Jump to content

The Religion/Spirituality Thread


Ace Nova

Recommended Posts

Scriptures of all religions, as any other document, should be read in their historical context, as a product of their era. For example, divorce was allowed by the Judaic Law, but Jesus - or the author(s) of the gospels - preached against it. At first glance, Judaic Law looks more advanced. In a totally patriarchal society, however, divorce was a privilege of the male spouse, without even the consent of the wife, and a divorced woman was in a very disadvantaged position. So, in that context, the prohibition of divorce could offer some protection and security to women. Jesus just couldn't have been more radical and preach in favour of equal rights for men and women, simply because the notion was inconceivable in that time and place. Same goes for homosexuality etc.

The most groundbreaking thing - and a big game changer- about Christianity in that context was the concept of martyrdom and the belief in the resurrection. Until then there were codes of honour, there was dying for an idea or in glory in the battlefield, there was testing of the faith (in Judaism for example). But more and more people willing to become martyrs of their faith, eager to go to Paradise (as that could erase past sins - repentance and forgiveness was also a new concept that came with Christianity) and, when the time came, to be resurrected like their God? It was something the Roman Empire couldn't fight. That, along with historical and socials factors led what had started as a Jewish sect and a radical movement across the Empire to become a state religion.

The context also applies, of course, to the evolution of Christianity and its churches. Churches have been dynamic as much as their "nature" has allowed them to be. They stayed faithful to the word of the scriptures in some cases or deviated from them in others, either of which can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the case. The Eastern Orthodox Church was more flexible in issues like the divorce and the celibacy of the clergy in comparison to the Roman Catholic Church; at the same time its theology was inclined to a more mystical approach. That was partly because the church in the East was linked to the state and not above it, like the church in the West.

In the Middle Ages and Early Modern era all the movements for social reform came out as religious movements, from within the established church or in opposition to it, but always from within Christianity, because the notions of total secularism and being "outside" were inconceivable. The reformation movements that won had both progressive (for the era) and reactionary elements. Protestantism rejected the authority of the Pope and contributed in the increase of literacy; in some cases, it provided an ideological basis for the restriction of monarchism and, with its emphasis on the individual, for the development of capitalism (although the Italian catholic city-states had a monetarised economy that can be considered proto-capitalist). At the same time, it burned witches. The more radical movements and communities, like the Gnostic sects (e.g. The Cathars in France and the Bogomiles in the East), the Zealot revolt in the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium), the peasants of Thomas Müntzer, the Diggers in England etc. were suppressed and/or eliminated by the established church or the predominant denominations.

In modern times, there have been religion/church based progressive radical movements, e.g. the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S., the liberation theology in Latin America, some islamic movements etc, but these are exceptions.

Churches have been  the more long lasting institutions after family. Organised religions, even though declining in the modern era, have managed to survive all the political and socio-economical systems: feudalism, absolute monarchy, parliamentarism, capitalism, attempts for socialism. Part of it is because, with the rise of modern nations, they were incorporated, in some cases strongly, in others more loosely, as an element of national identity, so there are "christian" (catholic, orthodox, protestant), "muslim" etc. nation-states. Also because, although science has provided explanations for the natural phenomena that were attributed to a superior power, the awe before death/inexistence and loss is still strong and for some people religion is still an answer to it. And, to paraphrase Marx, as long there is suffering, religion will still serve as consolation and a refuge for some of those suffering, as the "opium of the people".

 

Edited by Blackstar
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Cuthbert was a proper Geordie. 

Incidentally if anyone ever visits Lindisfarne they have (or at least used to have) these free samples of the famous mead the monks produce there. Got rather pissed when I was about thirteen on a tour through the Lindisfarne museum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Norse religion was pretty cool. Being polytheistic it naturally made more sense than the weak Abrahamic religions that were to come later (no paradox of evil there), but it was also filled with humor and life and joy. Compared to later religions, who seem to be eternally locked in drab theological polemics that has little relevance to most people, the Norse religion was down-to-earth and simple. Later Christians would argue about sins and punishment and purgatory and shame and frown upon fun things and blah blah blah, the Norse would celebrate Frey with orgies, drink til they collapsed and sacrifice slaves to Odin. A religion larger-than-life. Of course it doesn't make much sense, either, from an intellectual perspective, but it didn't seem to take everything so seriously and wasn't constantly locked in self-doubt and conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I don't think any of this is real. You do, so I'm asking you what I think are straight forward questions because you know about this stuff and I don't. I was genuinely interested what happened to Moloch and the others and if other people's gods fall into the same category. Apparently that's some kind of winding path wtf.

If Ive misunderstood you I apologize.  I was perhaps not being clear.  Moloch and any other god is not real in the Christian scripture.  I took that as read.  What was real is the suffering a belief in them demanded.  The traits of these gods were based on human concepts of power and ambition.  You had started by making inaccurate claims of Christians seeing beauty in the violence of the Crucifixion.  After I identified why you were incorrect, I offered a poetic reading of the crucifixion that I felt indeed did have beauty.  That of a gentle Christ, dying rather then killing, join us rather then lifting himself above us.  Defeating the death of God as Empire.  So it seemed to me that asking "what happened to Moloch?" was a disingenuous question that had no connection to what was being discussed.   But now I gather you were anticipating Moloch was real and had a show down with Jesus, maybe?

Also, its not entirely true that you were asking straight forward questions when you say things like 'so you think all other gods and religions are bullshit?'  that is not a productive or honest question.  Its certainly not rooted in anything Ive said.

Edited by soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Pretty much. I was picturing Jesus/God banishing Moloch to hell or another dimension.

Thats my bad, sorry for not having been more thorough.  I do suffer brain fog.  Either way I should have made clearer definitions.

But as it is, your assumption about what a messiahs role would be is what Jesus' followers expected too.  So, miraculously, the idea of turning human ideals of power upside down and subverting them with gentleness is still what we are discussing!  Youre thinking as a character in the story would and seeing Jesus act in ways that are unexpected.  A god that wants no more power then to laugh when you laugh and cry when you cry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Blackstar said:

to paraphrase Marx, as long there is suffering, religion will still serve as consolation and a refuge for some of those suffering, as the "opium of the people".

 

Its always fascinated me that as Marx spoke against his (flawed) concept of the Church, he was also utilizing aspects of Hegels work that were directly informed by Hegels Christianity.  Perhaps with out being equipped to see Christianity in them?  I can recall Marx addressing and critiquing Hegels faith, so Im not saying he wasnt aware in general.  But I do believe that a lot of the Christian 'back drop' made it through into Marx's writing as well as the later works of other communist theorists.  Some through secularization; like The Ideal Man, perhaps?  But others just sit there; "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" being exactly how the Early Christians lived.  This is perhaps why so many Christians have identified as Communist and sought to join parties?  Like Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie or many of the ELZN/Zapatista's.

 

 

Edited by soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never understood how someone could become aware of the fact that there have been hundreds or more likely thousands of religions in history across different ethnic groups and tribes and still feel that there is any reason to believe that it is their religion which has a claim to the truth or even a part of the truth. As a preteen, that's the realization that made me first conclude religion (or rather, any particular religion) is obviously bullshit. To follow and believe in a religion requires a sense of superiority over other people in the claim that it is your ethnic/cultural group, not the thousands of others, which have gotten "it" right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

I never understood how someone could become aware of the fact that there have been hundreds or more likely thousands of religions in history across different ethnic groups and tribes and still feel that there is any reason to believe that it is their religion which has a claim to the truth or even a part of the truth. As a preteen, that's the realization that made me first conclude religion (or rather, any particular religion) is obviously bullshit. To follow and believe in a religion requires a sense of superiority over other people in the claim that it is your ethnic/cultural group, not the thousands of others, which have gotten "it" right.

But then you open yourself up to someone saying: I never stood how someone could hold up their preteen assumptions as having got "it" right over great thinkers like Kierkegaard.  :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, soon said:

But then you open yourself up to someone saying: I never stood how someone could hold up their preteen assumptions as having got "it" right over great thinkers like Kierkegaard.  :shrugs:

I'm not familiar enough with Kierkegaard's work or which elements of Christianity he was engaging with in his writings to properly respond, but for now, I'll say that I get the concept of faith and while I don't feel it personally, I can mostly understand how even the most intelligent of people or greatest of thinkers can possess it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jakey Styley said:

I'm not familiar enough with Kierkegaard's work or which elements of Christianity he was engaging with in his writings to properly respond, but for now, I'll say that I get the concept of faith and while I don't feel it personally, I can mostly understand how even the most intelligent of people or greatest of thinkers can possess it.

I appreciate that view.  My faith doesn't give me a sense of superiority, so when I saw the rhetorical opening I couldnt resist.  

I would think its the same in the secular world for most people, for example that though we are now more educated then earlier societies we dont discount the people of those times, or people alive now in less developed lands?  That as history unfolds we hopefully only grow in understanding of any subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, soon said:

 Moloch and any other god is not real in the Christian scripture.  I took that as read.  What was real is the suffering a belief in them demanded.  The traits of these gods were based on human concepts of power and ambition.

I don't at all believe the bible's description of Moloch and other competitive deities at the time. Judaism was extremely aggressive towards competition and this surely colors the bible's descriptions. It was all about dissing other gods to get converters and to prevent followers falling away. I am not saying Moloch was a great deity to worship (it is claimed child sacrifice was part of their rituals), but I am not taking the bible's word for it, and it is not like Yahweh was a very friendly and tolerant deity, either :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

That's a fair point. The Christians made up a whole bunch of bullshit propaganda about Paganism etc.

Also highjacked a lot of stuff from other religions and pretended it was their own. Like the 25th of December, the whole virgin birth idea, the whole returning to life thing etc etc

"Virgin birth you say? God did it you say?

Not a cheating whore then?

Well that's good. I guess we don't have to stone you to death then."

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

That's a fair point. The Christians made up a whole bunch of bullshit propaganda about Paganism etc.

Also highjacked a lot of stuff from other religions and pretended it was their own. Like the 25th of December, the whole virgin birth idea, the whole returning to life thing etc etc

I do not think it quite worked out like that, as if Christianity suddenly decided to go (dons best Liverpudlian accent) ''on the rob''. 

You should read up on comparative mythology - it is quite an interesting subject, connected with linguistics and Indo-Europe/Aryanism. In succinct terms, it turns out that quite disparate societies have developed religio-mythology that is strikingly similar, e.g. a 'Noah' myth, Immaculate Conception, etc.

Edited by DieselDaisy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I’ve stated before, I’m a Christian. Baptized and raised Catholic, lost my way for a while, and then my ex (who was an evangelical Christian) really helped me see that was the best thing for my life.

I’m flawed, I don’t have all of the answers, nor do I claim to. I still need to make it back to church since I’ve moved to a new state, but I do pray and I do believe that God / Christ moved me here for a reason or reasons - that is an unshakable belief of mine. 

At this point, the only thing that I really miss about where I lived in Pennsylvania was the church that I went to, my friends from said church, and my Bible study / life group.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

Go on what's the theory then? All the others was God practicing but Jesus is the really real one so still counts?

From memory, there is a longitudinal/atomised and a latitudinal theory. The former stipulates that we develop similar religio-myths independently of one-and-another due to certain reasons we have in common, e.g., divine quid pro quo reciprocity such as requesting a good harvest, ritualism, genetic impulse, etc. The latter theory holds that these religions all stem from Indo-European Man, or to give him his more controversial name, the ''Aryan Race''; they all existed as the religion of one ancestor race and then took on their permutations as that ancestor race dispersed into various quarters of the globe. As the various linguistic branches - Celt, Italic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic - developed during this dispersal, so did the various religions, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc. - but they all maintained hereditary traces of the original belief and therefore all had their commonalities.  

The problem with the latter is that non-Indo-European societies have similar myths. For example the Japanese, Shintoism, have a 'Eurydice and Orpheus' myth of their own.

Soul Monster will be pleased that I actually have the book I studied with still in my collection. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

I do not think it quite worked out like that, as if Christianity suddenly decided to go (dons best Liverpudlian accent) ''on the rob''. 

You should read up on comparative mythology - it is quite an interesting subject, connected with linguistics and Indo-Europe/Aryanism. In succinct terms, it turns out that quite disparate societies have developed religio-mythology that is strikingly similar, e.g. a 'Noah' myth, Immaculate Conception, etc.

Oh, I think at times it was a very deliberate and calculated strategy to convert regions and more rapidly squeeze our competitive religions. In Norway they weren't able to make people celebrate Christmas, so instead they slowly converted our traditional jul celebrations to become a christian celebration. Pagan influences were incorporated christian rituals so as to not make them too alien. Etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Real McCoy said:

 I do believe that God / Christ moved me here for a reason or reasons - that is an unshakable belief of mine. 

Why is that an unshakeable belief of yours? That your god someone manipulated you into moving to a new place seems like such a trivial thing to not question at all. Do you think everything in your life is directed by your god or is it just this moving that you for some reason believe was orchestrated by your god? What's so special about it? I understand that it is an important thing to YOU, like all major life-changes moving to a new city really changes everything, but why would it be so important to your god that HE decided to interfere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

Oh, I think at times it was a very deliberate and calculated strategy to convert regions and more rapidly squeeze our competitive religions. In Norway they weren't able to make people celebrate Christmas, so instead they slowly converted our traditional jul celebrations to become a christian celebration. Pagan influences were incorporated christian rituals so as to not make them too alien. Etc.

They would have came in contact with the Roman Winter Solstice far earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...