NationStates Jolt Archive

I am a believer in god, absolutely. I belong to no organized religion because a few decades ago I recognized that they are basically all the same. They not about god, rather they are a means for people to relate to god (or the godhood within them). Whichever means a person chooses, whichever images, rites and rituals feel most comfortable to them, doesn't matter. Choosing no organized religion, as I have, doesn't matter. It is that connection people make to deity that is all that matters: that is having religion.

All gods and goddesses are one god. The doctrine, the myths, are just clothing applied so that we may recognize god. The images and conceptualizations we make of god are all part of the aforementioned means to relate to god. Organized religion's rites and rituals are, too; they foster the relationship by opening the mind to the possibility of connecting with god. No one god image is more "correct" than others, no one religion is more "true" than any other. No one relationship --built by someone to relate with the divine --is superior to any other person's relationship.

God is not "out there", god exists in each and every one of us. Whether you think of god as a "him", a "her" or an "it", as energy or pure spirit, as having a hand in us (ew) or as existing as nothing more than a psychological concept, it doesn't matter. In any case god is in us, both in the sense of knowledge of him being a part of us, and because god is only real through what we know of deity, and that is the relationship we have built to deity. When someone says, "God is real," I hear, "I have a solid relationship with deity."

The word "deity" comes to us from Latin "deus", and to them from Indo-European "deiwos" meaning "sky". The Sky God passed on his name to many cultures as the Indo-Europeans expanded their territory --"Dyaus Pita" in India, "Jupiter" (Dies piter) in Rome, "Tues" in Germanic life, and "Zeus" in Crete --marrying the local goddesses as he went (for as representations of the Earth, the land, they could not migrate with the tribes like the god did; the land stays put, only the people move). The name is a title, the title of deity, specifically the sacrificed god whose blood was spilled annually to fertilize the Mother Earth. This sacrifice was reflected in the relationship that the King of the tribe built with the god. He was elected to serve a term of one or a few years, treated like a god for that term, and then ritually had his blood spilled onto the Earth. They would tie him to a cross in a field, you see, decorated with grasses and flowers, and then stab him quite dead. This ritual is the origin of the scarecrow.

Window dressing, that is what an organized religion is. The religions change over time, but the imagry is still there. The sacrificed King no longer sheds his blood to create life, but to redeem it. Off with one cloak, on with another. What matters is the relationship we build to that image, and our reasons for having that relationship, which are individual and unique for every person.

http://www.the-gateway.net/fun/thread-error.png

okay then.

http://www.the-gateway.net/fun/thread-error.png
*steals*

Well, I think one's enough.

hey wtf stop fucking up willamena's thread

I agree, partially. I think that there *is* a "more correct" view of God, but that we all must work towards finding that relationship in our own way, our own spiritual path, if you will. I think that all religions have some things right (and some things wrong), and one must study what they can (and perhaps forsake all organized religion to do so) in order to figure out their path.

My boyfriend (who, incidentally does not believe in God) came up with the best analogy for it. Suppose religion was a mirror reflecting the image of God, but the mirror was shattered and many groups got different pieces. Some would have larger pieces than others, but all would have "truth" to them, as they all have part of the image from which they built their viewpoint.

I agree, partially. I think that there *is* a "more correct" view of God, but that we all must work towards finding that relationship in our own way, our own spiritual path, if you will. I think that all religions have some things right (and some things wrong), and one must study what they can (and perhaps forsake all organized religion to do so) in order to figure out their path.

My boyfriend (who, incidentally does not believe in God) came up with the best analogy for it. Suppose religion was a mirror reflecting the image of God, but the mirror was shattered and many groups got different pieces. Some would have larger pieces than others, but all would have "truth" to them, as they all have part of the image from which they built their viewpoint.

Actually, I think that all religions have a little bit of truth in them, but not all religions are all true. I'm a Christian because I think that the whole thing is true, although it does not contain all truth.

Actually, I think that all religions have a little bit of truth in them, but not all religions are all true.

I think the same thing, except I don't think that anyone has everything they believe right or wrong. In other words, *no one* has it all figured out.

I'm a Christian because I think that the whole thing is true, although it does not contain all truth.

Which version?

Which version?

I'm a charismatic.

I'm a charismatic.

Ok, I have to admit, I have no idea what that means. LOL

Edit: (in the reliigious context - I know what the word means)

Ok, I have to admit, I have no idea what that means. LOL

Edit: (in the reliigious context - I know what the word means)

Charismatics focus on the work of the Holy Spirit and believe that God still speaks and moves today in much the same ways that He did in the New Testament. In practice, it's what you get when you cross Pentacostals with Southern Baptists.

I agree, partially. I think that there *is* a "more correct" view of God, but that we all must work towards finding that relationship in our own way, our own spiritual path, if you will. I think that all religions have some things right (and some things wrong), and one must study what they can (and perhaps forsake all organized religion to do so) in order to figure out their path.

My boyfriend (who, incidentally does not believe in God) came up with the best analogy for it. Suppose religion was a mirror reflecting the image of God, but the mirror was shattered and many groups got different pieces. Some would have larger pieces than others, but all would have "truth" to them, as they all have part of the image from which they built their viewpoint.
I have heard you use that analogy before. It's not one that works for me. I think most religions have touched on all a few simple, basic truths, and that their window-dressing distorts and disguises the truth through a misunderstanding of what myth is and what its purpose is. It's more like everyone has a piece of coloured glass that filters out certain light; some choose to use the glass, some don't even bother looking, and some can recognize the filter and work around it.

I am a believer in god, absolutely. I belong to no organized religion because a few decades ago I recognized that they are basically all the same. They not about god, rather they are a means for people to relate to god (or the godhood within them). Whichever means a person chooses, whichever images, rites and rituals feel most comfortable to them, doesn't matter. Choosing no organized religion, as I have, doesn't matter. It is that connection people make to deity that is all that matters: that is having religion.

All gods and goddesses are one god. The doctrine, the myths, are just clothing applied so that we may recognize god. The images and conceptualizations we make of god are all part of the aforementioned means to relate to god. Organized religion's rites and rituals are, too; they foster the relationship by opening the mind to the possibility of connecting with god. No one god image is more "correct" than others, no one religion is more "true" than any other. No one relationship --built by someone to relate with the divine --is superior to any other person's relationship.

God is not "out there", god exists in each and every one of us. Whether you think of god as a "him", a "her" or an "it", as energy or pure spirit, as having a hand in us (ew) or as existing as nothing more than a psychological concept, it doesn't matter. In any case god is in us, both in the sense of knowledge of him being a part of us, and because god is only real through what we know of deity, and that is the relationship we have built to deity. When someone says, "God is real," I hear, "I have a solid relationship with deity."

The word "deity" comes to us from Latin "deus", and to them from Indo-European "deiwos" meaning "sky". The Sky God passed on his name to many cultures as the Indo-Europeans expanded their territory --"Dyaus Pita" in India, "Jupiter" (Dies piter) in Rome, "Tues" in Germanic life, and "Zeus" in Crete --marrying the local goddesses as he went (for as representations of the Earth, the land, they could not migrate with the tribes like the god did; the land stays put, only the people move). The name is a title, the title of deity, specifically the sacrificed god whose blood was spilled annually to fertilize the Mother Earth. This sacrifice was reflected in the relationship that the King of the tribe built with the god. He was elected to serve a term of one or a few years, treated like a god for that term, and then ritually had his blood spilled onto the Earth. They would tie him to a cross in a field, you see, decorated with grasses and flowers, and then stab him quite dead. This ritual is the origin of the scarecrow.

Window dressing, that is what an organized religion is. The religions change over time, but the imagry is still there. The sacrificed King no longer sheds his blood to create life, but to redeem it. Off with one cloak, on with another. What matters is the relationship we build to that image, and our reasons for having that relationship, which are individual and unique for every person.

:rolleyes: New age ... people (what do you call an new age person. New agest?)

*sighs*.

:rolleyes: New age ... people (what do you call an new age person. New agest?)

*sighs*.
:) What is new age?

EDIT: I am, of course, asking what it means to you, because you seem to be using it as a blanket insult of some sort.

I'd tend to agree quite a bit.

I think it's important to realise the ability to step back from something you've "decided" you beleive, which is the biggest flaw in all official religions.

In attempting to find God, they've compartmentalised and cast their view of him in stone. This is logical in a way, because it's quite hard to share a vision of God if that image is constantly changing.

To me, the nature of faith is quite simply a beleif in God and the desire to live a good life. Not according to some scripture, but according to what your heart and head tells you. God gave you your heart and your head, follow those, not what some other man thinks you should.

In attempting to find God, they've compartmentalised and cast their view of him in stone. This is logical in a way, because it's quite hard to share a vision of God if that image is constantly changing.
That is so right, and it underscores how inevitable it is that the state of religion is where it is today. It seems to me to be a necessary step in an evolution of the images of god.

I have heard you use that analogy before. It's not one that works for me. I think most religions have touched on all a few simple, basic truths, and that their window-dressing distorts and disguises the truth through a misunderstanding of what myth is and what its purpose is. It's more like everyone has a piece of coloured glass that filters out certain light; some choose to use the glass, some don't even bother looking, and some can recognize the filter and work around it.

Oh, there is no doubt that the window-dressing that is added on distorts things, even in my analogy, as each religion tends to build an entire dogma around a piece of the puzzle. My main problem with organized religion is that so many of them discourage personal reflection and *discourage* people from taking their own path.

Interesting view, can't say I have not heard it before. I am in the boat with Robbo on this.

i think most people use religion as a way of relating to god even if they dont believe their religion is literally "true"

thats where *I* get tossed off track. the part where none of it is TRUE makes it impossible for me to go along for the ride. the likelihood (in my mind) of finding truth in make-believe is nil. other people dont seem to be bothered by that so much. they enjoy the spiritual aspects and dont worry about the rest.

if "god" cant be bothered to actually reveal himself to humanity in an unambiguous manner he either doesnt care or doesnt exist.

oh i knew there was something else i wanted to say...

organized religion provides a "check" to keep you from grevious error like david kouresh or those nasty polygamous patriarchs in the fundamentalist (apostate) mormon churches. or shirley mcclaine to use a less loaded example.

I say this with all honesty Ash. I liked you BEFORE I read you were female.











Oh yeah, I liked your second post, very smart.

i think most people use religion as a way of relating to god even if they dont believe their religion is literally "true"

thats where *I* get tossed off track. the part where none of it is TRUE makes it impossible for me to go along for the ride. the likelihood (in my mind) of finding truth in make-believe is nil. other people dont seem to be bothered by that so much. they enjoy the spiritual aspects and dont worry about the rest.

if "god" cant be bothered to actually reveal himself to humanity in an unambiguous manner he either doesnt care or doesnt exist.
But religion should not care about "true". For instance, "Jesus is the Son of God." True? Doesn't matter... not one bit. What matters is that it's a valid symbol that speaks to a part of the psyche that perceives things non-literally. It contains in it a wealth of tropic information, such as: the parallels of mankind and God, combined together in one form that is both spirit and flesh; the concept of all mankind being the child of a greater force, and therefore brought together as one; the fragility of mankind with its short, limited life-span in contrast to the eternity of God-given soul; and so on. I'm not a Christian, but even I am moved by the images, especially at Christmas time, most especially the images of mother and child (life-giver and redemption).

EDIT: *adds "hope" to that last image.

oh i knew there was something else i wanted to say...

organized religion provides a "check" to keep you from grevious error like david kouresh or those nasty polygamous patriarchs in the fundamentalist (apostate) mormon churches. or shirley mcclaine to use a less loaded example.

I disagree. Cults are a *product* of organized religion telling people that they shouldn't think for themselves and should simply follow a charismatic leader.

oh i knew there was something else i wanted to say...

organized religion provides a "check" to keep you from grevious error like david kouresh or those nasty polygamous patriarchs in the fundamentalist (apostate) mormon churches. or shirley mcclaine to use a less loaded example.
Shirley McClaine had a cult?

Michael Jackson, maybe...

God is not "out there", god exists in each and every one of us. Whether you think of god as a "him", a "her" or an "it", as energy or pure spirit, as having a hand in us (ew) or as existing as nothing more than a psychological concept, it doesn't matter. In any case god is in us, both in the sense of knowledge of him being a part of us, and because god is only real through what we know of deity, and that is the relationship we have built to deity.

Well then, as I have absolutely no knowledge of deity (being either a part of me or of anyone else) and so obviously have built no relationship to deity I would have to conclude that according to the criteria you have just outlined God does not exist in me.

Meh.

But religion should not care about "true". For instance, "Jesus is the Son of God." True? Doesn't matter... not one bit.



Yes it does matter, if Jesus is not the Son of God, if I do not have a relationship with YHVH, and if that is not YHVH's spirit transforming my life, than why be a christian?

Well then, as I have absolutely no knowledge of deity (being either a part of me or of anyone else) and so obviously have built no relationship to deity I would have to conclude that according to the criteria you have just outlined God does not exist in me.

Meh.
Until last year, I didn't know I could feel jealousy. Not everything in us is revealed at once, nor on demand.

Until last year, I didn't know I could feel jealousy. Not everything in us is revealed at once, nor on demand.

Although
You knew what jealousy is. Whether you have ever felt it, you still know what it was.

Yes it does matter, if Jesus is not the Son of God, if I do not have a relationship with YHVH, and if that is not YHVH's spirit transforming my life, than why be a christian?
Can you rephrase that? I think you mean that your belief in Jesus is dependant on the faith you have that he is actually the Son of God. If so, the facts do not change that one bit.

Is that it?

Although
You knew what jealousy is. Whether you have ever felt it, you still know what it was.
Actually, I didn't know what it felt like until I felt it. I didn't really know what it was at first. I had to deduce that it was jealousy. I think I was right.

Can you rephrase that? I think you mean that your belief in Jesus is dependant on the faith you have that he is actually the Son of God. If so, the facts do not change that one bit.

Is that it?


Ah, I knew you were a supernaturalist, but I did not know you had a "New age" world view.


But explain "the facts do not change that one bit"


In "god is everyone and everything" you are proposing an impersonal force that is only relative to each individual?

Until last year, I didn't know I could feel jealousy.

Were you unaware of the meaning of the word "jealousy" until last year? Because otherwise excuse me if I don't believe that you made it through childhood without experiencing it. No offense.

And your "not everything is revealed" line of reasoning works in reverse just as well. Careful you don't wake up tomorrow and have it revealed to you that that 'knowledge' you have of diety isn't actually anything of the kind.

So, if we are going to resort to that kind of reasoning on what basis do we have a rational discussion? If we aren't going to base our conclusions on what can be currently objectively confirmed by independent parties there's no point in dialoging with the purpose of agreeing on any conclusions in the first place.

So, if we are going to resort to that kind of reasoning on what basis do we have a rational discussion? If we aren't going to base our conclusions on what can be currently objectively confirmed by independent parties there's no point in dialoging with the purpose of agreeing on any conclusions in the first place.

Well done

Ah, I knew you were a supernaturalist, but I did not know you had a "New age" world view.
There it is, again. What does that mean??

But explain "the facts do not change that one bit"
Let's say somehow it is proven that Joseph was actually the father of Jesus in the manner that humans normally have sons. That doesn't change the meaning of Jesus being the Son of God; he doesn't stop being that just because he has a real papa. The symbolism is still there. The tropic meaning of the symbol he represents is not damaged or changed one bit by knowing "the truth". He still adopts the role of the Saviour, he still fulfills his mission on Earth, he still dies for our sins, etc. Nothing really changes.

In "god is everyone and everything" you are proposing an impersonal force that is only relative to each individual?
I didn't say that (not in this thread, at least). God is in every human; only humans, as far as we know, have gods.

And your "not everything is revealed" line of reasoning works in reverse just as well. Careful you don't wake up tomorrow and have it revealed to you that that 'knowledge' you have of diety isn't actually anything of the kind.
It doesn't matter if it's not objectively "true". That is my point.

If we aren't going to base our conclusions on what can be currently objectively confirmed by independent parties there's no point in dialoging with the purpose of agreeing on any conclusions in the first place.
If you see no point in it, fine.

I disagree. Cults are a *product* of organized religion telling people that they shouldn't think for themselves and should simply follow a charismatic leader.

i suspect (meaning no provabiliy implied) that cults are a natural human phenomenon in response to a charismatic leader.

that however was not my point. i used those examples because they are people whose erroneous theology most people would be familiar with. they would NOT pass the "test" with any mainstream religion. they are products of their founders personal theological thinking. '

anyone, charismatic or not, might come up with similar beliefs if left to themselves. i could have the sudden revelation that eating babies is the only way to progress in the wheel of life through reincarnation. it is only through consultation with the greater religious community (and their shocked reaction) that i might be disuaded from this erroneous belief.

But religion should not care about "true". For instance, "Jesus is the Son of God." True? Doesn't matter... not one bit. What matters is that it's a valid symbol that speaks to a part of the psyche that perceives things non-literally. It contains in it a wealth of tropic information, such as: the parallels of mankind and God, combined together in one form that is both spirit and flesh; the concept of all mankind being the child of a greater force, and therefore brought together as one; the fragility of mankind with its short, limited life-span in contrast to the eternity of God-given soul; and so on. I'm not a Christian, but even I am moved by the images, especially at Christmas time, most especially the images of mother and child (life-giver and redemption).

EDIT: *adds "hope" to that last image.

i love christian imagery too. that i dont believe it to be literally true doesnt mean that i dont appreciate it.

but

as i said before, it has to be TRUE for me to actually follow it. and i dont mean going to church on sunday and tossing a few bucks into the collection plate. singing hymns and buying christmas presents is easy.

if you read the gospels, jesus has some very specific things he expects of us and if i truly believed, i would have to do them. i certainly wouldnt ever be one of those "you are saved through grace alone so it doesnt really matter how you live your life" protestants. jesus said what we must do and its not easy.

and either its true, in which case you really should be doing it too, or it isnt, in which case what would be the point?

we can all enjoy pretty stories from around the world. religion is a different matter.

It doesn't matter if it's not objectively "true". That is my point.

Well, if you want to propose that the existence of God is only true in the sense that it is true that some people have (widely varying) subjective feelings and impressions which they decide to attribute to the existence of such a thing then by all means feel free to do so. I won't even argue that point...

However that would bring you to arguing not that God exists, but just that those feelings and impressions exist... which is obvious. Hallucinations exist too, just not the objects of those halucinations. Just as an example of course, not to say that your impressions of God either are or are not in that category.

I don't believe in God, sadly enough. I want to believe, but it simply does not seem logical to me. I don't think God would have ignored the prayers of millions of Jews as they died in the Holocaust.

I can't make that leap of faith needed for belief. I've also grown a little fed up w/ "believers" who profess believe in God. These ppl say they are "christian" but just disregard ideology and have premarital sex (not that thats bad... but) or do w/e they want. I realized that I myself never really followed these rules, and that's when I left catholicism. Perhaps if I had enough contact with a different religion with different ideas, I might gain a different opinion, but for now God is dead to me.

Sorry if i pissed anyone off.

i suspect (meaning no provabiliy implied) that cults are a natural human phenomenon in response to a charismatic leader.

...encouraged by any community which tells people not to think for themselves - aka. most organized religion.

that however was not my point. i used those examples because they are people whose erroneous theology most people would be familiar with. they would NOT pass the "test" with any mainstream religion. they are products of their founders personal theological thinking. '

So, by "organized religion", you actually meant "mainstream religion"?

anyone, charismatic or not, might come up with similar beliefs if left to themselves. i could have the sudden revelation that eating babies is the only way to progress in the wheel of life through reincarnation. it is only through consultation with the greater religious community (and their shocked reaction) that i might be disuaded from this erroneous belief.

It would be unlikely for you to come to this conclusion. However, through organized religion, you could convince others who don't even bother to think beyond what the leaders tell them, to do it as well.

i love christian imagery too. that i dont believe it to be literally true doesnt mean that i dont appreciate it.

but

as i said before, it has to be TRUE for me to actually follow it. and i dont mean going to church on sunday and tossing a few bucks into the collection plate. singing hymns and buying christmas presents is easy.

if you read the gospels, jesus has some very specific things he expects of us and if i truly believed, i would have to do them. i certainly wouldnt ever be one of those "you are saved through grace alone so it doesnt really matter how you live your life" protestants. jesus said what we must do and its not easy.

and either its true, in which case you really should be doing it too, or it isnt, in which case what would be the point?

we can all enjoy pretty stories from around the world. religion is a different matter.
Then it sounds to me like it's not a religion for you, if it's only "pretty stories" but with no meaning.

It would be unlikely for you to come to this conclusion. However, through organized religion, you could convince others who don't even bother to think beyond what the leaders tell them, to do it as well.

And if anyone doubts that, Aztec religion was very much organized religion... and it resulted in an entire culture that practiced mass ritual human sacrifice.

How likely do you suppose it would be for a bunch of loosely connected individuals to all come to the conclusion that that was a good idea independently?

Well, if you want to propose that the existence of God is only true in the sense that it is true that some people have (widely varying) subjective feelings and impressions which they decide to attribute to the existence of such a thing then by all means feel free to do so. I won't even argue that point...

However that would bring you to arguing not that God exists, but just that those feelings and impressions exist... which is obvious. Hallucinations exist too, just not the objects of those halucinations. Just as an example of course, not to say that your impressions of God either are or are not in that category.
Existence of god is another matter. But a real experience of god is not necessary in order to understand and grasp (and hold onto) the symbolism. The validity of the symbolism doesn't require it be "true," just meaningful.

Existence of god is another matter. But a real experience of god is not necessary in order to understand and grasp (and hold onto) the symbolism. The validity of the symbolism doesn't require it be "true," just meaningful.

Ok, I can agree with that.

Of course, I think the symbolism involved in religions is all rather silly... but I won't argue the accuracy of your statement.

Ok, I can agree with that.

Of course, I think the symbolism involved in religions is all rather silly... but I won't argue the accuracy of your statement.
Ah, but it's not the symbolism itself but what it is representing that is important.

Buddha is my favourite symbol: big round belly, one hand pointing up and the other down. Worlds above, worlds below... no one in the world like me.

...encouraged by any community which tells people not to think for themselves - aka. most organized religion.
you mean you think that without religion people would think for themselves? i find that unlikely.



So, by "organized religion", you actually meant "mainstream religion"

i dont know how mainstream it would have to be... perhaps not the church of england but the local "church of christ" or the local hindu temple since my example included reincarnation.
but yes, someone who knows something about theology.


It would be unlikely for you to come to this conclusion. However, through organized religion, you could convince others who don't even bother to think beyond what the leaders tell them, to do it as well.

i dunno, seems to me that lots of people have come to lots of conclusions over the years. some are meaningless like that people should be baptised after age 7 instead of as an infant. some are more serious like the men who realize that THEY are the chosen prophet of god and end up marrying their stepdaughters. some are flat out dangerous like those who realize that god wants them to blow up abortion clinics with people in them.

my point was that religious thought is best moderated by public opinion. if the followers of david kouresh had listened to their local ministers they might well be alive today.

<snip>
The word "deity" comes to us from Latin "deus", and to them from Indo-European "deiwos" meaning "sky". The Sky God passed on his name to many cultures as the Indo-Europeans expanded their territory --"Dyaus Pita" in India, "Jupiter" (Dies piter) in Rome, "Tues" in Germanic life, and "Zeus" in Crete --marrying the local goddesses as he went (for as representations of the Earth, the land, they could not migrate with the tribes like the god did; the land stays put, only the people move). The name is a title, the title of deity, specifically the sacrificed god whose blood was spilled annually to fertilize the Mother Earth. This sacrifice was reflected in the relationship that the King of the tribe built with the god. He was elected to serve a term of one or a few years, treated like a god for that term, and then ritually had his blood spilled onto the Earth. They would tie him to a cross in a field, you see, decorated with grasses and flowers, and then stab him quite dead. This ritual is the origin of the scarecrow.
This is an interesting little nugget. Have you a source you can link or refer me to?
Window dressing, that is what an organized religion is. The religions change over time, but the imagry is still there. The sacrificed King no longer sheds his blood to create life, but to redeem it. Off with one cloak, on with another. What matters is the relationship we build to that image, and our reasons for having that relationship, which are individual and unique for every person.
Not to disagree with the specific point you're making here, but to expand on the point that Dempublicents1 makes later, is there not a 'library' function to organised religions? They not only provide the current vehicles for the delivery of their God, but they also provide a repository and continuum for thinking, interpretation and tradition. They can enrich the imagry, meaning and cultural relevance of the origonal story/message, and facilitate access to that enriched message to their adherents, no?

I think I could also make an economic case for organised religions as against individualistic religions, but this is probably not the right thread for that.

This is an interesting little nugget. Have you a source you can link or refer me to?
A number of them. The very excellent (though largely 'feminist') book The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image has a large section about Neolithic Age ritual sacrifice and the Mediterranean Bronze Age regicide, the dying and ressurected King/god as that image relates to the archetype of the Son-Lover of the Mother Earth goddess. The most significant influences on this chapter are James Frazer's The Golden Bough, Vol 8 The Spirits of the Corn and the Wild and Joseph Campbell in Occidental Mythology. Other Frazer books are also referenced, The Dying God and The Scapegoat. The authors (of Myth of the Goddess) show how the enveloping myth of this ritual fits consistently with the image of the Goddess, evolved and adapted over the millennia in relation to a god-image that either works in harmony with or inappropriately dominates the other.

"As Frazer says, these rituals suggest that 'the killing of the god, that is, of his human incarnation, is . . . merely a necessary step to his revival or ressurection in a better form."

Not to disagree with the specific point you're making here, but to expand on the point that Dempublicents1 makes later, is there not a 'library' function to organised religions? They not only provide the current vehicles for the delivery of their God, but they also provide a repository and continuum for thinking, interpretation and tradition. They can enrich the imagry, meaning and cultural relevance of the origonal story/message, and facilitate access to that enriched message to their adherents, no?

I think I could also make an economic case for organised religions as against individualistic religions, but this is probably not the right thread for that.
Sure. Region has provided a library function, rescuing, storing and restoring information (and destroying just as much that doesn't agree with it), which has allowed them to present a relatively consistent message over the last 2,000 years. But this also means that the religion has not grown much in the last 2,000 years. This rigidity, inflexibility, and concretization of the stories into doctrine, while offering us a more factual glimpse into the past than word-of-mouth could, is not necessarily a good thing for religion. Just look at the number of people who scratch their heads over the stories of the Garden of Eden, or Noah's Ark, or Jonah and the Whale. What do they mean to the modern person? The myths have not been updated to be relevant to, not just the modern language, but the modern mind and way of thinking. Rather than the library 'enriching' an image, with the passage of time we are carried further and further away from any meaningful images, which have become, as Kusarii said, "cast in stone."

Does that make sense?

you mean you think that without religion people would think for themselves? i find that unlikely.

If encouraged to do so instead of being actively told not to? Yes, I think most people would. That doesn't mean that there should be no religion, just no religion which actively admonishes people from thinking.

i dont know how mainstream it would have to be... perhaps not the church of england but the local "church of christ" or the local hindu temple since my example included reincarnation.
but yes, someone who knows something about theology.

If you really think most church leaders know anything about theology, you are deluding yourself.

my point was that religious thought is best moderated by public opinion. if the followers of david kouresh had listened to their local ministers they might well be alive today.

(a) Organized religion is not generally moderated by public opinion - it is handed down from whomever has declared themselves the leaders of the church.

(b) If the followers of David Koresh had not been encouraged by society to take whatever was given to them without thinking about it, they might be alive today.

If you really think most church leaders know anything about theology, you are deluding yourself.
Now who's discouraging people from thinking?

Now who's discouraging people from thinking?

There was nothing in that comment to discourage someone from thinking.

If you really think most church leaders know anything about theology, you are deluding yourself.



(a) Organized religion is not generally moderated by public opinion - it is handed down from whomever has declared themselves the leaders of the church.

1] Er… when you say "church leaders" are you referring to bishops, or those of the rank of Patriarch etc, who actually lead the whole church?

2] The Catholic Church's stance on certain issues might be moderated by public opinion in the future, or public disobedience to be accurate.

1] Er… when you say "church leaders" are you referring to bishops, or those of the rank of Patriarch etc, who actually lead the whole church?

Remember that the Catholic church is not the whole of religion. I am referring to all church leaders as an average - from preacher to priest to bishop to rabbi to iman to bishop and on up. The majority of those who people put in authority over them in religious matters know less about theology than I do.

2] The Catholic Church's stance on certain issues might be moderated by public opinion in the future, or public disobedience to be accurate.

Not in a speedy manner, considering that the church discourages anyone to try and figure out the issues for themselves, instead saying "This is the position of the Church and, to be a member of our little club, you must agree."

A number of them. The very excellent (though largely 'feminist') book The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image has a large section about Neolithic Age ritual sacrifice and the Mediterranean Bronze Age regicide, the dying and ressurected King/god as that image relates to the archetype of the Son-Lover of the Mother Earth goddess. The most significant influences on this chapter are James Frazer's The Golden Bough, Vol 8 The Spirits of the Corn and the Wild and Joseph Campbell in Occidental Mythology. Other Frazer books are also referenced, The Dying God and The Scapegoat. The authors (of Myth of the Goddess) show how the enveloping myth of this ritual fits consistently with the image of the Goddess, evolved and adapted over the millennia in relation to a god-image that either works in harmony with or inappropriately dominates the other.

"As Frazer says, these rituals suggest that 'the killing of the god, that is, of his human incarnation, is . . . merely a necessary step to his revival or ressurection in a better form."
Thanks, Willamena. I've got a nasty feeling I read The Myth of the Goddess a while back, but if I did, it didn't stick in my concious memory. I'll try and dig one of these books out and see how I get on. (Though it takes me forever to read this sort of thing. I've been struggling through Science and Poetry by Mary Midgely for over a month now. :( )

Sure. Region has provided a library function, rescuing, storing and restoring information (and destroying just as much that doesn't agree with it), which has allowed them to present a relatively consistent message over the last 2,000 years. But this also means that the religion has not grown much in the last 2,000 years. This rigidity, inflexibility, and concretization of the stories into doctrine, while offering us a more factual glimpse into the past than word-of-mouth could, is not necessarily a good thing for religion. Just look at the number of people who scratch their heads over the stories of the Garden of Eden, or Noah's Ark, or Jonah and the Whale. What do they mean to the modern person? The myths have not been updated to be relevant to, not just the modern language, but the modern mind and way of thinking. Rather than the library 'enriching' an image, with the passage of time we are carried further and further away from any meaningful images, which have become, as Kusarii said, "cast in stone."
Again, I'm not disagreeing as such, but to play devil's advocate just to air some ideas .....

At a material level, organised religions have grown over the last 2,000 years. Christianity, Islam and Buddhism have established themselves and won hundreds of millions of adherents from small beginnings. (Hinduism has taken more of a different route - synthesis of local religions and consolidation, as I understand it.) I know that's not the sense in which you were talking, and at least some of that growth will have been at the expense of other religions, but it is still growth.

But there is another sense in which I think there has been growth. Here I can only really talk to Christianity, because I don't know enough about other faiths, but I do see a deepening and broadening of understanding of the meaning of their religious stories and their relevance to life in the world. I accept it is extremely slow, and it proceeds in fits and starts and at different speeds in different fields. Crucially, it also depends on the theology of religion being open to external developments in other disciplines, otherwise dogma prevails, as you say in your post.

To draw an example from my own experience, I was brought up, in a very religious family, as a member of the Church of England. This is a protestant denomination, but signed up to the Apostolic Creed and so claims communion (nominally at least) with the wider Catholic church. In practical terms, that meant my priest (and my parents) would laugh at me if I started taking the Old Testament too literally (I have a distinct tendency towards one-dimensional thinking), but I can read two thousand years of theological and Catholic-influenced philisophical thinking with some understanding, and so grasp something of the history of ideas in Western civilisation. One of the end points of which is the Roman Catholic church's declaration that science and faith should not stand in contradiction with each other, and that faith should reflect modern scientific understanding. (They took their time, but they got there!)

On a more personal level, if I hear, for example, the prayers for the dead from the C of E Sunday Evensong service, it moves me on many levels. There are the words themselves, the music, the history of the words and music, and the fact that they have been sung in the same way in countless churches over generations. Perhaps most key, there is the feeling with which the prayers are being sung (which itself is honed over hundreds of repetitions by the celebrants) and the very English imagry these particular prayers call up. And of course there are the childhood memories evoked in myself of singing these prayers in a quiet church at the end of every week when I was growing up. The very familiarity of all this allows one's mind to slip past the ritual and contemplate the meaning of the prayers, which is remembrance of the dead.

So, I draw no particular conclusions from all this, because I see all the drawbacks to established religion you mention. Plus, I'm not religious myself. And of course this could all be sentimentality on my part. Perhaps I am arguing for established religions as an ongoing process, not a finished product. Arguably, they lag modern progress, but could that not be part of their function, to hold to deeper truths while more recent thinking ebbs and flows?

Does that make sense?
Of course. (As always. :) )