haven't worked for him. I truly get it, and think it's admirable and open-minded that he tried. And I don't think her take on living a good life but not necessarily aligning yourself with any organized religion is a bad thing, IQ notwithstanding.
Reply
0
0
Reply
0
0
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 34,402
Total Cats: 7,523
From: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
AA is a para-religious organization (with numerous cult-like attributes) founded by two men whose own personal journey to sobriety happened to include a religious conversion. As one example of how deeply-ingrained the Christian religion is within the organization, here is an except from their founding text which I have selected somewhat at random:
ㅤ
These tiny bodies are governed by precise laws, and these laws hold true throughout the material world. Science tells us so. We have no reason to doubt it. When, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath the material world and life as we see it, there is an All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and we laboriously set out to convince ourselves it isn't so.
We read wordy books and indulge in windy arguments, thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it. Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.
Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation, we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all. Rather vain of us, wasn't it?
ㅤ
Not really subtle, is it? These tiny bodies are governed by precise laws, and these laws hold true throughout the material world. Science tells us so. We have no reason to doubt it. When, however, the perfectly logical assumption is suggested that underneath the material world and life as we see it, there is an All Powerful, Guiding, Creative Intelligence, right there our perverse streak comes to the surface and we laboriously set out to convince ourselves it isn't so.
We read wordy books and indulge in windy arguments, thinking we believe this universe needs no God to explain it. Were our contentions true, it would follow that life originated out of nothing, means nothing, and proceeds nowhere.
Instead of regarding ourselves as intelligent agents, spearheads of God's ever advancing Creation, we agnostics and atheists chose to believe that our human intelligence was the last word, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and end of all. Rather vain of us, wasn't it?
ㅤ
Of course, the need to appeal to a broader audience, as well as to coerce the criminal justice system in the US to mandate membership in their "not a church" as a condition of release for people convicted of substance-related crimes, has led the text to be toned-down in many regards. One such example is the adoption of the phrase "... God as we understood Him" in many areas of the program, including several times within the body of the Twelve Steps themselves.
This subtle change allows the individuals who operate AA franchises to claim that the spiritual aspect of their operation is not the acknowledgement of the specific God of the Christian religion, but rather a more broader, hippy-adjacent concept of "It's, like, God as I understand him, man."
So.... yeah. The whole "Bob" idea doesn't really change anything, any more than saying "Well, you can call him Yahweh if you like."
Reply
0
0
Having had to attend AA meetings as dictated by the court, I can tell you that is one aspect I found hard to swallow. Then someone suggested it isn't necessarily God and religion; it's a higher power. A purpose, something to believe in.
People throughout history have sacrificed themselves for a belief. Be it God, King and country or just their fellow man, it's that sense of purpose that they are trying to convey. God is just (in their eyes) the easiest to accept and embrace.
I still consider myself agnostic, but I do accept the concept of a higher power.
People throughout history have sacrificed themselves for a belief. Be it God, King and country or just their fellow man, it's that sense of purpose that they are trying to convey. God is just (in their eyes) the easiest to accept and embrace.
I still consider myself agnostic, but I do accept the concept of a higher power.
Reply
3
3
