Almost done with Christianity. Again. I'm going to nominally continue until October 31st, but I'm pretty much done. I might come back to it again, but I honestly can't even bring myself to go to confession, even now. Fucked if I'm sorry. I will have no absolution. I don't want it. I am answerable only unto myself. I don't need a morally ambiguous desert god to forgive me for things when he's guilty of crimes against humanity. If I can't forgive myself, then how do I expect mercy from a god who by his own sacred texts is more often an asshole than not, letting his only son die notwithstanding?
Suggestions for next religion, fake ones are in play, as long as they are developed enough to follow. Also, if you can, recommend a duration.
Try Rinzai Taoism. It's pretty awesome, because people just assume that you're coming from the high ground when actually you're just being an asshole.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 27, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
Try Rinzai Taoism. It's pretty awesome, because people just assume that you're coming from the high ground when actually you're just being an asshole.
I thought Rinzai was a school of thought within Zen Buddhism?
Though, I must admit, I'm feeling a simultaneous pull towards both Buddhism and Greco-Roman Stoicism. I'll have to reread both, but those are the two main draws right now.
Oh, also, as a reminder to both self and reader, I'm supposed to take something away from each religion.
What I take away from Christianity (Roman Catholicism, specifically) are the following:
1) God is fallible. This is easily demonstrated by planting a tree, telling his top work not to eat the fruit, and then being surprised when they do. He might know all, but he's apparently bumbling.
2) The idea that one man who never met me dying for my salvation is abhorrent to me. Not because I don't appreciate the gesture, but the idea that someone is paying for my crimes against God 2000 years in advance seems more than a little unfair to him.
3) Said guy has yet to leave the Nashville bus station.
4) I respect Roman Catholicism insofar as it has been the religion of my ancestors for at least a millennium. I will continue to show a certain amount of respect for it, out of respect for my ancestors.
5) Fucking Vatican needs to shut the fuck up and keep its opinions in Rome and not weigh in on the policies of a secular republic on an entirely different continent. Fuck the Pope. Fuck Rome. You don't half ass separation of church and state, especially in a secular republic founded by nominally Protestant deists.
ive heard about this one religion where you can be the pope, actually, everyone is the pope...
its called protestantism
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:20:46 AM
ive heard about this one religion where you can be the pope, actually, everyone is the pope...
its called protestantism
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
No.
Twid,
Southern Irish.
Also, one Jesus is bad enough. I'm not going to jump from Inquisition to heresy, especially where said heresy has 50,439 denominations.
And that's just in the South.
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 07:18:13 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 27, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
Try Rinzai Taoism. It's pretty awesome, because people just assume that you're coming from the high ground when actually you're just being an asshole.
I thought Rinzai was a school of thought within Zen Buddhism?
Though, I must admit, I'm feeling a simultaneous pull towards both Buddhism and Greco-Roman Stoicism. I'll have to reread both, but those are the two main draws right now.
Rinzai, AKA Linji Yixuan, was a major figure in Buddhism, but so the fuck what? He was a giant asshole who said some really cool stuff. Philosophically, I am FAR more of a Taoist than a Buddhist, as I am more interested in being at ease in my world than transcending it. I find that Rinzai said a lot of shit that rocks, therefore I can call myself a Rinzai Taoist.
JUST BECAUSE I MADE IT THE FUCK UP DON'T MEAN IT AIN'T A REAL RELIGION, MOTHERFUCKER.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 06:58:24 AM
Almost done with Christianity. Again. I'm going to nominally continue until October 31st, but I'm pretty much done. I might come back to it again, but I honestly can't even bring myself to go to confession, even now. Fucked if I'm sorry. I will have no absolution. I don't want it. I am answerable only unto myself. I don't need a morally ambiguous desert god to forgive me for things when he's guilty of crimes against humanity. If I can't forgive myself, then how do I expect mercy from a god who by his own sacred texts is more often an asshole than not, letting his only son die notwithstanding?
Suggestions for next religion, fake ones are in play, as long as they are developed enough to follow. Also, if you can, recommend a duration.
Nigel, I will take it under advisement.
Perhaps you can be my Kumare.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
I'm a hardcore agnostic. I don't know if there is a god, can't truly know and don't fucking care. All I care about is not being an asshole, and it works for me. Deeds, not words. :P non theistic spirituality totally interests me though.
I don't see that much of a point in being a follower in someone else's religion.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
asshole part being a zealous Dawkins fangirl... also i tend to view them as Grudgy McHater positivists... yeah, long story.
true that, agnosticism aint really spiritual...
ever think of pantheism? not in the sense of everything being god, but rather in the sense of existance being sacred?
anyways, ill stop talking for now, im on the insomnia looney threshold
Quote from: Pixie on June 27, 2013, 07:43:39 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
I'm a hardcore agnostic. I don't know if there is a god, can't truly know and don't fucking care. All I care about is not being an asshole, and it works for me. Deeds, not words. :P non theistic spirituality totally interests me though.
Rationally, if there is a Creator, he's the clockmaker, or perhaps more appropriately, research assistant with a petri dish or computer simulation, type of deity. We're a really interesting result of a controlled experiment with set parameters (like, light speed, water being an excellent solvent, and carbon having an almost limitless amount of compounds). Maybe even God noticed us as a whole, but probably not as individuals.
Many of my selections will be theistic by necessity, but I think I am more inclined to a deistic, semi-attached to the lab rats, type of god.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 27, 2013, 07:47:10 AM
I don't see that much of a point in being a follower in someone else's religion.
That's part of the beauty that was this fake guru, Kumare. He flat out told his followers that they were their own guru, and when he revealed that he was just some Indian-American from New Jersey, some of them walked out like they were decieved.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:49:02 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
asshole part being a zealous Dawkins fangirl... also i tend to view them as Grudgy McHater positivists... yeah, long story.
true that, agnosticism aint really spiritual...
ever think of pantheism? not in the sense of everything being god, but rather in the sense of existance being sacred?
anyways, ill stop talking for now, im on the insomnia looney threshold
Why wouldn't everything be sacred?
Either this is all created, and then that means the whole thing is God's handiwork, or, there are no gods, and this is all we have, and should hold it as sacred because this is all there is.
Seems like your definition of pantheism is something that everyone ought to agree on.
Also, I know you don't mean it that way Johnny, but I hate equating atheism with Dawkins. Dawkins isn't the face of atheism, and neither are his fangirls or fanboys. Dawkins is the face of a school of atheist thought that a lot of atheists I've spoken too (though not all) dismiss as intolerant, misogynistic and Islamophobic. Something that Biblethumpers and a lot of atheists can agree on is that Dawkins is a dickhead.
ive just run int far too many atheists that bully on believers...hatred doesnt counter hatred...
im also kinda really deep in the rabbit hole that is ideas and behaviours by which i mean that, on paper and ideas im much more closer to atheism, but ideas mean jackshit, they are just justifications to rationalize abhorrent behaviour
but im digressing, the main twisted point that i was trying to make is that, praxis, not beliefs should be your main concern... after all, christianity, the followers of Jesus, whom proffessed a message of love, distort the principles into practices of hatred against their "brothers and sisters"...
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
On the other hand, you could try the modern American Druidism movement. I have a couple friends that are really focused on that and it seems to work for them (its a bit more serious than their Discordianism, but not much).
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
That was kinda the inspiration for this:
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,13860.msg443872.html#msg443872 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,13860.msg443872.html#msg443872)
You could go gnostic...I'd define that as getting to know deity first, then doing what deity tells you.
(My experience tends to be more like "In Soviet Amerika, GODDESS comes to YOU," but YMMV)
...The opposite of that would be an approach from chaos magic-you believe as a part of the rite.
...I have found the former to be...interesting...The latter requires use of ritual magic for yours truly, I have to be really in a trance state to handle that.
...If you choose to experiment with ritual magic, expect weird shit to happen...
And don't buy all the shiny crap for the altar, unless you REALLY NEED shiny crap to get anything done.
You actually might as you're a drifting Catholic, Catholics have lots of shiny crap involved in the daily magickal rituals of the church.
At any rate, you can't go wrong with throwing in 20 minutes of zazen-style meditation per day.
Shown to build and/or rebuild brain tissue in the frontal lobes in research studies, and reverse some degenerative brain conditions. :)
Kundalini yoga, tantric practice (some tantric exercises don't require a partner), and chanting are also useful.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
Turkish coffee is like yummy liquid crack.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 27, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
You could go gnostic...I'd define that as getting to know deity first, then doing what deity tells you.
(My experience tends to be more like "In Soviet Amerika, GODDESS comes to YOU," but YMMV)
...The opposite of that would be an approach from chaos magic-you believe as a part of the rite.
...I have found the former to be...interesting...The latter requires use of ritual magic for yours truly, I have to be really in a trance state to handle that.
...If you choose to experiment with ritual magic, expect weird shit to happen...
And don't buy all the shiny crap for the altar, unless you REALLY NEED shiny crap to get anything done.
You actually might as you're a drifting Catholic, Catholics have lots of shiny crap involved in the daily magickal rituals of the church.
At any rate, you can't go wrong with throwing in 20 minutes of zazen-style meditation per day.
Shown to build and/or rebuild brain tissue in the frontal lobes in research studies, and reverse some degenerative brain conditions. :)
Kundalini yoga, tantric practice (some tantric exercises don't require a partner), and chanting are also useful.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
Turkish coffee is like yummy liquid crack.
Having done the chaos magic thing for a few years after leaving the JW's, I agree. You can seriously fuck with your own brain :D
I think you should hit the Big Three. You've done Catholicism. Now do Islam, and then Judaism after that.
Then move on to the Hindus.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 01:21:44 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 27, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
You could go gnostic...I'd define that as getting to know deity first, then doing what deity tells you.
(My experience tends to be more like "In Soviet Amerika, GODDESS comes to YOU," but YMMV)
...The opposite of that would be an approach from chaos magic-you believe as a part of the rite.
...I have found the former to be...interesting...The latter requires use of ritual magic for yours truly, I have to be really in a trance state to handle that.
...If you choose to experiment with ritual magic, expect weird shit to happen...
And don't buy all the shiny crap for the altar, unless you REALLY NEED shiny crap to get anything done.
You actually might as you're a drifting Catholic, Catholics have lots of shiny crap involved in the daily magickal rituals of the church.
At any rate, you can't go wrong with throwing in 20 minutes of zazen-style meditation per day.
Shown to build and/or rebuild brain tissue in the frontal lobes in research studies, and reverse some degenerative brain conditions. :)
Kundalini yoga, tantric practice (some tantric exercises don't require a partner), and chanting are also useful.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
Turkish coffee is like yummy liquid crack.
Having done the chaos magic thing for a few years after leaving the JW's, I agree. You can seriously fuck with your own brain :D
Fun, isn't it?
I'm not sane anyway, so it's all about enjoying the madness.
Congrats upon leaving the Jehovah's Witlesses...
You need to join The First Reformed Church of the White-Hot Ball of Fun.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 27, 2013, 07:06:45 AM
Try Rinzai Taoism. It's pretty awesome, because people just assume that you're coming from the high ground when actually you're just being an asshole.
I was just going to say that. :lol:
I've actually had Nigel's troll chat running around in my head for DAYS. It's one of the better religious texts I've come across. :lulz:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2013, 04:27:20 PM
You need to join The First Reformed Church of the White-Hot Ball of Fun.
Also that. I think they'd actually COMBINE well. :lulz:
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 27, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
You could go gnostic...I'd define that as getting to know deity first, then doing what deity tells you.
(My experience tends to be more like "In Soviet Amerika, GODDESS comes to YOU," but YMMV)
...The opposite of that would be an approach from chaos magic-you believe as a part of the rite.
...I have found the former to be...interesting...The latter requires use of ritual magic for yours truly, I have to be really in a trance state to handle that.
...If you choose to experiment with ritual magic, expect weird shit to happen...
And don't buy all the shiny crap for the altar, unless you REALLY NEED shiny crap to get anything done.
You actually might as you're a drifting Catholic, Catholics have lots of shiny crap involved in the daily magickal rituals of the church.
At any rate, you can't go wrong with throwing in 20 minutes of zazen-style meditation per day.
Shown to build and/or rebuild brain tissue in the frontal lobes in research studies, and reverse some degenerative brain conditions. :)
Kundalini yoga, tantric practice (some tantric exercises don't require a partner), and chanting are also useful.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
Turkish coffee is like yummy liquid crack.
I've done the occult thing before. Actually, the Catholicism was a bit of a return since that was the church I was raised in.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 27, 2013, 02:22:26 PM
I think you should hit the Big Three. You've done Catholicism. Now do Islam, and then Judaism after that.
Then move on to the Hindus.
I'm going to have to eat a shit load of bacon the day before.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 27, 2013, 04:27:20 PM
You need to join The First Reformed Church of the White-Hot Ball of Fun.
That's going to be more of a standard fixture.
Pantheism whatever Carl Sagan was into.
My version of Paganism mirrors Pantheism without the worship, or the reverences to "gods"
My God's are the mechanical forces of the universe.
I value someone's atheism based on how much they dick ride Dawkins.
So, I have a few thoughts on Islam, which I'll eventually have to do for the experiment one way or the other.
1) I don't want to do it for too long. Not only do I have to not eat pork, which I can do easily enough, I also have to be sober the entire time, which, is probably doable for extended periods as long as I can have pork.
2) Since Ramadan is a big thing, I would like to experience it. The major draw back to that being that fasting for a significant amount of time is probably detrimental to me. I haven't had it tested but I'm pretty sure I'm hypoglycemic, since hunger comes on me very suddenly at times and I feel like I'm going to pass out and convulse myself to bits if I don't eat during those hunger attacks.
3) Ultimately, Ramadan would be the best time to do it, but Ramadan would have to coincide with Northern Winter, so that I wouldn't have to go too long without food. Ramadan this year begins on July 8, so I'm going to miss it anyway for 2013.
4) Optional: Observe Islam for one Islamic month, and then do Islam again for Ramadan when it is convenient for me to do so without suffering.
Thoughts on Judaism:
1) It would have to be Reform, since my hairline demands occasional shaving.
2) Further, I am unwilling to undertake unnecessary and irreversible genital surgery for a spiritual experiment.
3) In order to be kosher, without too much thought, I will have to be vegetarian, which I do most days (ovo-lacto) out of economic necessity anyway. But even still, said restrictions make me reluctant to be Jewish for too long.
4) Judaism is one of those religions that I would actually like to do for an extended period of time simply because of the amount of holidays.
5) Purim. Nuff said.
6) My supervisor, who is a culturally Jewish agnostic, probably Reform deist Discordian in philosophy hippie person who knows about this experiment may be able to advise me.
Thoughts on Druidism:
1) My default religion is a form of Irish polytheism anyway. It would be interesting to explore it from different angles (when I was younger I was fairly drawn to Ar nDraoicht Fein), but it's not a high priority.
2) Cultural Catholicism, which I will continue to maintain to a certain degree, and Irish traditions, which I observe regardless, will cover some of this ground without the need for acknowledging the Tuatha De Danann.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
On the other hand, you could try the modern American Druidism movement. I have a couple friends that are really focused on that and it seems to work for them (its a bit more serious than their Discordianism, but not much).
I've apparently been a Javacrucian for almost 20 years.
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 27, 2013, 01:19:02 PM
You could go gnostic...I'd define that as getting to know deity first, then doing what deity tells you.
(My experience tends to be more like "In Soviet Amerika, GODDESS comes to YOU," but YMMV)
...The opposite of that would be an approach from chaos magic-you believe as a part of the rite.
...I have found the former to be...interesting...The latter requires use of ritual magic for yours truly, I have to be really in a trance state to handle that.
...If you choose to experiment with ritual magic, expect weird shit to happen...
And don't buy all the shiny crap for the altar, unless you REALLY NEED shiny crap to get anything done.
You actually might as you're a drifting Catholic, Catholics have lots of shiny crap involved in the daily magickal rituals of the church.
At any rate, you can't go wrong with throwing in 20 minutes of zazen-style meditation per day.
Shown to build and/or rebuild brain tissue in the frontal lobes in research studies, and reverse some degenerative brain conditions. :)
Kundalini yoga, tantric practice (some tantric exercises don't require a partner), and chanting are also useful.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
Turkish coffee is like yummy liquid crack.
I'm not opposed to doing magical types of spirituality again, if only to take better note of the psychological effects, but like Druidry, not high on my priorities.
Quote from: /b/earman on June 27, 2013, 06:26:21 PM
Pantheism whatever Carl Sagan was into.
My version of Paganism mirrors Pantheism without the worship, or the reverences to "gods"
My God's are the mechanical forces of the universe.
I value someone's atheism based on how much they dick ride Dawkins.
Nothing but mad respect for Carl. This also fits in with my baseline understanding of the universe and Dawkinites.
Actually, perhaps we should stop calling them atheists and start calling them Dawkinites, since he's basically their prophet.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:59:45 AM
I'm not opposed to doing magical types of spirituality again, if only to take better note of the psychological effects, but like Druidry, not high on my priorities.
I've always been after satori/gnosis/holiness/healing.
...I find synchronicities are very useful
SOO...
What are you after?
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 27, 2013, 08:41:42 AM
You could always try Javacrucian :) The main ritual is taking a strong cup of coffee, watching the sun rise and as it peeks over the horizon, take your first sip and call out "GOD!... I needed that."
I did that one all last spring here in Turkey. It was quite refreshing. Though Turkish coffee is a bit more special than the instant stuff that is the only other option here ;-)
On the other hand, you could try the modern American Druidism movement. I have a couple friends that are really focused on that and it seems to work for them (its a bit more serious than their Discordianism, but not much).
I met a group who did a Javacrucian ritual at PantheaCon, the Pagan convention. There was a hymn iirc.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 06:58:24 AM
Almost done with Christianity. Again. I'm going to nominally continue until October 31st, but I'm pretty much done. I might come back to it again, but I honestly can't even bring myself to go to confession, even now. Fucked if I'm sorry. I will have no absolution. I don't want it. I am answerable only unto myself. I don't need a morally ambiguous desert god to forgive me for things when he's guilty of crimes against humanity. If I can't forgive myself, then how do I expect mercy from a god who by his own sacred texts is more often an asshole than not, letting his only son die notwithstanding?
Suggestions for next religion, fake ones are in play, as long as they are developed enough to follow. Also, if you can, recommend a duration.
Twid, see how you go with the Stoic texts. By the time I completed Letters From a Stoic my main impression was the stoicism really wasn't all it seemed to be cracked up to be.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Maybe we're giving her a nervous system?
If you have Gaia Electronica (as an aspect of Gaia), she would wear a cat head and a strap-on, because the internet is for porn and cats.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Maybe we're giving her a nervous system?
If you have Gaia Electronica (as an aspect of Gaia), she would wear a cat head and a strap-on, because the internet is for porn and cats.
With phones that can translate latent electrical charges in your throat muscles into speech, brain scans that can determine what you're thinking aren't far off. And then it's a small step from reading thoughts to implanting them. Or transmitting them directly, telepathy-over-bluetooth style. All of this will be connected to the Internet of course, so inevitably, one thing will lead to another, and pretty soon we'll have an honest to goodness hive mind thing going on. If the Internet isn't inherently conscious now, it will be after we all contribute our little sparks to it.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Maybe we're giving her a nervous system?
If you have Gaia Electronica (as an aspect of Gaia), she would wear a cat head and a strap-on, because the internet is for porn and cats.
I want a statue of that. I'd make a little shrine around it with candles and incense, the first thing people see when I open the door.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 04:22:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:59:45 AM
I'm not opposed to doing magical types of spirituality again, if only to take better note of the psychological effects, but like Druidry, not high on my priorities.
I've always been after satori/gnosis/holiness/healing.
...I find synchronicities are very useful
SOO...
What are you after?
God.
ETA: God is my prey. I'm hunting God. Don't know what I'll do with it when I catch it.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on June 28, 2013, 05:13:09 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 27, 2013, 06:58:24 AM
Almost done with Christianity. Again. I'm going to nominally continue until October 31st, but I'm pretty much done. I might come back to it again, but I honestly can't even bring myself to go to confession, even now. Fucked if I'm sorry. I will have no absolution. I don't want it. I am answerable only unto myself. I don't need a morally ambiguous desert god to forgive me for things when he's guilty of crimes against humanity. If I can't forgive myself, then how do I expect mercy from a god who by his own sacred texts is more often an asshole than not, letting his only son die notwithstanding?
Suggestions for next religion, fake ones are in play, as long as they are developed enough to follow. Also, if you can, recommend a duration.
Twid, see how you go with the Stoic texts. By the time I completed Letters From a Stoic my main impression was the stoicism really wasn't all it seemed to be cracked up to be.
Will do. I think part of the problem is that it's also a Greek philosophy but the only complete works we have are Latin, and those by the time of the Empire. Seneca, for example, tutor to, if I remember correctly, Nero, and Marcus Aurelius, who WAS an Emperor.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Maybe we're giving her a nervous system?
If you have Gaia Electronica (as an aspect of Gaia), she would wear a cat head and a strap-on, because the internet is for porn and cats.
If the Internet is a god, then the cat thing is enough for me to be a digital Satanist.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:51:36 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:58:32 AM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 27, 2013, 11:59:45 AM
One of my current favorites is the idea that there is an emergent intelligence in the internet, and she is powerful and intelligent enough to be considered divine. A bit like church of Google if they did it right instead of as a cheap joke. You can see the hand of the internet in a lot of things nowadays. She's a fertility goddess (after all, she started with porn) as well as a goddess of enlightenment (also started by scientists looking to share) she's in favor of competition and conflict, partly because of her roots in DARPA, but also because of the way she sets people against one another in pointless endless arguements. She sees nearly everything, far more than we think she sees, what with airports and traffic grids and speed cameras all linked to the net. Her powers and knowledge are not infinite, but they are vast.
This strikes me as an extension of the Gaia Hypothesis, except that Gaia is opting to be a cyborg. Which is just crazy enough to warrant further exploration.
Pretty much yes, but slightly more anthrocentric.
Maybe we're giving her a nervous system?
If you have Gaia Electronica (as an aspect of Gaia), she would wear a cat head and a strap-on, because the internet is for porn and cats.
With phones that can translate latent electrical charges in your throat muscles into speech, brain scans that can determine what you're thinking aren't far off. And then it's a small step from reading thoughts to implanting them. Or transmitting them directly, telepathy-over-bluetooth style. All of this will be connected to the Internet of course, so inevitably, one thing will lead to another, and pretty soon we'll have an honest to goodness hive mind thing going on. If the Internet isn't inherently conscious now, it will be after we all contribute our little sparks to it.
We are the Borg. Your defensive capabilities are unable to offend us. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
Actually that's a mix.
The online game has it something like, "We are the Borg. Your defensive capabilities are unable to offend us. Lower your shields and escort us to your homeworld where we will begin assimilation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is futile." Which I think is a might bit creepier since they stopped giving a crap about culture and cut to the chase.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 04:22:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:59:45 AM
I'm not opposed to doing magical types of spirituality again, if only to take better note of the psychological effects, but like Druidry, not high on my priorities.
I've always been after satori/gnosis/holiness/healing.
...I find synchronicities are very useful
SOO...
What are you after?
God.
ETA: God is my prey. I'm hunting God. Don't know what I'll do with it when I catch it.
GOD IS WITHIN YOU.
...They don't make a cream for that, sorry.
The you that you think of as you isn't you, it's a construct. Something you made. Like a sort of human bagworm, you stuck everything you encountered on the outside and decided this was your self.
(http://viette.poweredbyindigo.com/images/tips/BagwormPupaLabel.jpg)
It isn't your self. No, I can't explain what the self is, mainly because the explanation carries no meaning.
I could tell you "I'm really an orb of blue light trapped in a matrix," and while that's a gross simplification, it's true (and also false and meaningless).
Since y'all are already aware that I'm nuts, it won't surprise you that I actually hear a goddess speaking inside my head on occasion.
Often laughing at me. She laughs a lot, though sometimes she has a mean sense of humor.
I have a sneaking suspicion that she's somehow a much larger and more rarefied version of me that transcends space and time, which is why she occasionally gives me predictions.
(Only when she feels like it, or wants me to do something. Not very often.)
Or, maybe she's an archetype...something like her's been reported for thousands of years.
Or maybe she's one of my quasi-alter personalities.
...Or maybe she's all of that.
Or maybe I'm in the gentle grip of a happy delusion.
Your mileage may vary. :lol:
doesn't islam require dudes to get their foreskins chopped?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1731&CATE=115
apparently it's preferred, but not absolutely necessary.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:36:26 AM
So, I have a few thoughts on Islam, which I'll eventually have to do for the experiment one way or the other.
1) I don't want to do it for too long. Not only do I have to not eat pork, which I can do easily enough, I also have to be sober the entire time, which, is probably doable for extended periods as long as I can have pork.
2) Since Ramadan is a big thing, I would like to experience it. The major draw back to that being that fasting for a significant amount of time is probably detrimental to me. I haven't had it tested but I'm pretty sure I'm hypoglycemic, since hunger comes on me very suddenly at times and I feel like I'm going to pass out and convulse myself to bits if I don't eat during those hunger attacks.
3) Ultimately, Ramadan would be the best time to do it, but Ramadan would have to coincide with Northern Winter, so that I wouldn't have to go too long without food. Ramadan this year begins on July 8, so I'm going to miss it anyway for 2013.
4) Optional: Observe Islam for one Islamic month, and then do Islam again for Ramadan when it is convenient for me to do so without suffering.
Here in Turkey I'm surrounded by Muslims and many drink, some eat pork and 'fasting' on Ramadan is a sort of optional thing based on if you 'want' to do it. Then again, most other Muslim countries see the Turks as "not really real Muslims for real". :D
I don't understand how a Muslim can consider him or herself a Muslim while intentionally disregarding absolute commandments from that religion. Islam tells you to fast during Ramadan. It's in plain black and white print, right? So, how is there a choice? Islam tells women to cover themselves, so how can women who refuse to do that consider themselves good Muslims? You can't eat pork. You can't just cherrypick. If half of your religion is archaic and meaningless, what good is the other half? Why follow it at all? It makes no sense. The archaic part is the underpinning of the lighter, more "universal" part.
The same of course goes for Judaism and therefore Christianity. And probably for Buddhism and Hinduism too, though I don't know enough about those religions to say. But if you're willing to ignore entire commandments and scriptures just because they no longer "fit" with the modern world, what good is the rest of your religion? Isn't it a logical inevitability that the parts you follow now will also eventually be discarded as society and culture changes?
If a practitioner of your religion from a week after it was first established would consider you an apostate or a follower of some completely different religion, you shouldn't get to call yourself a member of that religion.
</imho>
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Your liberalism doesn't strike me as authentic.
:lord:
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Your liberalism doesn't strike me as authentic.
:lord:
:lol:
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 07:04:00 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 04:22:57 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 03:59:45 AM
I'm not opposed to doing magical types of spirituality again, if only to take better note of the psychological effects, but like Druidry, not high on my priorities.
I've always been after satori/gnosis/holiness/healing.
...I find synchronicities are very useful
SOO...
What are you after?
God.
ETA: God is my prey. I'm hunting God. Don't know what I'll do with it when I catch it.
GOD IS WITHIN YOU.
Sure. So's a bunch of organs but you don't really know what they look like without cutting up a cadaver.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is
based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Quote from: Pixie on June 28, 2013, 01:51:24 PM
doesn't islam require dudes to get their foreskins chopped?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1731&CATE=115
apparently it's preferred, but not absolutely necessary.
QuoteThe practices related to Fitrah(natural human ways) are five: Circumcision, shaving the pubic hair, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and removing the hair of the underarm
A religion that requires manscaping. Interesting.
Religions also have this thing where you have rules that you totally have to follow and others that are kinda meh. Otherwise Catholics would never have oral sex, which would be sad. Well technically they can for foreplay purposes as long as neither person orgasms. Which is still sad.
Islam's got those 5 basic pillars that you totally have to do.
Observer Ramadan
Recite the shahadah
Give to the poor
Visit Mecca sometime in your life
Go to mosque on Friday.
So, I guess I can see where the pork and alcohol, being practical concerns in a desert, might be considered optional.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times.
I would certainly hope they wouldn't practice it the old way. That would make the Taliban look like a pack of neophile geeks.
There is no reason that a belief in a deity means you have to behave the way people did in the bronze age.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
Religions also evolve though. Noah was a Jew, but he didn't cut off Mr. Winky's eyelid.
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
It would only guarantee that they couldn't survive. If there's no appeal to the worshiper, what's the point?
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Religion is a human behavior. Humans are not constant.
And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Technically the adding and subtracting bit only pertains to Revelation. At the time that it was written, there was no Bible, which is nothing more than an anthology.
I also wouldn't say that all religions fail to recognize evolution within themselves. Say for example, why would Jesus even be necessary if everything was complete in the beginning? If that were the case, as soon as Adam and Eve stepped out of Eden, Jesus would be there with a hammer and nails saying, "Adam, hang me up on that tree. Eve, write this shit down. Blessed are they who...."
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.
There is a very popular professor of theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk))who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.
One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.
Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 28, 2013, 05:23:18 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.
There is a very popular professor of theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk))who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.
One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.
Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.
Ah fair point that. Proto-Jew.
Also, that's pretty interesting, the story about the drinking guys and how Muhammad was cool with it.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 05:38:21 PM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 28, 2013, 05:23:18 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
In many cases its an issue of interpretation. Mohammad, for example, passed some people drinking and having a good time and he was happy. Later he passed them and they were drunk and fighting and he condemned them and basically said "If you can't handle your liquor, don't drink it". So some sects take that as "don't drink alcohol" others take it as "don't be a drunk asshole". Within Islam there are several sects some believe that all parts of a woman's body must be covered, others that a head covering is necessary and others that head coverings are only necessary when praying or attending the mosque. The Koran is not extremely clear, so its all interpretation. The same for fasting during Ramadan. Fasting is assumed to be necessary by many sects, but others point to other parts of the Koran which claim that undue hardship is unnecessary, so for people that are ill (diabetic for example) or aren't in a position where fasting is a good idea (working long hours in the heat, for example) then fasting is considered unnecessary and a bad idea.
There is a very popular professor of theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ya%C5%9Far_Nuri_%C3%96zt%C3%BCrk))who is on tv weekly here and constantly discusses these topics.
One of the sects, the Alawite, are extremely liberal compared to the Sunni and Shiites and often have suffered persecution and still are the butt of jokes (there's a whole myth about on of their rituals which involve blowing out all of the candles and comments about what they do in the dark (read sex/orgies/incest etc)). The Sunni tend to be more secular than the Shiites and the Turkish Sunni tend to be more secular than other Sunni. Then you have the Sufi which are rather mystical and depending on the sect (and the specific school) may be seen as heretics or accepted.
Also, Noah wasn't a Jew. Jews didn't exist until the children of Jacob (named Israel), son of Issac, son of Abraham.It was the Abrahamic covenant between him and God where circumcision came into play. Noah was several generations dead by then.
Ah fair point that. Proto-Jew.
Also, that's pretty interesting, the story about the drinking guys and how Muhammad was cool with it.
Yeah, I've learned a lot about Muslims living here... its really interesting to see that they are really as diverse as Christians, minus speaking in tongues and snake handling. Though they have whirling dervishes which is pretty cool.
I showed Eris some videos of speaking in tongues and laying on hands etc and I thought she was gonna die. She said if they had a real beat to their music it would just be a Goa party :D
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
And, see that argument wouldn't even be so bad if it was to condemn some practice or specific belief still in use. Gay sex is an abomination? How's that lobster taste?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
Interestingly, even during the first century there were these kinds of complications. The Pharisees for example believed in an eternal soul, the Saducees did not. The interpretations of the Law covenant also varied wildly. According to some wearing sandals with iron nails was "work" on the Sabbath (due to the additional weight), for other it was not.
/beginoldjwbullshit
The Law covenant, the stuff in Leviticus and Deuteronomy was a covenant between the Jews and God with Moses as the mediator. Those laws were only ever to be applied to the Jews and Jewish converts. Jesus 'fulfilled' the Law covenant and brought about the 'New Covenant' which was between all men and God with Jesus as the mediator. Guys like Dawkins don't understand that and often look foolish to Christians because of it. The Mosaic Law was to allow God to interact with sinners through strict laws and animal sacrifices (the blood specifically) to cover the sins of men. Jesus, being a perfect man, was the first and only person who could follow the Law perfectly. As such, he did not deserve to die (The Wages of sin is death). Because he died as a perfect human, his blood perfectly paid the price of Adam's sin. Through this 'New Covenant', his perfect blood once and for all time, covers the sins of man (the animal blood was insufficient and required regular sacrifices). With the New Covenant, the Mosaic covenant was ended and only the laws that Jesus set forth were required (Love God, Love your neighbor, etc).
/endoldjwbullshit
ETA: Homosexuality, though is condemned in the New Testament by Paul, not by Jesus. (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy) Since Paul is considered to have been inspired by God, that allows gays to still be condemned while allowing lobster.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 05:52:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
And, see that argument wouldn't even be so bad if it was to condemn some practice or specific belief still in use. Gay sex is an abomination? How's that lobster taste?
Sure, but if you remember upthread, telling someone they "can't be/do X because it's
against the rules" is a fairly poor argument when you try to apply it to human belief systems.
Actually, the "I eat shrimp and the gays are a crime against God" is a perfect example of an evolving religion. Which leads us to the Episcopalians.
The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.
Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).
And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah). And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).
And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.
I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:58:19 PM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 05:52:59 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
And, see that argument wouldn't even be so bad if it was to condemn some practice or specific belief still in use. Gay sex is an abomination? How's that lobster taste?
Sure, but if you remember upthread, telling someone they "can't be/do X because it's against the rules" is a fairly poor argument when you try to apply it to human belief systems.
Actually, the "I eat shrimp and the gays are a crime against God" is a perfect example of an evolving religion. Which leads us to the Episcopalians.
True, true.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.
On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Right, I get that your whole point is "Everybody should be Atheist".
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.
On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).
Well it depends... for example, the Jewish history (if its at all real) involved genocide of the people living in the land God promised to Abraham. It was considered acceptable because the land had to be holy and pure to protect the lineage where Jesus was going to be born (the 'seed' promised to Abraham). The legal system was the same, sinners were stoned or otherwise killed because it tainted the whole nation (Jews believed in blood guilt by association) and the nation had to be protected so that the Messiah could come.
Muslim history has a slightly different background, but again depending on context and interpretation, it can go either way. There are verses in the Koran that sound like they OK violence, there are other verses that appear to condemn it.
Oh and as for the no pork/lobster etc for Christians:
Quote9 On the next day, as they were on their way and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10 But he became hungry and was desiring to eat ; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance ; 11 and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12 and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13 A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat !" 14 But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15 Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the object was taken up into the sky.
- Acts 10: 9-16
Thus did God say to Peter, "Have some lobster and for Gods sake, BACON!!!!!"
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Right, I get that your whole point is "Everybody should be Atheist".
I didn't say that. I said religion makes no sense to me. I didn't say everyone should be an atheist. I didn't even say no one should be religious. Only that to me, it makes no sense. I have no desire to align anyone else to my way of thinking, just adding my point of view. Besides which, it isn't like the only alternative to religion is atheism anyway.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.
Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).
And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah). And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).
And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.
I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.
And that, right there, is the correct answer.
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 06:02:51 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 28, 2013, 05:41:21 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:03:10 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 04:50:42 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 04:49:37 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 04:36:54 PM
What we need is more rules and more judgementality about who gets to be a "really real for reals" whatever, because there's definitely not enough strife among and between all the religions as it is.
Yeah I hear that, but religion itself is based on the assumption that you don't get to decide who or what you are for yourself. If you are going to subscribe to a worldview that begins by saying "you know nothing, here is the truth, listen OR ELSE," then you are voluntarily giving up your right to be rational and reasonable about the whole thing. For the record, I think people "should" be allowed to say they are whatever the fuck they think they are -- but it's silly to say "I'm a Muslim" and then go around doing things that Mohammad wouldn't approve of. Just admit you don't actually believe in the thing and move on.
To some people, it's an important part of their identity. I know several non-kosher Jews that would be interested to hear that they aren't actually Jews.
Eh. I think I'm failing to convey that this is part of my own objection to adhering to religion in the modern world, and part of my own internal dialog that prevents me from doing it. I can't reconcile the religion as it was originally intended to be practiced with the same religion as it is actually practiced in modern times. The two versions are incompatible, and since so many people have willingly altered the way they practice their religion because of cultural or social realities, it is evident that even if they don't admit it, they are placing a greater importance on those cultural and social realities than they do on the basic underpinnings of their faith. If God was powerful enough to create the entire universe, or cast people into Hell for failure to comply, then following God's religion ought to trump staying in line with modern society.
Of course many people do try to do this. They're called "fundamentalists" or "extreme conservatives." That is what one becomes when he refuses to allow society to dictate what is and is not acceptable in religious belief and practice. Such fundamentalists and extremists are a thorn in the side of a reasonable world, but they are doing exactly what their religions expect ALL religious people to do.
But again -- I don't mean to tell anyone they're "doing it wrong," only that this is why I can't bring myself to take any religion seriously.
If I remember correctly, this was also one of Dawkins' go-to arguments. He'd be debating a Christian, bring up one of the more horrible rules or stories, and ask whether his opponent believes or does that horrible thing. When the Christian tries to explain about how religion changes over time (actually, they usually try to hand-wave), he would be lambasted for not "actually being a Christian" or some such, therefore "proving" how useless religion actually is, or something.
There's only so much that can be explained by interpretation or practicality. Sure, eating pork can be bad for you if you don't have the means to cook or preserve it properly to make it safe. If you're a nomad living in the desert, and your population is small, tightly knit and at constant threat from disease, and you have no good medicine, you probably want to make sure people who suffer from anything that looks contagious are kept a safe distance from the healthy people. This make sense, and it's reasonable to ignore rules like these once you have the means to sidestep them.
On the other hand, having a judicial system that treats women and slaves the same as inanimate property, or a military system based on total war and genocide, is less forgivable, regardless of interpretation or practicality. An all-powerful God would have presumably been aware 5,000 years ago that these practices would be considered morally repugnant in the future, and could just as easily have created judicial and military systems that were not based on that kind of thing. So why didn't God do that? Either it is because those things are not actually morally repugnant, regardless of what modern society thinks; or because "God" is no more than a reflection of the desires and whims of a culture's elite class, and morality based on religion is as relative as everything else in society; or because God's plans change over time (along with the value of liberty and human lives, it follows).
You left out a possibility. The book in question was inspired by God, but written down and translated by a human, who had certain preconceptions about how the world ought to work that God had not bothered to correct.
Åsatru?
Quote from: Pergamos on June 28, 2013, 07:04:21 PM
You left out a possibility. The book in question was inspired by God, but written down and translated by a human, who had certain preconceptions about how the world ought to work that God had not bothered to correct.
That is a possibility of course, but it completely invalidates the entire notion of inspired scripture and therefore the divine origin of a faith. If you can point out an individual aspect of a religion, or an entire theological structure in that religion, and say it is the result of short-sighted and fallible human assumptions, then you have no ground to stand on when challenged to defend any aspect of that religion. Everything boils down to "it is this way because some guy a few centuries ago decided it should be this way, based on a faint notion he got from being 'inspired' by God." The underlying "inspiration" may be divine, but all the trappings of the religion surrounding that inspiration, all the details in every ritual and tradition, become entirely manmade and unreliable.
Asatru would let me have both booze and bacon. Thats pretty much the whole thing anyway right?
Also rats post made me laugh. I think its pretty universally accepted that bacon is like the best thing ever.
Quote from: Cain on June 28, 2013, 05:58:20 PM
The problem with Islam is that the Koran says one thing, the Surahs say another thing and, if you're certain branches of Shiite, your Imam may say another thing entirely.
Not to mention the Koran is meant to be read in Arabic, which many Muslims cannot read (not being Arabic themselves).
And you have the "occult" interpretations of the Koran, where each word is coded with a secret meaning (much like Qabbalah). And then you have the historical school of understanding the Koran, which looks at why Muhammed did the things he did, rather than just blindly follow them (for instance, Zakat was meant to reimburse freed slaves and look after women and children who were abandoned by their husbands - zomg primitive socialism!).
And then you get the fuckers with literary criticism degrees "deconstructing" the Koran.
I guess what I'm saying is, interpretation aint as easy as it looks.
And the Old Testament is meant to be read in Hebrew.
Along with the commentaries, Torah, etc.
Islam sounds a lot like Christianity. :lulz:
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 28, 2013, 04:44:32 PM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 28, 2013, 10:59:08 AM
GOD IS WITHIN YOU.
Sure. So's a bunch of organs but you don't really know what they look like without cutting up a cadaver.
Right.
Look, what's worked for me is shutting my really fucking noisy mind down so I don't drown out the voice of god. If you can shut the discursive mind up, you hear...what's been there all along.
...Most ritual systems, meditative systems, spiritual-religious systems,
they are all various ways to shut the conscious mind down.Am I right?
It's NOT universal, but most religions have that as an important part.
That's the "human bagworm," as I call it...
Theravada Buddhists call it, the "monkey mind, and that's an accurate description too.
One's monkey mind flings shit and does party tricks with equal abandon, but it won't get you to god. In fact its' din blocks god out.
So you have to learn to "Let your mud settle," in the words of the Tao Te Ching.
This is a personal, interior venture, and everyone's connection to the divine is different.
Quote from: stelz on June 28, 2013, 10:27:06 PM
Islam sounds a lot like Christianity. :lulz:
I've been looking as them as worshiping the same god for some time now.
They are fundamentally different, but it's the same deceptive asshole deity at the bottom.
Only god, my ass.
...He does not do the weather for this continent.
I believe that would be Thunderbird.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 12:17:12 AM
I've been looking as them as worshiping the same god for some time now.
They are fundamentally different, but it's the same deceptive asshole deity at the bottom.
Only god, my ass.
...He does not do the weather for this continent.
I believe that would be Thunderbird.
I suspect that's the way the stories were originally MEANT to be taken.
"God's a dick. He'll wipe out your whole family and cover you with boils because he has a bet going with the devil. The motherfucker's crazy, so we have to look out for each other."
And yeah, Thunderbirds and various other Native concepts that DON'T CARE if people are "going to do something gay".
Right before I started posting here I got into Kabbalah. Or, dabbled in Kabbalah.
I found this weird website on it written by this lone due who never capitalized anything. Anyhow, he said that to start, you start at the bottom. Malkuth. It is concerned primarily with the material. To study it you embrace it, focus only on the real, actual, meaty universe in front of you. Like a barstool used to clean your mystical palate.
It really did the trick for me. I got my shit together, mostly, and stopped looking for things that weren't there. This guy said you could easily spend 3 years on malkuth. It takes time to build a foundation. And when you're trying to access mystical or spiritual experienced it pays to make sure you have a cozy place set up to fall back down on.
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I thought this relevant to the OP.
Also, I highly recommend yoga as a spiritual persuit.
James Hewitt writes a great yoga book. Its nice because you can certainly feel that small, still voice/breach into the abyss that connects your every cell to everything else....but it doesn't get carried away too easily either.
And once you're set up with a program it is only a matter of practicing every day.
@ alty:
Grounding in Malkuth concept...is damn interesting.
I think I can use that a lot, though I think it'd just be something I ought to do daily, grounding.
I ought to add it in to the breath-counting.
...And doing yoga benefits both physically and spiritually.
I have to do it because of a degenerative spine thingy anyway, but it really does work to quiet and center things.
(http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/aYbb3nw_700b.jpg)
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Religion is a human behavior. Humans are not constant.
And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
So you're telling me I can't have fun telling teabagger children there is no santa clause?
Quote from: Alty on June 29, 2013, 12:30:41 AM
Right before I started posting here I got into Kabbalah. Or, dabbled in Kabbalah.
I found this weird website on it written by this lone due who never capitalized anything. Anyhow, he said that to start, you start at the bottom. Malkuth. It is concerned primarily with the material. To study it you embrace it, focus only on the real, actual, meaty universe in front of you. Like a barstool used to clean your mystical palate.
It really did the trick for me. I got my shit together, mostly, and stopped looking for things that weren't there. This guy said you could easily spend 3 years on malkuth. It takes time to build a foundation. And when you're trying to access mystical or spiritual experienced it pays to make sure you have a cozy place set up to fall back down on.
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I thought this relevant to the OP.
Israel Regardie said the same. Well, not exactly the same, but he suggested anyone seeking to get involved in ceremonial occult practices first of all undergo extensive psychiatric analysis, for very similar reasons.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Religion is a human behavior. Humans are not constant.
And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
Yeah, I'm not contradicting that here. I don't expect humans to be constant or even consistent. I expect even less from religion, considering it is entirely a human contrivance, invented, modified, transmitted, propagated, and enforced entirely by a collective of mostly blank human minds. Obviously it is going to change along with the humans who are solely responsible for its entire existence.
What I'm saying is that people who
believe a religion,
believe that it is more than that. That it is divinely inspired or revealed. Handed down from a transcendental source of some kind, which itself is above petty things like changing human culture. They
believe that their religion is timeless and unwavering, no matter how old, new, or adapted to culture it may be. And as I wonder how one can truly understand a religion until one truly
believes it, the fact is I can't ignore the disparity between what religion
claims to be (timeless and transcendant) and what it
actually is (the sum total of five billion or so aggressive apes trying to assemble a circus tent from five billion or so different sets of instructions, then getting into a fight trying to raise it, and beating each other to death with the poles.)
So, in relation to the OP (sorry for the hijack, by the way) -- how can one "tour" religions? Is this strictly about the drudgery of rituals and diets and commandments, or are you trying to gain an insight into their entire belief structures, from the vantage point of an average adherant? Because if that's what you're after I'm
incredibly interested and I'd like to know how you get past the superficial regard for your target religion as "another bunch of monkeys trying to discover fire and smashing anyone who rubs two sticks together" and experience it as authentic?
I think that a lot of people explore different religions on the basis that they feel that there is a god or gods or some such divinity, and they are seeking a community and structure in which to worship, so they try different communities and structures until they find one they would be comfortable with.
This is not really unlike people shopping for different operating systems, and you can see this manifested in the fact that many people, once they settle on one, vociferously insist that it is the best one for everyone and everything, and that all others are inferior. However, should they become disillusioned in it for some reason, they will despise it and turn their back on it and insist that they will have no more to do with it, ever, and that all the others who still find it valid and useful are mindless sheep.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 02:47:46 AM
I think that a lot of people explore different religions on the basis that they feel that there is a god or gods or some such divinity, and they are seeking a community and structure in which to worship, so they try different communities and structures until they find one they would be comfortable with.
This is not really unlike people shopping for different operating systems, and you can see this manifested in the fact that many people, once they settle on one, vociferously insist that it is the best one for everyone and everything, and that all others are inferior. However, should they become disillusioned in it for some reason, they will despise it and turn their back on it and insist that they will have no more to do with it, ever, and that all the others who still find it valid and useful are mindless sheep.
They don't look at them as OS's. They ought to, it's a lot more rational way of dealing with irrationality.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 02:19:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Religion is a human behavior. Humans are not constant.
And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
Yeah, I'm not contradicting that here. I don't expect humans to be constant or even consistent. I expect even less from religion, considering it is entirely a human contrivance, invented, modified, transmitted, propagated, and enforced entirely by a collective of mostly blank human minds. Obviously it is going to change along with the humans who are solely responsible for its entire existence.
What I'm saying is that people who believe a religion, believe that it is more than that. That it is divinely inspired or revealed. Handed down from a transcendental source of some kind, which itself is above petty things like changing human culture. They believe that their religion is timeless and unwavering, no matter how old, new, or adapted to culture it may be. And as I wonder how one can truly understand a religion until one truly believes it, the fact is I can't ignore the disparity between what religion claims to be (timeless and transcendant) and what it actually is (the sum total of five billion or so aggressive apes trying to assemble a circus tent from five billion or so different sets of instructions, then getting into a fight trying to raise it, and beating each other to death with the poles.)
So, in relation to the OP (sorry for the hijack, by the way) -- how can one "tour" religions? Is this strictly about the drudgery of rituals and diets and commandments, or are you trying to gain an insight into their entire belief structures, from the vantage point of an average adherant? Because if that's what you're after I'm incredibly interested and I'd like to know how you get past the superficial regard for your target religion as "another bunch of monkeys trying to discover fire and smashing anyone who rubs two sticks together" and experience it as authentic?
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 02:47:46 AM
I think that a lot of people explore different religions on the basis that they feel that there is a god or gods or some such divinity, and they are seeking a community and structure in which to worship, so they try different communities and structures until they find one they would be comfortable with.
This is not really unlike people shopping for different operating systems, and you can see this manifested in the fact that many people, once they settle on one, vociferously insist that it is the best one for everyone and everything, and that all others are inferior. However, should they become disillusioned in it for some reason, they will despise it and turn their back on it and insist that they will have no more to do with it, ever, and that all the others who still find it valid and useful are mindless sheep.
Okay, thanks... I think I'm starting to get it. Searching for a community you can be comfortable in, and seeking to add your voice to the chorus that defines your community, is probably one of the defining characteristics of the crop of humans that are alive now -- not just online but around the world in all the protests and revolutions that have gone on recently where people have actually risen up to defy the rulers and the systems that are standing in the way of their searching. It's one of the few modern trends in human events that actually gives me a good feeling about the overall state of our evolution.
But does exploring religions ever produce a true religious experience? Wouldn't that mean feeling like your religious exploration has stumbled upon the Actual Truth, and becoming an honest convert? Otherwise, you haven't really experienced the religion you're exploring, because religion (The Big 3, anyway) are about full, unwavering, unquestioning, unshakable faith. The kind of faith you don't just walk away from. The kind that will make you drink the Kool-Aid. If it's always in your mind that "this religion is just another stop on my tour," then you're really not able to say you know what it's like to believe.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:09:12 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 02:47:46 AM
I think that a lot of people explore different religions on the basis that they feel that there is a god or gods or some such divinity, and they are seeking a community and structure in which to worship, so they try different communities and structures until they find one they would be comfortable with.
This is not really unlike people shopping for different operating systems, and you can see this manifested in the fact that many people, once they settle on one, vociferously insist that it is the best one for everyone and everything, and that all others are inferior. However, should they become disillusioned in it for some reason, they will despise it and turn their back on it and insist that they will have no more to do with it, ever, and that all the others who still find it valid and useful are mindless sheep.
Okay, thanks... I think I'm starting to get it. Searching for a community you can be comfortable in, and seeking to add your voice to the chorus that defines your community, is probably one of the defining characteristics of the crop of humans that are alive now -- not just online but around the world in all the protests and revolutions that have gone on recently where people have actually risen up to defy the rulers and the systems that are standing in the way of their searching. It's one of the few modern trends in human events that actually gives me a good feeling about the overall state of our evolution.
But does exploring religions ever produce a true religious experience? Wouldn't that mean feeling like your religious exploration has stumbled upon the Actual Truth, and becoming an honest convert? Otherwise, you haven't really experienced the religion you're exploring, because religion (The Big 3, anyway) are about full, unwavering, unquestioning, unshakable faith. The kind of faith you don't just walk away from. The kind that will make you drink the Kool-Aid. If it's always in your mind that "this religion is just another stop on my tour," then you're really not able to say you know what it's like to believe.
You've never changed your mind about something? It's basically the same thing, except it's a conscious decision. If I experience a conversion experience with one particular religion, then that becomes something interesting that requires further exploration. I would at that point try and see what sparked it with in that one particular religion by repeating it in others.
I also think you're underestimating the amount of doubt and agnosticism that believers have. The ones who are absolutely certain are a fairly rare type, at least up here in New England.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to
prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying
or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you
don't and
can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
I don't think it's that black and white for most people. I can honestly say that I've had transcendent experiences in a number of different religious settings. Of course, I also am keenly aware of the biological processes behind those experiences, but I don't think they are any less enlightening for that.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
This is actually a pretty broad and inaccurate generalization. It's very easy to see the regressiveness and evil within religion, just like it's easy to see that the world is violent place by watching the news. But then again, people don't like good news. It's boring, right? It's like what Nigel said in another thread. The default mood is contentment. You don't notice contentment. You notice discontent and euphoria. Your religious experiences are not necessarily the same as everyone else's, and is probably coloring your perception on religion.
It's easy to point to Christianity and say that it's anti-science because it refuses to accept evolution and the Big Bang. Well, maybe for some of the loud and closed minded ones. If you ask the Pope though, you're a fucking idiot if you doubt either of them. And he runs the biggest Christian gig in the world.
Christians are also pretty big into actually helping people. Some use it as a chance to set up a Kool Aid stand, others genuinely want to help, because that's what their God told them to do. There are feminist nuns and priests who want to do away with all of the stupid shit that the Church officially holds onto. The organization is not always the same as the average member of the organization. The people at the top are pretty resistant to change, but that's not indicative.
You can't take communion if you vote pro-choice. I've never seen that stop any of my family members from taking communion. And I've never seen a priest say, "Body of Christ. Wait, are you a democrat?"
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
For a lot of them, yeah.
...People who find their own way to god are free to act as god asks them to/leads them to.
This makes them damned hard to order around. :mrgreen:
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
So- the organization today which is staffed by people who were born in the 20th century are guilty of arresting Galileo? You could make similar arguments for other ideologies of a secular nature. But again, you are making somewhat biased generalizations. Religion does nobly guide people through life, pushing and prodding them to stay ahead of the social curve. Say you have a minister who genuinely does these things, because he chooses to focus on love thy neighbor rather than thou shalt not. Should not his faith at least get some credit then? Or is it all God hates fags signs to you, and the minister just happens to be a nice, but mistaken person?
I have several friends who are devout Christians, and they don't give a crap about anything that I do so long as it makes me happy. And they don't judge any of it either, because their position is that Jesus' message was love.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:01:22 AM
I have several friends who are devout Christians, and they don't give a crap about anything that I do so long as it makes me happy. And they don't judge any of it either, because their position is that Jesus' message was love.
Those would seem to be genuine Christians then.
...Not so much my experience in the land of Baptist Sharia...
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 04:37:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:01:22 AM
I have several friends who are devout Christians, and they don't give a crap about anything that I do so long as it makes me happy. And they don't judge any of it either, because their position is that Jesus' message was love.
Those would seem to be genuine Christians then.
...Not so much my experience in the land of Baptist Sharia...
I'm from Boston. Things are a bit different here.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 04:02:40 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.
This.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:40:04 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 04:02:40 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.
This.
I guess I just don't see a difference between "religions" and "institutional power systems." Without proof of the supernatural origins they claim, they're really no different from any other club that needs money and members, and a place for important people to go when they need someone to boss around.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 04:42:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:40:04 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 04:02:40 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.
This.
I guess I just don't see a difference between "religions" and "institutional power systems." Without proof of the supernatural origins they claim, they're really no different from any other club that needs money and members, and a place for important people to go when they need someone to boss around.
There isn't a difference, most of the time. But religions simultaneously fill a bunch of other different roles that normal institutional power systems generally don't. Further, you can have the religion without actually participating in the institution itself. The institution in and of itself isn't all that necessary.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:39:40 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 04:37:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:01:22 AM
I have several friends who are devout Christians, and they don't give a crap about anything that I do so long as it makes me happy. And they don't judge any of it either, because their position is that Jesus' message was love.
Those would seem to be genuine Christians then.
...Not so much my experience in the land of Baptist Sharia...
I'm from Boston. Things are a bit different here.
I know there are saner places outside of Texas, but that's not my operating heuristic...more's the pity.
...Besides, it seems like Tucson everywhere these days.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 07:43:04 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:39:40 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 04:37:23 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:01:22 AM
I have several friends who are devout Christians, and they don't give a crap about anything that I do so long as it makes me happy. And they don't judge any of it either, because their position is that Jesus' message was love.
Those would seem to be genuine Christians then.
...Not so much my experience in the land of Baptist Sharia...
I'm from Boston. Things are a bit different here.
I know there are saner places outside of Texas, but that's not my operating heuristic...more's the pity.
...Besides, it seems like Tucson everywhere these days.
It is. It's just a little more subtle about being Tucson in this part.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 02:19:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on June 28, 2013, 05:17:10 PM
Quote from: V3X on June 28, 2013, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 28, 2013, 05:09:53 PM
Yeah, I don't really get the idea that religions can't/shouldn't change.
They do change, but they also -- at every stage of their evolution -- like to pretend that they don't. The Bible says DON'T EVER ADD ANYTHING TO SCRIPTURE, because scripture has always been "complete," even before it was finished. Every successive generation practicing a religion convinces themselves and teaches dogmatically that the way they practice is the One True Way to practice, that anyone who did it differently before them was doing it wrong, and anyone who comes after them who changes anything is doing it wrong. Of course religions change -- but they don't admit to changing, they don't encourage change, and religious people willfully ignore the natural evolution of their religion to the point of outright ignorance of their own traditions and history. I know Baptists who actually believe that the Rapture was taught by the original Apostles, for example. They write whole books about this kind of thing despite it being demonstrably false. It all just adds to my overall impression of religion being a social tool specifically designed to confound people and confuse reality with arbitrary myth.
Religion is a human behavior. Humans are not constant.
And if you expect purity of intent and logic in ANY human endeavor, you are going to be very, very disappointed.
Yeah, I'm not contradicting that here. I don't expect humans to be constant or even consistent. I expect even less from religion, considering it is entirely a human contrivance, invented, modified, transmitted, propagated, and enforced entirely by a collective of mostly blank human minds. Obviously it is going to change along with the humans who are solely responsible for its entire existence.
What I'm saying is that people who believe a religion, believe that it is more than that. That it is divinely inspired or revealed. Handed down from a transcendental source of some kind, which itself is above petty things like changing human culture. They believe that their religion is timeless and unwavering, no matter how old, new, or adapted to culture it may be. And as I wonder how one can truly understand a religion until one truly believes it, the fact is I can't ignore the disparity between what religion claims to be (timeless and transcendant) and what it actually is (the sum total of five billion or so aggressive apes trying to assemble a circus tent from five billion or so different sets of instructions, then getting into a fight trying to raise it, and beating each other to death with the poles.)
So, in relation to the OP (sorry for the hijack, by the way) -- how can one "tour" religions? Is this strictly about the drudgery of rituals and diets and commandments, or are you trying to gain an insight into their entire belief structures, from the vantage point of an average adherant? Because if that's what you're after I'm incredibly interested and I'd like to know how you get past the superficial regard for your target religion as "another bunch of monkeys trying to discover fire and smashing anyone who rubs two sticks together" and experience it as authentic?
If you behave as if you believe something you will come to believe it. That's one of the basic tricks of chaos magic. (not defending chaos magic, but they do have some tricks that work, and that is one of them)
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
Quote from: Cain on June 29, 2013, 01:42:54 AM
Quote from: Alty on June 29, 2013, 12:30:41 AM
Right before I started posting here I got into Kabbalah. Or, dabbled in Kabbalah.
I found this weird website on it written by this lone due who never capitalized anything. Anyhow, he said that to start, you start at the bottom. Malkuth. It is concerned primarily with the material. To study it you embrace it, focus only on the real, actual, meaty universe in front of you. Like a barstool used to clean your mystical palate.
It really did the trick for me. I got my shit together, mostly, and stopped looking for things that weren't there. This guy said you could easily spend 3 years on malkuth. It takes time to build a foundation. And when you're trying to access mystical or spiritual experienced it pays to make sure you have a cozy place set up to fall back down on.
Sorry to interrupt the flow, but I thought this relevant to the OP.
Israel Regardie said the same. Well, not exactly the same, but he suggested anyone seeking to get involved in ceremonial occult practices first of all undergo extensive psychiatric analysis, for very similar reasons.
Peter Carroll once said "Never give a sword to a man who can't dance, never give a wand to a man who can't deal with reality."
With Chaos magic, its all about what's going on inside your own head and your own perceptions... and thats based roughly off of what Crowley and Regardie and others did by deconstructing religious/spiritual/mystical systems.
"It can be real, if you really believe"... for varying interpretations of the words real ;-)
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
A belief is just a thought you keep having.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
If I may make a suggestion on how to do that:
Don't consider the larger implications of the religion you examine. Most religions, Christianity and Islam are built on the idea that all of this shit will be done some day. The world is a put stop on the grander path. It reduces the worlds actual problems to none.
People.engage in religion for selfish purposes. You want to see your family when you are all dead. You want to commune with the god and the godess. You want to fuck your little heart out on ripe virgins. Some religions admit this, like Satanism. Others tell themselves elaborate lies, like the concept of charity.
Charity is, of course, always good regardless of the intention behind it. But to assume that Christians engage in charity for any other reason beyond the gratification their god offers them is foolish. Granted, some people want to help people just because. Humans of any type engage in acts of kindness and the intent really doesn't matter.
However, when you live with the love of Jesus in your heart and do Good Acts for Him it is not quite the same as doing it Just Because. IMO.
Point being, to embrace a religion and suspend disbelief it pays to think smaller and more selfishly.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
I think that simply taking on the ritual and the behavioral code will do that. It takes some time, but if you live as a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Buddhist or whatever) for a while you'll find yourself believing at least some of what they believe.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 04:42:58 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 04:40:04 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 04:02:40 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:48:44 AM
How many heads were cracked before Vatican II? How many official apologies to people long since murdered for having the audacity to rock the religious boat? The Pope can get along with evolution and the Big Bang, but don't start asking questions about marriage equality or reproductive freedom. Of course the church will eventually arrive at the same conclusions but at what cost?
Instead of nobly guiding people through a tumultuous and often hostile lifetime, pushing and prodding them to improve themselves and staying ahead of the social curve, religions are merely reflections of average popular sentiment, and they are often even decades behind that. Which is what you'd expect, from institutions completely generated by groups of humans. And that would be fine, if the central tenet of religion was not that it actually reveals some hidden truth no one has access to otherwise.
Again I think this is mostly just the Big 3. Eastern religions operate on a somewhat different paradigm, so if that is the direction you're going to go I have nothing to argue.
What you're talking about is less religion than institutional power systems, into which religions often fit. You find the same patterns in atheistic institutional power systems.
This.
I guess I just don't see a difference between "religions" and "institutional power systems." Without proof of the supernatural origins they claim, they're really no different from any other club that needs money and members, and a place for important people to go when they need someone to boss around.
Dude. Take a step back and critically examine what you're saying. :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
In many religions, you don't have to suspend disbelief. What you do have to suspend is clinging to a personal insistence about what religion "is".
You cannot learn about the reality of anything if you approach it believing you already know all about it, and that what you know is true.
Quote from: Alty on June 29, 2013, 08:00:10 PM
Granted, some people want to help people just because.
Because they are wired that way...here's the SCIENCE:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm
Quote"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711123001.htm
QuoteIndividuals who excel at understanding others' intents and beliefs are more altruistic than those who struggle at this task. The ability to understand others' perspectives has previously been associated with activity in a brain region known as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Based on these past findings, Fehr and his team reasoned that the size and activation of the TPJ would relate to individual differences in altruism.
...Today's thread swerve brought to you by Ooh Shiny and the letters A.D.D.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 29, 2013, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: Alty on June 29, 2013, 08:00:10 PM
Granted, some people want to help people just because.
Because they are wired that way...here's the SCIENCE:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm
Quote"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr. Rilling.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120711123001.htm
QuoteIndividuals who excel at understanding others' intents and beliefs are more altruistic than those who struggle at this task. The ability to understand others' perspectives has previously been associated with activity in a brain region known as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Based on these past findings, Fehr and his team reasoned that the size and activation of the TPJ would relate to individual differences in altruism.
...Today's thread swerve brought to you by Ooh Shiny and the letters A.D.D.
I like the altruism studies... I'm hoping that there will be a class on helping behaviors at PSU.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 29, 2013, 10:24:41 PM
I like the altruism studies... I'm hoping that there will be a class on helping behaviors at PSU.
Question tangentially related to topic... do any of us believe that religion can reprogram those otherwise not wired to be altruistic to be altruistic?
...Not expecting someone to have a hard answer, more inviting thoughts...
See, was it the religion that encouraged the altruism?
Or, was it that people who were already inclined to altruism sought out an altruistic religion?Broadening the question: Is it agreed that religion ought to make us better and happier people?
..I mean, IMO it OUGHT to...
If it does, how does it succeed?
...I note here that self-transformation is difficult, and often painful as hell. If religion leads people to engage in inner growth, that's a very good thing.
Our actions change our chemistry, so yes, behaving in altruistic ways makes us more inclined toward altruism.
And yes, religion CAN make us better and happier people. People who have a community and who help others are happier than those who don't. There are many ways of achieving those, and religion can be one of them.
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 07:46:05 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on June 29, 2013, 09:43:13 AM
Quote from: V3X on June 29, 2013, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 29, 2013, 02:59:56 AM
It's partially to understand them from an inside perspective, partially to appreciate them, and partially to find which bits work for me.
I will say I'm not exactly sure I understand the meaning for your metaphor. I'm a little unclear on what fire is supposed to represent.
Fire is progress. Not just technological progress, but intellectual and spiritual progress. Ever since my initial religious disillusionment I can't consider any religious tradition or teaching all that likely to inspire progress. On the contrary, they seem consciously designed to prevent progress.
It isn't just scientific progress, though that's the easiest for us to see now because that's the fastest-progressing area of development we have right now. But religion expressly forbids all kinds of progress. Social progress, political progress, medical progress, sexual progress. You're forbidden from doing or often even saying or thinking anything that has been declared "unclean" to you, by the ultimate in untouchable authority figures.
So there are the monkeys, stumbling about blindly trying to figure out some stuff about living, and as soon as they think they have something figured out, they team up and beat anybody who asks if maybe there's another way to look at things. Because religion is power and control, and they each seem to be fundamentally incompatible with the concept of finding your own way. The entire point of the religions I'm aware of is that you don't and can't figure it out on your own no matter what you do, so just quit trying and let THEM tell you how it is. Or else.
Considering that you insist that religion be devoid of change from its roots it seems natural that you would feel they are antithetical to progress. Progress, in a religion, is the very sort of heresy or hypocrisy that you were condemning a few posts ago as causing a religion to be inauthentic. The way in which you define a religion it must be anti progress, otherwise it is a sham.
So, I'm basically building a straw man by insisting that any "true" religion must limit itself to an unrealistically narrow definition, then attacking that straw man for being what I alone have defined it as being.
Point taken, then. I suppose I am intentionally refusing to consider any religious path as valid because of my own (limited) experience with religion.
But in my defense I didn't really mean to be combative or contradictory to the OP just for the sake of trying to shoot anything down. I am honestly intrigued by the notion of taking a spiritual safari through a bunch of religions, and I'd like to find a way to suspend my disbelief long enough to do that.
In ritualistic systems, its the ritual process that seems to negate disbelief. In chaos magic they define it as a formula which basically boils down to:
The more complex a ritual process is (chanting, ritual objects, the ritual actions etc etc etc) the more it consumes your conscious mind for the duration of the ritual. Once your conscious mind is distracted from disbelief and instead focused on what to do with the cup or candle or what words to intone and what to visualize, then the 'effect' can be achieved.
Religions that don't have obvious ritual, still seem to operate on the same principle. If you immerse yourself in the system, the brain can often go along for the ride. Especially if you connect with the social group.
At least that's what I found when I played with my head.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on June 29, 2013, 10:52:47 PM
In ritualistic systems, its the ritual process that seems to negate disbelief. In chaos magic they define it as a formula which basically boils down to:
The more complex a ritual process is (chanting, ritual objects, the ritual actions etc etc etc) the more it consumes your conscious mind for the duration of the ritual. Once your conscious mind is distracted from disbelief and instead focused on what to do with the cup or candle or what words to intone and what to visualize, then the 'effect' can be achieved.
Religions that don't have obvious ritual, still seem to operate on the same principle. If you immerse yourself in the system, the brain can often go along for the ride. Especially if you connect with the social group.
At least that's what I found when I played with my head.
Yes, I told Der Twidmuffin that he doesn't have to buy all the shiny stuff unless he needs the shiny stuff.
Someone over at chaosmatrix said "Basically, you're lubricating your brain."
It really is much like sexual arousal in a way.
Different people have different requirements for achieving ecstasy in both the sexual and spiritual sense. (The latter is deeper and quieter, and ultimately far more satisfying)
...I suspend my skeptical mind easily. (Too easily, this is why my ex was able to lie to me about important things through the duration of our marriage. ).
Therefore I need very little of props, which is fortunate because those things get expensive, yeah?
And the ways I achieve a sense of peace, transcendence, boundlessness, being a part of something vast and unutterably wonderful?
These are generally practical exercises.
...Too, I cannot be the person I want to be now, and grow into the person I aspire to be, unless I engage in those practical exercises on a very regular basis.
Like, once daily, bare minimum.
Therefore I advocate to Twid that he adopt his preferred flavor of daily practice to focus his mind.
Whether that be chanting, doing energy work, bowing to Mecca 5 times a day, breath-counting, or simply speaking in prayer to God.
And I guess he ought to try a number of these to see which one works best, maybe keep a log entry summarizing the results?
...I dunno, I just keep finding stuff that's usable in numerous religions. So I swipe it.
One of my favorite exercises:
Mentally "inhale energy" from the sky, visualizing it entering through the crown of your head and filling your body.
This is rather like pulling back a plunger on a syringe, you are drawing in a glowing, fluid substance...or conversely, receiving a charge, as if you were a human battery.
Upon the exhale, the energy/fluid is discharged out of your feet.
Next inhale-energy from the earth is drawn upward into your body through your feet, filling you.
Second exhale-energy discharges into the sky from the top of your head.
I can't run very fast or far, but what I like to do is run or walk while engaging in this exercise.
Praying the rosary in latin was particularly useful for that so thats a practice ill be ultimately keeping. I do a lot of breath control and try and shut my mind down to bare minimum at work because babbling in a dead language would bring too much attention to me at a place where the boredom is pretty... Well penitential.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 30, 2013, 12:49:12 AM
Praying the rosary in latin was particularly useful for that so thats a practice ill be ultimately keeping. I do a lot of breath control and try and shut my mind down to bare minimum at work because babbling in a dead language would bring too much attention to me at a place where the boredom is pretty... Well penitential.
...If I get a job driving for Fedex, or driving for an armored car outfit, I'd be OM MANI PADME HUMming all day as I drive and sling packages...
Nothing worse than an unstimulating job.
Quote from: FRIDAY TIME on June 30, 2013, 05:15:51 AM
Nothing worse than an unstimulating job.
Why I'm here.
Though that having been said, I get relieved in under two hours-need to hit the sketchbook.
(Trying to get wound down, too...something bad)
So, I'm about 2 months away.
I'm kinda now debating between Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Shinto.
Either way, I probably won't give the next choice as much time as I gave Catholicism.
Shinto sounds fun!
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
My vague impression of it was that it was a highly organized animism thing, and I have a huge soft spot for animism. This is, admittedly, based on almost no information whatsoever, so maybe do a little research first :)
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
My vague impression of it was that it was a highly organized animism thing, and I have a huge soft spot for animism. This is, admittedly, based on almost no information whatsoever, so maybe do a little research first :)
That was the impression that I had to. That and that most Shintoists are simultaneously Buddhist.
I think it's a farily complex routine of tasks and rituals. You might want to see what's involved before diving in, lest you find yourself mired in thrice-daily purification rituals, or what have you.
It's CRAP. I only need ONE purification ritual.
And it sounds like a mortar going off.
Quote from: Twigel on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
I don't lack spiritual fulfillment.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2013, 03:51:52 PM
I think it's a farily complex routine of tasks and rituals. You might want to see what's involved before diving in, lest you find yourself mired in thrice-daily purification rituals, or what have you.
Fair point.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 03:56:54 PM
I only need ONE purification ritual. It's CRAP.
And it sounds like a mortar going off.
I think you had the order wrong in that first line. Fixed it for you.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2013, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 03:56:54 PM
I only need ONE purification ritual. It's CRAP.
And it sounds like a mortar going off.
I think you had the order wrong in that first line. Fixed it for you.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 06, 2013, 03:58:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 03:56:54 PM
I only need ONE purification ritual. It's CRAP.
And it sounds like a mortar going off.
I think you had the order wrong in that first line. Fixed it for you.
I've told you about the plumber we have on contract for our facility, right?
Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2013, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Twigel on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
I don't lack spiritual fulfillment.
Yes you fucking do. I haven't been up there in YEARS.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 06, 2013, 03:58:38 PM
Quote from: Twigel on June 27, 2013, 07:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 27, 2013, 07:31:05 AM
and how about agnosticism? it has all the benefits of atheism without the asshole parts
Asshole parts being lack of spiritual fulfillment and no promise of afterlife?
I was an agnostic Catholic for the past year. Agnosticism isn't a spiritual system, it's a stance on whether or not a spiritual system can be definitely known as true or untrue, the answer to which being, "don't know, dude."
I don't lack spiritual fulfillment.
Yes you fucking do. I haven't been up there in YEARS.
But I still have that ball of your pubic hair. It doesn't glow as much as it used to, but I can still read by it.
BUT YUO BETTA COME BACK SOON!
I've been enjoying watching the world through a gnostic lens.
Here's the shortest version of gnosticism I've encountered: "You and the true god are allied against the evil world."
A good start is to read Valis, by phillip k dick. It's a quick read, heady, and if you've already been hanging out in the Black Iron Prison sect of Discordia, it will hit you at a particular angle which I found genuinely startling. No diggity.
In the Gospel of Thomas, (one of those apocryphal texts we found buried in an urn somewhere because the church couldn't handle a sect which gave people a direct line to the divine) Jesus' first line goes something like this:
"Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become disturbed. When he becomes disturbed, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."
See, he's not going to solve the mystery for you. In the gnostic tradition, you don't go to a priest and get the truth. The only way to know the truth is to come in direct contact with the divine, through these gnostic moments of clarity and epiphany. The material world distracts us from this truth---our hungry little bodies distract us, our quick little minds distract us, and when we manage to see past all that, it's disturbing, unsettling... it doesn't make you feel comfortable, like the traditional bible might. But even a glimpse of it motivates you, lights a burning bush under your ass.
And one of the things I like about gnosticism is that it's personal. Nobody can tell you that your relationship with the true god is incorrect, it's all yours. There is no orthodoxy. But you can't be too confident, because the false god disguises himself as the truth. The material world disguises itself as the spiritual world. You are constantly distracted, misled, pulled astray by the ego, the body, the trickster demon who you sometimes think is actually you.
And the truth in gnosticism isn't a discovery, it's a memory. You are already connected to the divine, you just have to remember it. You already are your true self, you just have to stop being distracted by illusions.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8k-bUaAM3i8/TTaJBHCklyI/AAAAAAAAAHc/LR9WzIes-zU/s320/Invisibles%2B4%2BBarbelith.jpg)
anyway, that's gnosticism in brief. there are a million gnostic traditions. generally people assemble their own from the parts of others. I'd be happy to ramble more on this topic, but I'm trying not to create a wall of text. :wink:
-
Quote from: Cain on September 06, 2013, 04:31:10 PM
The only real problem I have with gnosticism is the whole Rex Mundi thing, and what that entails. Christianity as a belief system has enough hatred for reality, so one which, via a Christian lens at least, believes the whole of creation is an evil plot against humanity is one I find myself leery of. It leads to...suspect trains of thought.
Put that way it sounds like the roman empires version of david icke
Yeah, that's also where I get uncomfortable with some forms of gnosticism -- the idea that there is a material and spiritual world, and the spiritual world is higher. Some sects of gnostics who follow this train end up believing that sex is bad, or that women are evil because they tempt men (the whole lilith thing).
That's not my personal experience of the world, so I leave that behind. And I'm not so into the cartesian dualism division of the world into "spirit" and "matter", I think that's a false dichotomy, part of the illusion we have to slash to get to the truth. I think that the material world can springboard us to truth, just like how good sex can be a transcendent experience.
As another example of what I mean, I also think that Schopenhauer's discussion about losing oneself in art is a type of gnostic experience. Schopenhauer writes about how when you listen to good music, or view good art, you for a brief moment lose your sense of self - there is just the music, and your ego is displaced, subsumed into this musical experience. The job of the artist, the director, the composer, is to bring people out of their heads, into this common spiritual space. (what they call the Holy Moment in Waking Life) So that's another material thing which contains an element of the divine.
Shinto is mostly ritual based, place based, and purity based. It centers around the worship of kami, which is a word variously translated as "god/s" "nature spirit/s" "powerful being/s". Kami reside in objects called shintai, or "kami bodies", which could be a human crafted item, a rock, a tree, or in rare cases, something as big as a mountain (Mt. Miwa, for example, has historically been associated with a very powerful kami, and legends from the Yamato era trace a great deal of the Yamato kings' power to that kami). Generally, the shintai is located within a Shinto shrine, which is a ritually purified area. The symbol of Shinto, the torii gate, is found at the entrance of every shrine (with lots of variations by region) and acts as a gateway. Most of the rituals involve purification and vitalism, so burial rites are generally taken care of by other religions, Buddhism, for example, because impure objects are unwelcome in shrines.
The worship of kami is very place based, as I mentioned, something that the authors in my reading call Particularism. Kami receive worship from people within a particular region, and in return are believed to give protection and fortune to those people living there. In other words, it's very bottom up organized, with local kami being the largest focus of worship, and larger festivals for more powerful kami. The most revered kami is Amaterasu, who's shintai is the Sun. Up until the end of WWII, the Imperial Family claimed direct descent from Amaterasu, and therefore divinity or what passes for divinity in Shinto. This is, incidently, why the Emperor/Empress have both great power and essentially no power: great power in spiritual realms, as they are the chief priests for Amaterasu worship, but essentially no political power. This goes back to around the end of the Nara era, in the 8th century, where powerful families took over as the "power behind the throne", and the Imperial family essentially became figureheads. The only two times this wasn't true was at the very start of the Ashikaga or warring states period, when that emperor staged a coup against the shogun of the time, and from the Meji restoration up till the end of WWII. Anyway, that was a total digression. The point is, kami are very much associated with places, and so very few are universally worshiped. As far as I know, the worship rituals are mostly clapping and bowing, with festival rituals being more complicated.
Thats very helpful. Thanks kai
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2013, 05:39:58 PM
Shinto is mostly ritual based, place based, and purity based. It centers around the worship of kami, which is a word variously translated as "god/s" "nature spirit/s" "powerful being/s". Kami reside in objects called shintai, or "kami bodies", which could be a human crafted item, a rock, a tree, or in rare cases, something as big as a mountain (Mt. Miwa, for example, has historically been associated with a very powerful kami, and legends from the Yamato era trace a great deal of the Yamato kings' power to that kami). Generally, the shintai is located within a Shinto shrine, which is a ritually purified area. The symbol of Shinto, the torii gate, is found at the entrance of every shrine (with lots of variations by region) and acts as a gateway. Most of the rituals involve purification and vitalism, so burial rites are generally taken care of by other religions, Buddhism, for example, because impure objects are unwelcome in shrines.
The worship of kami is very place based, as I mentioned, something that the authors in my reading call Particularism. Kami receive worship from people within a particular region, and in return are believed to give protection and fortune to those people living there. In other words, it's very bottom up organized, with local kami being the largest focus of worship, and larger festivals for more powerful kami. The most revered kami is Amaterasu, who's shintai is the Sun. Up until the end of WWII, the Imperial Family claimed direct descent from Amaterasu, and therefore divinity or what passes for divinity in Shinto. This is, incidently, why the Emperor/Empress have both great power and essentially no power: great power in spiritual realms, as they are the chief priests for Amaterasu worship, but essentially no political power. This goes back to around the end of the Nara era, in the 8th century, where powerful families took over as the "power behind the throne", and the Imperial family essentially became figureheads. The only two times this wasn't true was at the very start of the Ashikaga or warring states period, when that emperor staged a coup against the shogun of the time, and from the Meji restoration up till the end of WWII. Anyway, that was a total digression. The point is, kami are very much associated with places, and so very few are universally worshiped. As far as I know, the worship rituals are mostly clapping and bowing, with festival rituals being more complicated.
The Imperial line also claims descent from Mt. Fuji, who is also a woman.
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
And then Twid was a MysticWicks. :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
And then Twid was a MysticWicks. :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Well part of it is to understand it better. But based on what kai said im not terribly sure what good it will do for the what an i taking away from it part other than be better about brushing my teeth.
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 08:15:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
And then Twid was a MysticWicks. :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Well part of it is to understand it better. But based on what kai said im not terribly sure what good it will do for the what an i taking away from it part other than be better about brushing my teeth.
I was joking about the whole Pagan "eclectic" thing. Once on MysticWicks, some freak said "I feel drawn to Bast. Can anyone tell me about him?"
1. Bast is female.
2. Pick a religion that sounds nice and obscure, JOIN THE HELL OUT OF IT, and THEN ask what it's about. It's sort of a form of cultural appropriation, when you think of it. Random Pagan hipster decides that your religion is "underground" enough, claims to be a believer, and then asks you what it's all about.
:lulz:
Sorry, I was just reminded, is all.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 08:19:47 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 08:15:47 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 06, 2013, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 06, 2013, 03:38:03 PM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 06, 2013, 03:36:27 PM
Shinto sounds fun!
It does. Mostly because I have little idea what Shintoists do. I have very little understanding of it.
And then Twid was a MysticWicks. :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
Well part of it is to understand it better. But based on what kai said im not terribly sure what good it will do for the what an i taking away from it part other than be better about brushing my teeth.
I was joking about the whole Pagan "eclectic" thing. Once on MysticWicks, some freak said "I feel drawn to Bast. Can anyone tell me about him?"
1. Bast is female.
2. Pick a religion that sounds nice and obscure, JOIN THE HELL OUT OF IT, and THEN ask what it's about. It's sort of a form of cultural appropriation, when you think of it. Random Pagan hipster decides that your religion is "underground" enough, claims to be a believer, and then asks you what it's all about.
:lulz:
Sorry, I was just reminded, is all.
Ah yes lol
Even as a pagan i thought that kinda stuff was silly. I seem to remember there being the new trendy pantheon thing. Bored with runes? Try slavic sorcery!
Quote from: Don Coyote on September 06, 2013, 07:32:13 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 06, 2013, 05:39:58 PM
Shinto is mostly ritual based, place based, and purity based. It centers around the worship of kami, which is a word variously translated as "god/s" "nature spirit/s" "powerful being/s". Kami reside in objects called shintai, or "kami bodies", which could be a human crafted item, a rock, a tree, or in rare cases, something as big as a mountain (Mt. Miwa, for example, has historically been associated with a very powerful kami, and legends from the Yamato era trace a great deal of the Yamato kings' power to that kami). Generally, the shintai is located within a Shinto shrine, which is a ritually purified area. The symbol of Shinto, the torii gate, is found at the entrance of every shrine (with lots of variations by region) and acts as a gateway. Most of the rituals involve purification and vitalism, so burial rites are generally taken care of by other religions, Buddhism, for example, because impure objects are unwelcome in shrines.
The worship of kami is very place based, as I mentioned, something that the authors in my reading call Particularism. Kami receive worship from people within a particular region, and in return are believed to give protection and fortune to those people living there. In other words, it's very bottom up organized, with local kami being the largest focus of worship, and larger festivals for more powerful kami. The most revered kami is Amaterasu, who's shintai is the Sun. Up until the end of WWII, the Imperial Family claimed direct descent from Amaterasu, and therefore divinity or what passes for divinity in Shinto. This is, incidently, why the Emperor/Empress have both great power and essentially no power: great power in spiritual realms, as they are the chief priests for Amaterasu worship, but essentially no political power. This goes back to around the end of the Nara era, in the 8th century, where powerful families took over as the "power behind the throne", and the Imperial family essentially became figureheads. The only two times this wasn't true was at the very start of the Ashikaga or warring states period, when that emperor staged a coup against the shogun of the time, and from the Meji restoration up till the end of WWII. Anyway, that was a total digression. The point is, kami are very much associated with places, and so very few are universally worshiped. As far as I know, the worship rituals are mostly clapping and bowing, with festival rituals being more complicated.
The Imperial line also claims descent from Mt. Fuji, who is also a woman.
There are all sorts of weird stories about the Imperial Family. My favorite one so far is about a Yamato princess during the most heavy period of Mt. Miwa worship. The kami of Mt. Miwa came to her incorporeal-like, and said that it wanted to see her in person, in her bathroom (her toilet, really). So she goes in there, and is startled to find a white snake. The Miwa kami was offended by this so it scolded her and ran off. She was shamed enough by the experience that she killed herself with chopsticks. Apparently she's buried in one of the large mounds near Mt. Miwa, named after "the chopstick princess".
I'm on a quest to find a Rock N Roll Jesus for Twid.
Quote from: Reverend What's His Bear on September 06, 2013, 10:54:47 PM
I'm on a quest to find a Rock N Roll Jesus for Twid.
What kinda like lemmy?
Johnny Cash with more crank!
DECISION MADE
Reform Judaism, to run concurrent with until Samhain Catholicism, starting on Yom Kippur.
Yom Kippur starts at sundown on Friday.
FYI, if you plan to be Jewish for Yom Kippur, I hope you plan to not eat or drink anything for a full day and pray your face off. That's not an easy holiday to start with. Unlike Purim which I mentioned yesterday at the museum, which involves drinking til everything becomes incoherent in the name of God while eating delicious pastries called Hamantashen.
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 02:41:59 AM
FYI, if you plan to be Jewish for Yom Kippur, I hope you plan to not eat or drink anything for a full day and pray your face off. That's not an easy holiday to start with. Unlike Purim which I mentioned yesterday at the museum, which involves drinking til everything becomes incoherent in the name of God while eating delicious pastries called Hamantashen.
I'm prepared for it. I was talking to a Reform Jew today at the BBQ about it.
Also, Purim 2014 is on March 16. Dear YHWH, help me.
I'm lucking out that it's a Friday night til Saturday night fast. I don't think I'd be able to make it through a work day doing that.
Hmmm.... Yom Kippur might conflict with longstanding plans. Might have to adhere to 1 November Catholicism cut-off.
Villager just asked me if I'm going to have a bris. :lulz:
No.
I have to admit, I commend you for trying Judaism. It makes Catholicism look like a pussy sport.
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:16:56 AM
I have to admit, I commend you for trying Judaism. It makes Catholicism look like a pussy sport.
Well, I am going for Reform. God help me if I was going to be Orthodox.
I'm also going to keep mostly kosher- Ain't no two ways I'm not going to have Irish breakfast on St. Pat's.
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:24:14 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:16:56 AM
I have to admit, I commend you for trying Judaism. It makes Catholicism look like a pussy sport.
Well, I am going for Reform. God help me if I was going to be Orthodox.
You could go Hasidic and wear awesome hats and grow curly sideburns.
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Do you know any jewish guys that
aren't bald way before their time? I swear that thing it an archaeological record of male pattern baldness.
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:47:26 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:24:14 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:16:56 AM
I have to admit, I commend you for trying Judaism. It makes Catholicism look like a pussy sport.
Well, I am going for Reform. God help me if I was going to be Orthodox.
You could go Hasidic and wear awesome hats and grow curly sideburns.
I think the earlocks would look a bit much in my day to day life
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 09, 2013, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Do you know any jewish guys that aren't bald way before their time? I swear that thing it an archaeological record of male pattern baldness.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aHYTk57d04Q/T4uKsz0jlqI/AAAAAAAAAHw/gYfIbHgopP8/s400/Robert_Sapolsky%2Bno%2B2.jpg)
Okay, there's one.
I just remember my friends' bat mitzvahs being full of a lot of bald heads. I'm sure it's a common enough problem that there are some solid solutions in place.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 09, 2013, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Do you know any jewish guys that aren't bald way before their time? I swear that thing it an archaeological record of male pattern baldness.
Dr. S actually. That man looks fantastic for a dude in his 60s.
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
I think it's a matter of respecting the group you're doing things with. I know some jewish groups are emphatically opposed to new people joining up, so I was a little confused when you said you were going that route, but then I remembered "reform" and that kinda deals with that problem. As long as you have a community that's welcoming you into their religion with open arms and a complete understanding of your plans to continue exploring, I think you'll be fine.
As an example, if I started being all RAVENWOLF NATIVE AMERICAN PRINCESS WOOOOOOO! That'd totally be cultural appropriation and pretty inappropriate. If I reached out to the local Abanaque group and explained what little I know about the family history (because every damn french canadian family knows there's some native american blood in there somewheres) and they decided to let my cherohonkey ass in on stuff, that'd be different.
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 10, 2013, 03:29:19 AM
I think it's a matter of respecting the group you're doing things with. I know some jewish groups are emphatically opposed to new people joining up, so I was a little confused when you said you were going that route, but then I remembered "reform" and that kinda deals with that problem. As long as you have a community that's welcoming you into their religion with open arms and a complete understanding of your plans to continue exploring, I think you'll be fine.
As an example, if I started being all RAVENWOLF NATIVE AMERICAN PRINCESS WOOOOOOO! That'd totally be cultural appropriation and pretty inappropriate. If I reached out to the local Abanaque group and explained what little I know about the family history (because every damn french canadian family knows there's some native american blood in there somewheres) and they decided to let my cherohonkey ass in on stuff, that'd be different.
That sounds reasonable. I will talk to a rabbi about it before Halloween.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
Dr Bob Newport (Brother Hypoc in the Principia) talked to me about Musar which is a Jewish practice that exists outside the usual dogmatic trappings of the Jewish faith. That may be something worth exploring. I'm sorry if it's been brought up I haven't read all the rest of thread.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 10, 2013, 04:24:15 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
Dr Bob Newport (Brother Hypoc in the Principia) talked to me about Musar which is a Jewish practice that exists outside the usual dogmatic trappings of the Jewish faith. That may be something worth exploring. I'm sorry if it's been brought up I haven't read all the rest of thread.
It hasn't. I decided on Judaism being next less than 36 hours ago.
I'll look it up, but what is your understanding of it?
Twid, the question to be asked is, "what's your purpose here?"
I mean, are you just trying on religions like suits at Men's Wearhouse, seeing if you like their fit? Are you searching for the One True God(s)? Are you just having a laugh? Is it a sort of immersion anthropology?
Furthermore, do you buy into the whole deity thing to begin with? That there is indeed a sky mommy or daddy, or there is some sort of elan vitale that exists outside of experiential reality that has conciousness and interacts with humans? And that it/they can be appeased or communicated with through a single group of game rules apart from any other?
The answers to these will help narrow down if you're on a spiritual search or just clowning around.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
Twid, the question to be asked is, "what's your purpose here?"
I mean, are you just trying on religions like suits at Men's Wearhouse, seeing if you like their fit? Are you searching for the One True God(s)? Are you just having a laugh? Is it a sort of immersion anthropology?
Furthermore, do you buy into the whole deity thing to begin with? That there is indeed a sky mommy or daddy, or there is some sort of elan vitale that exists outside of experiential reality that has conciousness and interacts with humans? And that it/they can be appeased or communicated with through a single group of game rules apart from any other?
The answers to these will help narrow down if you're on a spiritual search or just clowning around.
It's partially to see a religion from an inside perspective, and partially to see which bits of it I like and which I don't, for my own purposes. I do believe in a deity of some sort but its a vague sort of belief. I would consider my baseline religion to be deism or pantheism. I don't consider that god would be moral, at least not by our standards, unless we truly are made in its image, which I doubt. So I figure that it doesn't really care how I try to connect with it, if at all.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:04:11 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 09, 2013, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Do you know any jewish guys that aren't bald way before their time? I swear that thing it an archaeological record of male pattern baldness.
Dr. S actually. That man looks fantastic for a dude in his 60s.
See, it's because of all the science.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:04:11 AM
Quote from: Queen Gogira Pennyworth, BSW on September 09, 2013, 03:55:24 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 09, 2013, 03:22:57 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 09, 2013, 03:17:26 AM
Also: Pics with a yarmulke or gtfo.
You know, I was just thinking how the fuck will I attach those without any hair?
Also where the fuck will I get one.
Brookline, of course, but where the fuck in Brookline?
Do you know any jewish guys that aren't bald way before their time? I swear that thing it an archaeological record of male pattern baldness.
Dr. S actually. That man looks fantastic for a dude in his 60s.
See, it's because of all the science.
8)
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
I had an interesting reaction to your announcement that you were going to try on Judaism, a distinct negative gut reaction. I had to really feel it out and try to figure out why, and whether there was something I needed to say. It felt trivializing, because while Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is both a culture and an ethnicity, which you can't just try on for a month and then walk away from. People who are raised Jewish are permeated with the culture and the identity, it is very much a part of who they are. But, I sat with it for a while, and I concluded that it is the approach that matters, and that you are approaching it from a place of sincerity, to try to understand what it feels like to be Jewish by adopting the Jewish worldview for a while and genuinely attempting to see the world as a Jew sees the world. I am not sure you can fully succeed in that (not only because you lack the upbringing, but because due to the seasonal/cyclical nature of the religion I think it requires at least one full year of practice, within a Jewish community, to get a Real Jewish Experience) but I think that seeking to understand and empathize with other people's viewpoints is good and worthwhile. So, I have no real objection.
So, are you going to learn Hebrew and go to Temple?
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 05:30:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
I had an interesting reaction to your announcement that you were going to try on Judaism, a distinct negative gut reaction. I had to really feel it out and try to figure out why, and whether there was something I needed to say. It felt trivializing, because while Judaism is a religion, Jewishness is both a culture and an ethnicity, which you can't just try on for a month and then walk away from. People who are raised Jewish are permeated with the culture and the identity, it is very much a part of who they are. But, I sat with it for a while, and I concluded that it is the approach that matters, and that you are approaching it from a place of sincerity, to try to understand what it feels like to be Jewish by adopting the Jewish worldview for a while and genuinely attempting to see the world as a Jew sees the world. I am not sure you can fully succeed in that (not only because you lack the upbringing, but because due to the seasonal/cyclical nature of the religion I think it requires at least one full year of practice, within a Jewish community, to get a Real Jewish Experience) but I think that seeking to understand and empathize with other people's viewpoints is good and worthwhile. So, I have no real objection.
I may well be Jewish for a year, as with Catholicism.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2013, 05:33:50 PM
So, are you going to learn Hebrew and go to Temple?
That will be what I have to talk to a rabbi about.
Personally, I have all the spiritualism I need, locked up somewhere in the cesspool that passes for my skull. This is, again, a personal thing, but I neither want nor need anyone telling me their take on it, which is why I hardly ever talk about it myself.
Going to a church of any kind, IMO, is like yanking that little bit out of my brain and having it try on a uniform.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:40:02 PM
Personally, I have all the spiritualism I need, locked up somewhere in the cesspool that passes for my skull. This is, again, a personal thing, but I neither want nor need anyone telling me their take on it, which is why I hardly ever talk about it myself.
Going to a church of any kind, IMO, is like yanking that little bit out of my brain and having it try on a uniform.
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Well, I suppose I should ask myself then if I can experience Judaism without attending Temple.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Well, I suppose I should ask myself then if I can experience Judaism without attending Temple.
Get yourself beaten by a pair of skinheads at random intervals.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Well, I suppose I should ask myself then if I can experience Judaism without attending Temple.
Get yourself beaten by a pair of skinheads at random intervals.
I think that experience is largely absent in Boston.
Not to say that we don't have skinheads. They just usually spray paint swastikas, it seems.
FWIW, I think this is pretty cool Twid. I know there are bits and pieces of different religions I've been interested in, on a purely philosophical level. When you think about it, most religions to some degree or another are about a kind of ethic or framework for how to live your mortal life. Take out the sky-fairy part, and it stands to reason that religions will have at least some ideas that are actually useful to help guide one.
Certainly the sort of anthropological angle in the religious exploration is also an interesting one. Get a window into how other Earthlings are steering their mortality.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Well, I suppose I should ask myself then if I can experience Judaism without attending Temple.
Why?
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Yes, this is precisely true...BUT the choir hates the altar boys, the nave is full of assholes with joy buzzers, and the priest is actively bullshitting the congregation at large, who are themselves screeching "FREEBIRD" at the organist.
Same old monkeys, newer joke.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:24:39 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:12:19 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:06:16 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:04:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
The congregation bit is part of the larger experience I'm after. It's not the goal.
Well, that was kind of my original point. It will be the same thing as the Catholic congregation, only with a different dead language.
Well, I suppose I should ask myself then if I can experience Judaism without attending Temple.
Why?
Good question. I was stating a personal opinion (stated as such twice), and this somehow translated out as criticism or instructions or something. Which wasn't the goal.
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:25:21 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Yes, this is precisely true...BUT the choir hates the altar boys, the nave is full of assholes with joy buzzers, and the priest is actively bullshitting the congregation at large, who are themselves screeching "FREEBIRD" at the organist.
Same old monkeys, newer joke.
Ah, but we always make exceptions for ourselves!
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
Well, it's a community-based religion, so...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Yeah, I think FBF makes it to Temple once a year at best. And she skipped this year because of the baby. But the congregation part is REALLY important. You can't properly do some of the holidays without a party.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:25:21 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Yes, this is precisely true...BUT the choir hates the altar boys, the nave is full of assholes with joy buzzers, and the priest is actively bullshitting the congregation at large, who are themselves screeching "FREEBIRD" at the organist.
Same old monkeys, newer joke.
Ah, but we always make exceptions for ourselves!
In this case I am justified in my own mind, and the only thing THAT required was that THIS congregation only RARELY makes me reach for the chainsaw.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Yeah, I think FBF makes it to Temple once a year at best. And she skipped this year because of the baby. But the congregation part is REALLY important. You can't properly do some of the holidays without a party.
A Minyan requires 10 people. There's an old saying (and I love old Jewish sayings) that goes "9 sages do not make a minyan, but 10 idiots do."
Also note that a minyan does not require 10 MEN, just 10 people of either gender, of age (defined as having being bar mitzvah'd or the female equivalent (the name of which escapes me).
Original Christianity only required 3 people gathered together specifically to discuss or perform worship.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:25:21 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Yes, this is precisely true...BUT the choir hates the altar boys, the nave is full of assholes with joy buzzers, and the priest is actively bullshitting the congregation at large, who are themselves screeching "FREEBIRD" at the organist.
Same old monkeys, newer joke.
Ah, but we always make exceptions for ourselves!
In this case I am justified in my own mind, and the only thing THAT required was that THIS congregation only RARELY makes me reach for the chainsaw.
:lulz: Fair enough.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Yeah, I think FBF makes it to Temple once a year at best. And she skipped this year because of the baby. But the congregation part is REALLY important. You can't properly do some of the holidays without a party.
A Minyan requires 10 people. There's an old saying (and I love old Jewish sayings) that goes "9 sages do not make a minyan, but 10 idiots do."
Also note that a minyan does not require 10 MEN, just 10 people of either gender, of age (defined as having being bar mitzvah'd or the female equivalent (the name of which escapes me).
Original Christianity only required 3 people gathered together specifically to discuss or perform worship.
Bat Mitzvah.
One of the things that's nice about most Jewish holidays is that they're FUN. They mostly involve wine and friends and feasting and games and singing silly songs and not taking yourself too seriously.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:49:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:42:06 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:25:21 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:22:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:00:21 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:57:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 05:55:20 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 05:46:21 PM
The uniform thing occurred to me, but being a part of a congregation would help me understand the worldview better.
It will help you understand the worldview of "being part of a congregation" better.
I'm already familiar with that one.
So, yeah, just asking here: What makes you think one congregation of primates will be a different experience than another congregation of primates?
We're a congregation of primates.
Yes, this is precisely true...BUT the choir hates the altar boys, the nave is full of assholes with joy buzzers, and the priest is actively bullshitting the congregation at large, who are themselves screeching "FREEBIRD" at the organist.
Same old monkeys, newer joke.
Ah, but we always make exceptions for ourselves!
In this case I am justified in my own mind, and the only thing THAT required was that THIS congregation only RARELY makes me reach for the chainsaw.
:lulz: Fair enough.
So I also make an exception for the Nazarenes (at least the local ones), on account of they are the nicest people on Earth, ever. They hate NOBODY. Needless to say, everyone else hates them like they're Hitler's personal fartcatchers. They don't even preach at anyone, they just lead by example.
And they're not allowed to discuss charitable work or donations at all, nor are they allowed to claim them on taxes.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Yeah, I think FBF makes it to Temple once a year at best. And she skipped this year because of the baby. But the congregation part is REALLY important. You can't properly do some of the holidays without a party.
A Minyan requires 10 people. There's an old saying (and I love old Jewish sayings) that goes "9 sages do not make a minyan, but 10 idiots do."
Also note that a minyan does not require 10 MEN, just 10 people of either gender, of age (defined as having being bar mitzvah'd or the female equivalent (the name of which escapes me).
Original Christianity only required 3 people gathered together specifically to discuss or perform worship.
Bat Mitzvah.
One of the things that's nice about most Jewish holidays is that they're FUN. They mostly involve wine and friends and feasting and games and singing silly songs and not taking yourself too seriously.
That has been my experience, but I actually only know maybe a half-dozen Jewish people, and they're not really practicing.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:54:46 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:52:48 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:45:28 PM
Quote from: Facemeat on September 10, 2013, 06:40:59 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 10, 2013, 06:35:49 PM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 06:34:01 PM
What i meant by that is how necessary is the idea of communal worship in general. What makes a jewish congregation dissimilar to a catholic one?
As I understand it, no official is necessary for the Jewish congregation, and a priest is required for a Catholic one. Also note that a Jewish congregation has a numerical requirement, and does not require a temple.
Yeah, I think FBF makes it to Temple once a year at best. And she skipped this year because of the baby. But the congregation part is REALLY important. You can't properly do some of the holidays without a party.
A Minyan requires 10 people. There's an old saying (and I love old Jewish sayings) that goes "9 sages do not make a minyan, but 10 idiots do."
Also note that a minyan does not require 10 MEN, just 10 people of either gender, of age (defined as having being bar mitzvah'd or the female equivalent (the name of which escapes me).
Original Christianity only required 3 people gathered together specifically to discuss or perform worship.
Bat Mitzvah.
One of the things that's nice about most Jewish holidays is that they're FUN. They mostly involve wine and friends and feasting and games and singing silly songs and not taking yourself too seriously.
That has been my experience, but I actually only know maybe a half-dozen Jewish people, and they're not really practicing.
One of the nice things about so many of my friends being Jewish is that I get to do the holidays with them, and they are awesome.
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 04:38:49 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 10, 2013, 04:24:15 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
Dr Bob Newport (Brother Hypoc in the Principia) talked to me about Musar which is a Jewish practice that exists outside the usual dogmatic trappings of the Jewish faith. That may be something worth exploring. I'm sorry if it's been brought up I haven't read all the rest of thread.
It hasn't. I decided on Judaism being next less than 36 hours ago.
I'll look it up, but what is your understanding of it?
Off top of my head, old practice pretty much killed off (literally) but finding a reemergence in the USA. Essentially Judeism without the emphasis on a literal deity, I think. I didn't look deep so i could be wrong.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 11, 2013, 04:15:14 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 04:38:49 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 10, 2013, 04:24:15 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 10, 2013, 03:18:31 AM
Roger did raise an interesting thing with the eclectic Pagan thing. Am I walking a fine line between exploration and cultural appropration? Religion is a tricky thing in that way. To be Jewish could mean several things. I could be a religious profession, or it could be an ethnicity. Gentiles can convert to it, so it's probably not cultural appropriation in this context. But what if I decided to try Native American spirituality for a while? Is that cultural appropriation and is there a line or is it this murky area where at some point it does become a little too much like appropriation?
Dr Bob Newport (Brother Hypoc in the Principia) talked to me about Musar which is a Jewish practice that exists outside the usual dogmatic trappings of the Jewish faith. That may be something worth exploring. I'm sorry if it's been brought up I haven't read all the rest of thread.
It hasn't. I decided on Judaism being next less than 36 hours ago.
I'll look it up, but what is your understanding of it?
Off top of my head, old practice pretty much killed off (literally) but finding a reemergence in the USA. Essentially Judeism without the emphasis on a literal deity, I think. I didn't look deep so i could be wrong.
That is somewhat appealing to me but is difficult to see how that would fit in with my current understanding of the underlying concept of judaism- that being a well defined god who takes an active role in the unfolding of human history primarily through a specific human culture due to contractual obligations.
It just occurred to me how crass that sounds.
Incidentally, that is somewhat related to my understanding of the meat of Christianity, heretical though it may be.
God makes deal with humans, humans constantly fall short of their end of the bargain, God incarnates as a human to figure out why that is (God in this context is omniscient, but not all-understanding. He just can't wrap his head around people), and finally gets how difficult it is to be a human.
Quote from: Twigel on September 11, 2013, 04:55:39 AM
Incidentally, that is somewhat related to my understanding of the meat of Christianity, heretical though it may be.
God makes deal with humans, humans constantly fall short of their end of the bargain, God incarnates as a human to figure out why that is (God in this context is omniscient, but not all-understanding. He just can't wrap his head around people), and finally gets how difficult it is to be a human.
That's probably the best and most endearing description of the Christian god I've ever heard. Generally he just seems like a malicious bastard.
Quote from: Facemeat on September 11, 2013, 05:58:48 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 11, 2013, 04:55:39 AM
Incidentally, that is somewhat related to my understanding of the meat of Christianity, heretical though it may be.
God makes deal with humans, humans constantly fall short of their end of the bargain, God incarnates as a human to figure out why that is (God in this context is omniscient, but not all-understanding. He just can't wrap his head around people), and finally gets how difficult it is to be a human.
That's probably the best and most endearing description of the Christian god I've ever heard. Generally he just seems like a malicious bastard.
Christian God is an imperfect perfect being. It's one thing to know something. It's a different thing to understand why that something is. It's like the paradox of can an all-powerful being create something that even it is incapable of moving. God creates a species in his image and sets it in a perfect place, with only one rule, and is then incredulous that that creation breaks that rule.
In my senior year of high school, I took World Religions. When we got to Christianity, he said, "Imagine Jesus with a boner. You know it had to have happened." Granted, he was one of those teachers who would nip out to the bar on his break, but you know what? It was an uncomfortable question, because he was absolutely right. God Incarnate had a penis, went through puberty and got morning wood on at least one occasion. He (presuming heterosexuality) turned his head at least once to check out a chick's ass. He turned water into wine, so presumably got drunk at some point.
In my reconversion, that thought came back to me. Those must have been light bulb moments for God.
OH yeah....at that point it all made sense to God. And thus legitimizes Catholicism.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 11, 2013, 06:49:33 AM
OH yeah....at that point it all made sense to God. And thus legitimizes Catholicism.
Catholicism, I doubt. That was merely my approach to Christianity this time. If I do Christianity again, maybe I'll be Coptic, or Episcopalian. But why wouldn't it make sense to him at that point? He had previously been impervious to limitation. Impervious to fear. The bastard had nothing to lose.
Quote from: Twigel on September 11, 2013, 06:54:51 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 11, 2013, 06:49:33 AM
OH yeah....at that point it all made sense to God. And thus legitimizes Catholicism.
Catholicism, I doubt. That was merely my approach to Christianity this time. If I do Christianity again, maybe I'll be Coptic, or Episcopalian. But why wouldn't it make sense to him at that point? He had previously been impervious to limitation. Impervious to fear. The bastard had nothing to lose.
I mean the having a penis part. But you're right...I actually just wanted to have this thread show up in my unread post feed w/o getting lost and was looking for an opening...carry on :)
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 11, 2013, 07:19:26 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 11, 2013, 06:54:51 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on September 11, 2013, 06:49:33 AM
OH yeah....at that point it all made sense to God. And thus legitimizes Catholicism.
Catholicism, I doubt. That was merely my approach to Christianity this time. If I do Christianity again, maybe I'll be Coptic, or Episcopalian. But why wouldn't it make sense to him at that point? He had previously been impervious to limitation. Impervious to fear. The bastard had nothing to lose.
I mean the having a penis part. But you're right...I actually just wanted to have this thread show up in my unread post feed w/o getting lost and was looking for an opening...carry on :)
:lulz:
Wiki page says it better;
QuoteThe Musar movement (also Mussar movement) is a Jewish ethical, educational and cultural movement that developed in the 19th century in Eastern Europe, particularly among Orthodox Lithuanian Jews. The Hebrew term Musar (מוּסַר), is from the book of Proverbs 1:2 meaning moral conduct, instruction or discipline. The term was used by the Musar movement to refer to efforts to further ethical and spiritual discipline. The Musar Movement made significant contributions to Musar literature and Jewish Ethics.
QuoteThe movement's founding is attributed to Rabbi Yisrael Lipkin Salanter (1810–1883), although the roots of the movements drew on ideas previously expressed in classical Musar literature. Prior to the founding of the Musar movement, musar was a practice of the solitary seeker; thanks to Salanter, it became the basis for a popular social/spiritual movement...
Salanter also wrote an essay, "An Essay on the Topic of Reinforcing those who Learn our Holy Torah," published in a collection of essays entitled "Etz Peri." This essay is especially important because the concept of the subconscious appears in the it, well before concept was popularized by Sigmund Freud. In Salanter's essay, the concept of conscious ("outer" [chitzoniut]) and subconscious ("inner" [penimiut]) processes and the role they play in the psychological, emotional and moral functioning of man are developed. Salanter explains that it is critical for a person to recognize what his subconscious motivations [negiot] are and to work on understanding them. He also teaches that the time for a person to work on not allowing improper subconscious impulses to affect him was during times of emotional quiet, when a person is more in control of his thoughts and feelings. Salanter stresses that when a person is experiencing an acute emotional response to an event, he is not necessarily in control of his thoughts and faculties and will not have access to the calming perspectives necessary to allow his conscious mind to intercede.
Scholar Hillel Goldberg and others have described Salanter as a "psychologist" as well as a moralist.
QuoteThe Musar Institute website explains that:
Musar is a path of contemplative practices and exercises that have evolved over the past thousand years to help an individual soul to pinpoint and then to break through the barriers that surround and obstruct the flow of inner light in our lives. Musar is a treasury of techniques and understandings that offers immensely valuable guidance for the journey of our lives.... The goal of Musar practice is to release the light of holiness that lives within the soul. The roots of all of our thoughts and actions can be traced to the depths of the soul, beyond the reach of the light of consciousness, and so the methods Musar provides include meditations, guided contemplations, exercises and chants that are all intended to penetrate down to the darkness of the subconscious, to bring about change right at the root of our nature.[4]
QuoteSalanter recommended studying musar literature in a group. In one passage he spoke of meeting for study on the Sabbath:
The busy man does evil wherever he turns. His business doing badly, his mind and strength become confounded and subject to the fetters of care and confusion. Therefore appoint a time on the Holy Sabbath to gather together at a fixed hour... the notables of the city, whom many will follow, for the study of morals. Speak quietly and deliberately without joking or irony, estimate the good traits of man and his faults, how he should be castigated to turn away from the latter and strengthen the former. Do not decide matters at a single glance, divide the good work among you-- not taking up much time, not putting on too heavy a burden. Little by little, much will be gathered... In the quiet of reflection, in reasonable deliberation, each will strengthen his fellow and cure the foolishness of his heart and eliminate his lazy habits.[
That's actually really interesting, especially that it had the concept of the subconscious.
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
-Salvation and Immortality of the Soul, and the promise of Heaven are not found on the Cross. Not found in the Resurrection. But in God's weakest moment. Salvation is to be found in the Garden, when God had to face the fact that he was about to die, and he was scared as fuck. This mirrors condemning Adam and Eve to mortality. Jesus easily brushed off Satan's temptations in the desert, but when it came down to the end of the line, well, that wasn't so fucking easy. I imagine at that point, all of the embarrassing erections in adolescence and all of the water-to-wine hangovers after Mary and Joseph went to bed early ("went to bed early") were nothing in comparison.
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:19:59 AM
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
I always wondered why religious folk thought this made God so awesome if we were made in his image. Dude sounds messed up if he's a more all-powerful version of us. If everyone was made in his image then why are women and people of color held at such disparity? Clearly God is a rainbow-colored pansexual hermaphrodite.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on September 13, 2013, 07:33:42 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:19:59 AM
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
I always wondered why religious folk thought this made God so awesome if we were made in his image. Dude sounds messed up if he's a more all-powerful version of us. If everyone was made in his image then why are women and people of color held at such disparity? Clearly God is a rainbow-colored pansexual hermaphrodite.
Ultimately, I think (since I am still currently Christian, and about to be Jewish) that what that really means is a model of consciousness. We have humanoid bodies because that just happens to work, so race and gender are irrelevant in God's eyes. However, even then, the fact that God thinks like a human, but has all of the powers of the Universe is even more telling. I think that's why, in the evening of my revisitation, I'm attracted to the idea of Jesus as more human than god. Human and god are otherwise identical. Hell, even within the mythological construct, we ate a magic apple and realized that our junk was just all out there. We are as wise as God. We just had to sacrifice immortality in the process.
Tower of Babel? Heh- these guys are getting a little too good at engineering, I'mma muck up their jibber-jabber.
The Old Testament is about God maintaining control. The New Testament is about God relinquishing that control. As I understand it in mutual context from a Christian perspective. It will be interesting how that outlook changes when I completely nix the latter and accept the former.
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on September 13, 2013, 07:33:42 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:19:59 AM
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
I always wondered why religious folk thought this made God so awesome if we were made in his image. Dude sounds messed up if he's a more all-powerful version of us. If everyone was made in his image then why are women and people of color held at such disparity? Clearly God is a rainbow-colored pansexual hermaphrodite.
Ultimately, I think (since I am still currently Christian, and about to be Jewish) that what that really means is a model of consciousness. We have humanoid bodies because that just happens to work, so race and gender are irrelevant in God's eyes. However, even then, the fact that God thinks like a human, but has all of the powers of the Universe is even more telling. I think that's why, in the evening of my revisitation, I'm attracted to the idea of Jesus as more human than god. Human and god are otherwise identical. Hell, even within the mythological construct, we ate a magic apple and realized that our junk was just all out there. We are as wise as God. We just had to sacrifice immortality in the process.
Tower of Babel? Heh- these guys are getting a little too good at engineering, I'mma muck up their jibber-jabber.
The Old Testament is about God maintaining control. The New Testament is about God relinquishing that control. As I understand it in mutual context from a Christian perspective. It will be interesting how that outlook changes when I completely nix the latter and accept the former.
Kinda sounds like space aliens, when you put it that way. But I see what you're saying.
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on September 13, 2013, 07:33:42 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:19:59 AM
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
I always wondered why religious folk thought this made God so awesome if we were made in his image. Dude sounds messed up if he's a more all-powerful version of us. If everyone was made in his image then why are women and people of color held at such disparity? Clearly God is a rainbow-colored pansexual hermaphrodite.
Ultimately, I think (since I am still currently Christian, and about to be Jewish) that what that really means is a model of consciousness. We have humanoid bodies because that just happens to work, so race and gender are irrelevant in God's eyes. However, even then, the fact that God thinks like a human, but has all of the powers of the Universe is even more telling. I think that's why, in the evening of my revisitation, I'm attracted to the idea of Jesus as more human than god. Human and god are otherwise identical. Hell, even within the mythological construct, we ate a magic apple and realized that our junk was just all out there. We are as wise as God. We just had to sacrifice immortality in the process.
Tower of Babel? Heh- these guys are getting a little too good at engineering, I'mma muck up their jibber-jabber.
The Old Testament is about God maintaining control. The New Testament is about God relinquishing that control. As I understand it in mutual context from a Christian perspective. It will be interesting how that outlook changes when I completely nix the latter and accept the former.
Err.... I should probably say Gospels instead of New Testament.
Fuck St. Paul. (it probably would have done him some good)
That was a tricky thing about revisiting Catholicism too. I am clearly biased against some of the Elect, as well as the concept of Papal infallibility. Also, I'm a staunch liberal. There were a lot of reasons why I couldn't bring myself to go to Confession (I still haven't). Matter of fact the closest I came was me waiting for ten minutes and then storming out of church and then going to Villager's and having premarital sex with her. I only took Eucharist once during the entire time (since I was and still am in a state of mortal sin), and that was last week at Pat's dad's anniversary Mass. And I took it because I knew that I was going to reconvert again soon (I decided on Judaism a few hours later, after talking to the one Jewish person there). It was actually pretty fulfilling. Not out of a sense of rebellion, but in that I own my spirituality and that if God knows anything at all it's that I don't want to offend it intentionally. So fuck the priests' ears.
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on September 13, 2013, 07:45:26 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:43:10 AM
Quote from: Cardinal Pizza Deliverance. on September 13, 2013, 07:33:42 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 13, 2013, 07:19:59 AM
Other thoughts on Christianity-
-We are created in God's image. We fall short of perfection. What, then, does this say about God? Especially when he sees the whole deal from our perspective?
I always wondered why religious folk thought this made God so awesome if we were made in his image. Dude sounds messed up if he's a more all-powerful version of us. If everyone was made in his image then why are women and people of color held at such disparity? Clearly God is a rainbow-colored pansexual hermaphrodite.
Ultimately, I think (since I am still currently Christian, and about to be Jewish) that what that really means is a model of consciousness. We have humanoid bodies because that just happens to work, so race and gender are irrelevant in God's eyes. However, even then, the fact that God thinks like a human, but has all of the powers of the Universe is even more telling. I think that's why, in the evening of my revisitation, I'm attracted to the idea of Jesus as more human than god. Human and god are otherwise identical. Hell, even within the mythological construct, we ate a magic apple and realized that our junk was just all out there. We are as wise as God. We just had to sacrifice immortality in the process.
Tower of Babel? Heh- these guys are getting a little too good at engineering, I'mma muck up their jibber-jabber.
The Old Testament is about God maintaining control. The New Testament is about God relinquishing that control. As I understand it in mutual context from a Christian perspective. It will be interesting how that outlook changes when I completely nix the latter and accept the former.
Kinda sounds like space aliens, when you put it that way. But I see what you're saying.
Well, if this Universe was created by an outside force, the creator would be an alien by definition. Stepping outside of whatever paradigm I'm currently working with, I don't consider God to be an outside force, but rather... co-evolutionary? God develops at a similar rate as the Universe does. When a species arises to conceive of a god, God becomes self-aware.
From a scientific perspective a thought that keeps coming back to me is that maybe the Universe seems so quiet because we are the first technological species. Ever. Someone has to be. This thought terrifies me, by the way. But the Universe is still pretty young. Elements necessary for life are kind of a recent thing, on top of that. It's entirely possible. Maybe we're created in God's image because there were no other images available at the time for God to model itself after.
We're discussing God right now in class. The description and view of God as YHWH/Iehovah/Allah in the tradition of the Abrahamics. It's actually very interesting, because a lot of it has to do with a view of Personhood. God is a PERSON, but he is not human. He has Personhood because he can think and act on his own free will, but he is not a temporal or physical being and he is infinite while humans and angels are finite. However, referring to him as a person can upset Muslims, because to them, Allah is an indescribable being, but they do agree that he does exhibit the above traits, and did create mankind out of love. They just express it differently.
But basically, you should think of us being created in God's image by the way that we have the ability to make our own decisions and create in our own ways. Not the physicality of the human appearance. Angels were not created in God's image, they were created to adhere to God's Will, but they are also NOT Temporal and are NOT human, but still have Personhood, because they are capable of making decisions and acting on their own, but they are bound to their relationship with God, a bond that humans were not created as having. They technically do not have a shape, though are portrayed as winged humans in human artwork, so that they could have a shape in the human mind. Follow?
This shit is bananas.
Here's an interesting perspective imo...
Alan Watts pretends he's God for 10 minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LzVN8nqg0)
I'm not sure if it addresses any of your thoughts but it might.
Quote from: Suu on September 13, 2013, 12:28:53 PM
We're discussing God right now in class. The description and view of God as YHWH/Iehovah/Allah in the tradition of the Abrahamics. It's actually very interesting, because a lot of it has to do with a view of Personhood. God is a PERSON, but he is not human. He has Personhood because he can think and act on his own free will, but he is not a temporal or physical being and he is infinite while humans and angels are finite. However, referring to him as a person can upset Muslims, because to them, Allah is an indescribable being, but they do agree that he does exhibit the above traits, and did create mankind out of love. They just express it differently.
But basically, you should think of us being created in God's image by the way that we have the ability to make our own decisions and create in our own ways. Not the physicality of the human appearance. Angels were not created in God's image, they were created to adhere to God's Will, but they are also NOT Temporal and are NOT human, but still have Personhood, because they are capable of making decisions and acting on their own, but they are bound to their relationship with God, a bond that humans were not created as having. They technically do not have a shape, though are portrayed as winged humans in human artwork, so that they could have a shape in the human mind. Follow?
This shit is bananas.
:lulz:
I follow.
So, obviously the sun has set on Boston and I am now essentially a Hebrew Catholic. I am observing the Yom Kippur fast as described by my Reform acquaintance (clear liquids are acceptable, probably going to have some chicken broth tomorrow), unless my hands start shaking and I feel like I'm going to die from rapid loss of blood sugar (sometimes I can go a long time without food, sometimes I can't. It's unpredictable).
It's a little difficult for me to follow the established patterns though (though I did recite the Kol Nidre three times in English when I got home). So tomorrow I will go to Mass, and make my confession for the first time in over 2 decades, and in the meantime mumble in Latin and translated Jewish prayers.
Good luck, Yom Kippur is tough.
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
Good luck, Yom Kippur is tough.
Like I said, I might be physically capable, I might not. Time will tell.
It might also be a good time to reflect on the purpose and benefit of asceticism, even if only obligated for 25 hours.
Quote from: Twigel on September 14, 2013, 03:52:00 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
Good luck, Yom Kippur is tough.
Like I said, I might be physically capable, I might not. Time will tell.
It might also be a good time to reflect on the purpose and benefit of asceticism, even if only obligated for 25 hours.
Are you going to Temple?
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2013, 03:52:47 AM
Quote from: Twigel on September 14, 2013, 03:52:00 AM
Quote from: Suu on September 14, 2013, 03:47:13 AM
Good luck, Yom Kippur is tough.
Like I said, I might be physically capable, I might not. Time will tell.
It might also be a good time to reflect on the purpose and benefit of asceticism, even if only obligated for 25 hours.
Are you going to Temple?
Mass only. Since my conversion is abrupt and concurrent, it seems the best choice. The nearest church does Confession on Saturdays, so it works for the atonement angle. I'll have to talk to a rabbi or two before I actually go to Temple. Need to make sure that the synagogue in question would be ok with what I'm doing, and ok that I'm probably going to be Muslim or Hindu shortly after the next Yom Kippur.
Also, I'll have to see if the synagogue in question will want me to learn Hebrew or just mouth it when called for. I understand that Biblical Hebrew has a fairly limited vocabulary and would be somewhat easy to pick up in that regard, but it's also not an Indo-European language, so the grammar and syntax will be alien to me.
I am already somewhat familiar with the alphabet without modern vowel conventions though. Not well versed, but when we were at MOS waiting to get in, I was able to figure out what some of the consonants were. I was able to, for example, identify YHWH in Hebrew, and then locate the analogue in Aramaic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPrek1oAjG0
Now attempting to learn prayers in Hebrew.
Seems like one of the most important phrases I'll have to know is "baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu melech ha'olam" so far. Fortunately Irish also has that throat clearing noise, so that won't be too hard.
While I still have a couple of weeks of overlap, I may switch my Latin prayers to their Hebrew translations to get a feel for it, and pick up a couple of words through osmosis.
It's actually kind of a pity. I should have held off on Catholicism, because Pope Francis is actually impressing me quite a bit. It's an exciting time to be a Catholic. But I couldn't have foreseen it. Seems like the bastard's in the news every other day shaking shit up. I suppose it makes a certain amount of sense because he's the first Jesuit pope, and the first from the Americas. I had my doubts about him at first.
You can like Shiny New Pope as a non-Catholic, too. If he keeps going the way it looks like he is, it will be a good thing for the world in general, not just Catholics.
Quote from: Q. G. Pennyworth on October 05, 2013, 04:54:23 AM
You can like Shiny New Pope as a non-Catholic, too. If he keeps going the way it looks like he is, it will be a good thing for the world in general, not just Catholics.
I know. I just wish that his papacy was roughly aligned with my reconversion rather than the last third.
Twid, I'm honestly impressed you're really committing to this. Inshallah.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 06, 2013, 05:41:44 AM
Twid, I'm honestly impressed you're really committing to this. Inshallah.
Well, Catholicism was the easy part. Ish.
I still have to talk to a rabbi. I suppose that largely depends on when I plan to leave work on Frid.... sunset. Always at sunset. :knock knock:
ETA: one in the Medical Area might be more convenient for me.
Bump.
So, I'm almost to full conversion. Samhain is approaching. Halloween itself falls on a school day, which, actually, is rather convenient. I just gotta keep riding the train to the end of the line and take a specific bus to my old neighborhood to the cemetery, where my maternal grandparents and 4 out of 5 of mom's brothers are buried.
I'll be all in black, and I will have my rosaries and my "requiem aeternam" at hand.
Since Nana died earlier this year, I think it will be an appropriate ancestral send of for Catholicism. I also still gotta learn a hell of a lot of Hebrew.
Also, as far as Judaism is concerned, I'm going to have to be a visitor for a while. Jewish folk apparently pay dues. Makes total sense, in order to keep the thing going, you know, if you don't have endless priceless works of renaissance art just sitting there in your headquarters. I suppose the collection plate was something I just took for granted.
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
Clarification-
You can go to Temple anytime you want to without paying dues, but in order to celebrate the High Holy Days at Temple, you must either pay dues or buy tickets. Tickets are guaranteed and cheaper if you pay dues.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:26:46 AM
Clarification-
You can go to Temple anytime you want to without paying dues, but in order to celebrate the High Holy Days at Temple, you must either pay dues or buy tickets. Tickets are guaranteed and cheaper if you pay dues.
Hell of a racket. We don't even charge for memberships, here. Which makes me think we're sort of missing the point.
Because that arrangement sounds more like Southern Baptist-style hucksterism. "God's here if you can afford it".
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:11 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:26:46 AM
Clarification-
You can go to Temple anytime you want to without paying dues, but in order to celebrate the High Holy Days at Temple, you must either pay dues or buy tickets. Tickets are guaranteed and cheaper if you pay dues.
Hell of a racket. We don't even charge for memberships, here. Which makes me think we're sort of missing the point.
Because that arrangement sounds more like Southern Baptist-style hucksterism. "God's here if you can afford it".
Well, you know, we have this god, and this god says we need to have this building, and this building needs to be maintained.
I guess before I'm willing to pay dues I have to ask myself how important is the community aspect to me.
And as a side note, I feel that Discordia has a different sense of Holy. Whenever money comes into it, I think of Jesus literally flipping tables. Jesus was a Discordian, rather than a Subgenius. Religion ought to be free, but if the religion requires a meeting spot and a community, I see the rationale.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:34:36 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:11 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:26:46 AM
Clarification-
You can go to Temple anytime you want to without paying dues, but in order to celebrate the High Holy Days at Temple, you must either pay dues or buy tickets. Tickets are guaranteed and cheaper if you pay dues.
Hell of a racket. We don't even charge for memberships, here. Which makes me think we're sort of missing the point.
Because that arrangement sounds more like Southern Baptist-style hucksterism. "God's here if you can afford it".
Well, you know, we have this god, and this god says we need to have this building, and this building needs to be maintained.
I guess before I'm willing to pay dues I have to ask myself how important is the community aspect to me.
And as a side note, I feel that Discordia has a different sense of Holy. Whenever money comes into it, I think of Jesus literally flipping tables. Jesus was a Discordian, rather than a Subgenius. Religion ought to be free, but if the religion requires a meeting spot and a community, I see the rationale.
Sure, if you have the scratch to buy a ticket. If you're of the meek, though, you can just spend Passover in your cardboard box.
And, yeah, the Jesus flipping tables and swinging a scourge thing did come to mind. If there's one thing about the New Testament that appeals to me, it's that scene, right there.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:36:51 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:34:36 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:11 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:26:46 AM
Clarification-
You can go to Temple anytime you want to without paying dues, but in order to celebrate the High Holy Days at Temple, you must either pay dues or buy tickets. Tickets are guaranteed and cheaper if you pay dues.
Hell of a racket. We don't even charge for memberships, here. Which makes me think we're sort of missing the point.
Because that arrangement sounds more like Southern Baptist-style hucksterism. "God's here if you can afford it".
Well, you know, we have this god, and this god says we need to have this building, and this building needs to be maintained.
I guess before I'm willing to pay dues I have to ask myself how important is the community aspect to me.
And as a side note, I feel that Discordia has a different sense of Holy. Whenever money comes into it, I think of Jesus literally flipping tables. Jesus was a Discordian, rather than a Subgenius. Religion ought to be free, but if the religion requires a meeting spot and a community, I see the rationale.
Sure, if you have the scratch to buy a ticket. If you're of the meek, though, you can just spend Passover in your cardboard box.
And, yeah, the Jesus flipping tables and swinging a scourge thing did come to mind. If there's one thing about the New Testament that appeals to me, it's that scene, right there.
So, do you recommend that I flip the table and be a Jew alone, or try and partake in the community? Or partake in the community insofar that it costs me nothing?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious
institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
So, do you recommend that I flip the table and be a Jew alone, or try and partake in the community? Or partake in the community insofar that it costs me nothing?
Partake in the community if you can, if you really want to check it out.
But be suspicious of any organization that charges tickets for God.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:42:14 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:41:02 AM
So, do you recommend that I flip the table and be a Jew alone, or try and partake in the community? Or partake in the community insofar that it costs me nothing?
Partake in the community if you can, if you really want to check it out.
But be suspicious of any organization that charges tickets for God.
Fair point. I do really want to check it out.
Truth be told, part of the reason I found Catholicism alienating was because my parish was the type where it was "Mass has ended, not GTFO and give each other the finger trying to go home."
Honestly I thought that was normal until I took World Religions and attended a Unitarian Universalist meeting, and it was expected that you stuck around and socialized. Then I saw my coworker get ordained as an Orthodox Christian priest, and well, coffee and pastries and talking and oh isn't that interesting, I used to be a Catholic too (the recently ordained was also a third former Catholic). And my Lutheran friends where it's like, hey, I'm in seminary, and come and visit and let's tear it up like back in Boston, and let's go visit my preacher dad for service on Sunday, and oh, it's about false gods and he knows you're Pagan. False god=$$$. Hell, different parish, same town, here's some coffee and pastries after Mass.
I guess what I'm saying is that the community aspect is very compelling. The money aspect may be bollocks, but at the end of the day, someone has to pay for the coffee and donuts. And I definitely missed that in my home parish. The sense of community.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because you're a mathematician.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:00:34 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because you're a mathematician.
Actually I thought part 2 such an awesome quote I couldn't even address it.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:00:34 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because you're a mathematician.
Nope. I've told math to fuck off and bug some other soul.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:02:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:00:34 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because you're a mathematician.
Nope. I've told math to fuck off and bug some other soul.
You've still much to learn about poetry then.
Twid,
Musician, inadvertent mathematician
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because Holy Man™. Also, I live in a fucking desert. All the weird shit comes out of deserts, if you think about it.
That's because THIS PLACE IS NOT HABITABLE AND IT MAKES US ALL CRAZY. We sit in the big empty and thing big empty thoughts until shit makes a strange and contagious sort of sense.
Then we come rolling out of the desert, fueled by these ideas, and fucking everyone's shit.
Music and poetry are the act of humans making math seem pretty.
Ask Classicist about dactylic hexameter. Or perhaps an English major about iambic pentameter. It's all math and no rhyme.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:09:10 AM
Music and poetry are the act of humans making math seem pretty.
Balls. It's the other way around.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
I now have the appropriate response to this:
I'm sure you're tongue didn't see the attraction, but there it was, getting mechanically stretched out, for some strange, unexplained goddamned reason.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:09:10 AM
Music and poetry are the act of humans making math seem pretty.
Balls. It's the other way around.
I've never headbanged to an equation.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:04:29 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:02:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:00:34 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 04:58:32 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:35:23 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:29:40 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:25:40 AM
I still fail to see the attraction.
We have all the Holiness™ you need, right here. We got it leaking outta every orifice.
It's a pull, Reverend. I can't explain it otherwise. It's something that is calling me to different places on the map.
And, like many other attractions, E tickets are gonna cost ya plenty.
What would you recommend?
I don't recommend ANY religious institution, because in the end, they're all the same thing: Finding a way to get someone ELSE'S opinion on God (or the Cosmic Muffin, or whatever the hell it is you're looking for).
As I've said before, I'm a believer, but I have two idiosyncrasies that make all the other believers crowd to the other side of the bus.
1. All churches are crap, EVEN *insert name of church in question*, and
2. SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS. You CAN'T prove God's existence, and it's BLASPHEMOUS TO EVEN TRY IT, at least according to the new testament. You merely accept empirical evidence as the way the universe works, and then believe in God anyway, even if the evidence amounts to the idea that he isn't at all necessary. Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
why did point 2 make so much sense?
Because you're a mathematician.
Nope. I've told math to fuck off and bug some other soul.
You've still much to learn about poetry then.
Twid,
Musician, inadvertent mathematician
you think I am unaware of metrics as primary method conveying rhythm in poesy?
nay my good friend.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:09:10 AM
Music and poetry are the act of humans making math seem pretty.
Ask Classicist about dactylic hexameter. Or perhaps an English major about iambic pentameter. It's all math and no rhyme.
nay nay
poesy and music are manifestations of the human brain's desire to create patterns from the flotsam of the chaos that is the real world.
mathematics are yet another manifestation of this desire.
The desire to grasp the ungraspable real.
But that is just like my opinion man.
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:30:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Next year is going to involve a lot of me punching myself in the temples, isn't it?
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:40:39 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:30:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Next year is going to involve a lot of me punching myself in the temples, isn't it?
oh and measuring angles with radians.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:44:24 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:40:39 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:30:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Next year is going to involve a lot of me punching myself in the temples, isn't it?
oh and measuring angles with radians.
I'M DOING THIS FOR MY FUTURE.
Blight,
So far so good, still an A- student
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:46:25 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:44:24 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:40:39 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:30:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Next year is going to involve a lot of me punching myself in the temples, isn't it?
oh and measuring angles with radians.
I'M DOING THIS FOR MY FUTURE.
Blight,
So far so good, still an A- student
have fun.
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:48:02 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:46:25 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:44:24 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:40:39 AM
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 05:30:53 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
real numbers are the opposite of imaginary numbers, which are just a fancy of easy of cheating at math.
Next year is going to involve a lot of me punching myself in the temples, isn't it?
oh and measuring angles with radians.
I'M DOING THIS FOR MY FUTURE.
Blight,
So far so good, still an A- student
have fun.
I will why I can.
Actually after my midterm I ran into an old friend on the train, and he chuckled and wished me good luck on my switch. Something something, "hard facts? No! Interpretation!"
This is my lot now though. I will be some sort of biologist. No time left, no room for failure. Gotta get on with it. Fortunately, before I wanted to be a musician, I wanted to be a scientist. An astrophysicist specifically, but eh, no time for that. So I'm not unhappy with with my decision, just expecting to be overwhelmed. I can do it, and if I can't, well, I better learn quick.
Tying this back in with spirituality, the more I learn about biology the more I'm willing to entertain the objective absurdity of religiosity. Something something, polymers with a purpose that build proteins to maintain that chemical and make sure it makes new chemicals with a slightly different chemical... I can't come up with any rhyme nor reason for it. It just seems.... silly. "I'm a really complex chemical and I need to replicate. And to facilitate that, I'm going to create consciousness somewhere down the road."
I'm pretty sure there's a non-theistic actual reason for it, like, that's just how shit happened, purely by accident, but it's just too weird of a concept to not attribute something to it, whether its a false notion or not.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
Finally caught up with this thread. I'm seriously impressed, Twid, and very glad you are sharing your process.
As to the math comment, I may have an illumination for you.
We start with the "Real Number Line", an infinite line on which we can plot whole and decimal numbers, and which has natural symmetry around the 0 point when you multiply by "negative one" (i.e, every number on the positive side has a corresponding number on the negative side). The fact that we can use the numbers on the "Real Number Line" to count quantities of objects, or to perform operations (A+5, B-9) is super neat.
There's another type of symmetry, tho. Rotational symmetry. This is what "i" is for. We use "-1" to perform 180 degree "reflectional" symmetry, but when we multiply by "i" we have shifted to another Axis of numbers, via 90 degree rotational symmetry, which is orthogonal (at right angles) to our "Real Number Axis". The numbers on the "i" axis are just as "real" but we already had a stupid name for the first axis.
We use "i" and "-i" in order to Rotate (using 0 as a reference point) from the Real Number Line to the corresponding point on the I Number Line. It's so much easier to think of this as X and Y at this point, as on a geometry grid.
5+5i is the same as saying "A point at (5, 5)". It allows us to describe a 2-co-ordinate system within a single equation, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit
I'm still totally digging into this concept, but it's helped me understand some of the interesting math used in CG systems.
Quote from: Telarus on October 22, 2013, 06:14:23 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:21:12 AM
Math is immutable though.
Stupid as fuck at times, since it includes the term "real numbers" (wtf other sort of numbers are there?)
Perhaps math and music are different, much in the same way that something happened, and there are two very different stories about the same incident.
Finally caught up with this thread. I'm seriously impressed, Twid, and very glad you are sharing your process.
As to the math comment, I may have an illumination for you.
We start with the "Real Number Line", an infinite line on which we can plot whole and decimal numbers, and which has natural symmetry around the 0 point when you multiply by "negative one" (i.e, every number on the positive side has a corresponding number on the negative side). The fact that we can use the numbers on the "Real Number Line" to count quanities of objects, or to perform operations (A+5, B-9) is super neat.
There's another type of symmetry, tho. Rotational symmetry. This is what "i" is. we use "-1" to perform linear symmetry, but when we multiply by "i" we have shifted to another Axis of numbers, which is orthogonal (at right angles) to our "Real Number Axis". The numbers on the "i" axis are just as "real" but we already had a stopid name for the first axis.
We use "i" and "-i" in order to Rotate (using 0 as a reference point) from the Real Number Line to the corresponding point on the I Number Line. It's so much easier to think of this as X and Y at this point, as on a geometry grid.
5+5i is the same as saying "A point at (5, 5)". It allows us to describe a 2-co-ordinate system within a single equation, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_plane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_unit
I'm still totally digging into this concept, but it's helped me understand some of the interesting math used in CG systems.
I know I've gone over i before but I need to rebuild those foundations.
The midterm today was interesting. Some of the answers I was able to get the answer from awkwardly but then needed to come up with a means to get the answer that was correct (i.e. I was right and forgot the formula but needed to work my way backward to show the formula- which made me understand the formula better, frankly). On the other hand, I knew the answer for this one problem, but I couldn't prove it, and any attempt I made to do so led to a lot of erasing. I eventually circled the problem and said, "this is the answer." Looked it up on the way to work and kicked myself.
Long story short, I remember hearing tell of this mysterious "i"
I had a midterm in differential equations. I forgot everything but somehow had answers for most of the problems. And I know I did at least twp wrong and got the wrong answers, but fyck it. imma get a filthy liberalarys degree be that weird fucking teacher at high school.
This does raise an interesting question though.
What is impressive about this endeavor? It seems like this whole thing is getting a lot of mixed reaction, and not just here. I mean, here, it seems like some are going, "Good on ya, Twid" and others are like, "what's the point, Twid?"
Which honestly is the most open minded that I get from both sides.
Outside of PD it's either "I respect your choices" and "I kinda want to slap you right now."<---not for cultural appropriation reasons mind you, the revisiting of Catholicism sparked a lot of that
Quote from: Don Coyote on October 22, 2013, 06:29:24 AM
I had a midterm in differential equations. I forgot everything but somehow had answers for most of the problems. And I know I did at least twp wrong and got the wrong answers, but fyck it. imma get a filthy liberalarys degree be that weird fucking teacher at high school.
That's precisely why I switched to science. I'm cool with being that weird fucking teacher, as long as high school isn't involved.
Doktor Blight,
Serious about the Doctor bit now.
Not minimizing your path, incidentally, Coyote. I'm actually happy for you, since you're choosing something that you love.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 05:09:10 AM
Music and poetry are the act of humans making math seem pretty.
Balls. It's the other way around.
I've never headbanged to an equation.
Bullshit.
(http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpsound/sound_wave_equation_spl_sound_pressure_level.png)
(http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/images/eqngifs_sound/020.gif)
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on October 22, 2013, 04:41:08 AM
Part of being all powerful is not being necessary, and existing anyway.
This is a truly awesome quote.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 02:03:49 AM
It might be illustrative to describe my religious history. I'll give it in my exploration thread momentarily.
Bump for Aucoq.
So, I was raised Catholic, but my childhood religious sentiment could best be described as animistic with a vague Christian backdrop and a desire for reincarnation rather than salvation (I defined it as escape from Heaven when God was sleeping) when I was in Kindergarten.
In my early teens I could best be described as a Catholic gnostic.
In my mid to late teens I became a Wiccan, with a focus on the Roman pantheon.
In my 20s I became less specifically Wiccan and progressively more ill-defined Celtic, and later specifically, Irish polytheist.
In my late 20s I was religiously Irish polytheist, philosophically Discordian.
For some time now I've been feeling a pull to look at that sense of "God" from different angles. A little more than a year ago I finally decided to take that step and start by revisiting Catholicism. I decided I would end Catholicism, appropriately based on my Irish polytheist inclinations, on Samhain. However, I decided next on Judaism and Jewish New Year was a bit earlier. I missed Rosh Hashanah by a couple of days but was in time for Yom Kippur. So on Yom Kippur I became a Hebrew Catholic, and on Samhain, after using Catholicism as a mode of ancestor veneration, I will temporarily revert back to Irish polytheism from nightfall on 31 October to nightfall on 1 November, at which point I will become Jewish. I don't know what I'll be next year.
There is my religious history in a nutshell.
Bump.
...
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
I've been reluctant to mention it, but well, it's part of the point here, isn't it?
I'd be interested in hearing about it.
Hmm, I would too!
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 22, 2013, 06:31:09 AM
This does raise an interesting question though.
What is impressive about this endeavor? It seems like this whole thing is getting a lot of mixed reaction, and not just here. I mean, here, it seems like some are going, "Good on ya, Twid" and others are like, "what's the point, Twid?"
Which honestly is the most open minded that I get from both sides.
Outside of PD it's either "I respect your choices" and "I kinda want to slap you right now."<---not for cultural appropriation reasons mind you, the revisiting of Catholicism sparked a lot of that
Jewish has some great food.
Well, except for a few things:
(http://www.bubbies.com/images/prod_pickled_herring_lg.jpg)
I'm going to chalk it up to auditory hallucination. Apparently, that can happen to just about anyone.
But in a nutshell, God spoke back, and then went back to his usual silence.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 02:15:22 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on October 25, 2013, 02:03:49 AM
It might be illustrative to describe my religious history. I'll give it in my exploration thread momentarily.
Bump for Aucoq.
So, I was raised Catholic, but my childhood religious sentiment could best be described as animistic with a vague Christian backdrop and a desire for reincarnation rather than salvation (I defined it as escape from Heaven when God was sleeping) when I was in Kindergarten.
In my early teens I could best be described as a Catholic gnostic.
In my mid to late teens I became a Wiccan, with a focus on the Roman pantheon.
In my 20s I became less specifically Wiccan and progressively more ill-defined Celtic, and later specifically, Irish polytheist.
In my late 20s I was religiously Irish polytheist, philosophically Discordian.
For some time now I've been feeling a pull to look at that sense of "God" from different angles. A little more than a year ago I finally decided to take that step and start by revisiting Catholicism. I decided I would end Catholicism, appropriately based on my Irish polytheist inclinations, on Samhain. However, I decided next on Judaism and Jewish New Year was a bit earlier. I missed Rosh Hashanah by a couple of days but was in time for Yom Kippur. So on Yom Kippur I became a Hebrew Catholic, and on Samhain, after using Catholicism as a mode of ancestor veneration, I will temporarily revert back to Irish polytheism from nightfall on 31 October to nightfall on 1 November, at which point I will become Jewish. I don't know what I'll be next year.
There is my religious history in a nutshell.
Holy crap! How did I miss this?! I'm sorry, Twid. I swear after you said you were going to explain your spiritual progression I waited for a new thread to pop up. I guess I just never thought to check this thread or I missed the thread or something because I swear I didn't see this post until just now. Please don't think I ignored you.
And thank you so much for posting this. I truly appreciate it. I'm always interested in seeing where people have gone and where they're going. If nothing else it reminds me that I'm not the only person on earth who searches and that others have gone through the same or similar situations. :)
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 21, 2013, 04:49:05 AM
I'm going to chalk it up to auditory hallucination. Apparently, that can happen to just about anyone.
But in a nutshell, God spoke back, and then went back to his usual silence.
What did he say?
I'm wondering too.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 21, 2013, 05:23:28 AM
I'm wondering too.
"I'm offing Sylvia Browne... about time I took one for the team."
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
hirley0, I don't understand anything you post, but I like you.
Quote from: Rex Bologna on November 21, 2013, 02:42:53 PM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 21, 2013, 05:23:28 AM
I'm wondering too.
"I'm offing Sylvia Browne... about time I took one for the team."
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
I had never heard of the one electron theory before. That's an interesting theory. The man who came up with it is really interesting too.
Also, Twid, when I asked what god said to you I hope I didn't come off as pushy. I promise the question came from a place of genuine interest. But please don't feel like I'm holding a gun to your head or anything where you feel like you
have to give an answer. If what he said is too personal or you don't feel comfortable saying then I completely understand. :)
Quote from: Rex Bologna on November 21, 2013, 04:45:18 PM
hirley0, I don't understand anything you post, but I like you.
Hirley0 makes the world go round.
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
If I recall, it's what got me interested in physics, although I never pursued that interest.
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
As a born goy, I have been struggling with my identity as a non-Jewish Jew.
I suspect that this is one of those take away things. Much like I decided that the concept of God Incarnate within the context of Christianity meant that God just doesn't feckin get his best work, and had to become his best work to feckin' get it.
Silly, I know. Like I said, chalking it up to auditory hallucination, which can happen in perfectly mentally healthy people, especially if they think their thoughts in sound, which, I in fact do and always have.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Anyway, I'm thankful for it. Better that your imaginary friend tell you something that's taken as a benefit rather than kill kill kill. Even if it is just a part of my brain speaking up, it's saying something prodding in a positive way.
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 04:52:46 PM
Quote from: Rex Bologna on November 21, 2013, 04:45:18 PM
hirley0, I don't understand anything you post, but I like you.
Hirley0 makes the world go round.
I figured it out. Hirley0 hacked my brain.
:argh!:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:48:34 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Since before my mother was born, actually. It's not a serious theory though, just a fun mindgame.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:48:34 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Since before my mother was born, actually. It's not a serious theory though, just a fun mindgame.
It is. Not an easy one to wrap your head around though.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:48:34 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Since before my mother was born, actually. It's not a serious theory though, just a fun mindgame.
It is. Not an easy one to wrap your head around though.
What am I missing? It's just the idea that all electrons are the same electron, right? And that spin depends on whether its moving forward or backward through time?
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 11:34:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:48:34 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Since before my mother was born, actually. It's not a serious theory though, just a fun mindgame.
It is. Not an easy one to wrap your head around though.
What am I missing? It's just the idea that all electrons are the same electron, right? And that spin depends on whether its moving forward or backward through time?
You're not really missing anything, other than my unwillingness to suspend my disbelief long enough to see how this one lonely electron in the universe ends up being in multiple orbits around multiple atoms throughout all of time. Or the random thought about what about positrons, does the one lonely positron time travel less than the electron?
It's basically like being the one guy in a group of people watching Doctor Who and going, "this shit is retarded and makes no sense."
can someone link me to the most basic postulate of this? because from the face of it, it sounds like crap.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:02:59 AM
can someone link me to the most basic postulate of this? because from the face of it, it sounds like crap.
It is. It was a thought experiment. Let me see if I can find it.
I saw an article further going into why it's crap and just a thought experiment, but here's the gist of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
Quite honestly it sounds like a drunk dial. Or a stoned dial.
Yeah. even Feynman makes it seem like a BS thought experiment that isn't thought through well.
Thanks for the link, though.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Yeah. even Feynman makes it seem like a BS thought experiment that isn't thought through well.
Thanks for the link, though.
When I originally read about it I didn't know who Feynman was. I still don't really know. Your response makes me think that he's a bit outre though.
It's really hard for me to tell because all modern physics sounds like crazy ramblings to me.
I'm still not sure what to make of Dr. Kaku, but that's a bit of bias since I happen to have seen him a lot on cable TV which I automatically assume is fluff.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 02:48:16 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 11:34:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 06:20:23 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 22, 2013, 06:16:37 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:48:34 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 21, 2013, 06:16:39 PM
Quote from: hirley0 on November 21, 2013, 04:32:21 PM
Quote from: Suu on November 21, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 20, 2013, 07:31:11 AM
This is a few days later but uh. I actually had a religious experience praying to Jewish God. I've been having some difficulty processing it. I'm still not sure how to process it. And it's not like I've been a particularly good Jew in the interim. I mean, hell, I throw Kosher out the window whenever Villager's cooking. It was just kinda weird. Will have to science more, I guess.
Shirley? i should AVoid this
/-/owever here is my take on this
.1 i espouse the 1 electron theory of 1
2: it Was they Who attempted2 but failed in my AssAsInNation
&3 then '69 & Now On going. I still exist | so boo2'M
As4 the chase | i get board. see | tbc} 8:32-
Jews do feel that they are much closer to God as his "chosen ones" over other faiths, even though Christians and Muslims do share the same creator. So this is actually not the first time I've heard someone Jewish say that God does in fact, speak back to them. If you do end up parsing what he said, remember it's for you and you alone. You don't have to share it with the rest of class.
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,34353.msg1313779.html#msg1313779 8:44:45
I think we talked about the 1 electron theory on key880 around 1991 or so, didn't we?
It's been around that long?!
Since before my mother was born, actually. It's not a serious theory though, just a fun mindgame.
It is. Not an easy one to wrap your head around though.
What am I missing? It's just the idea that all electrons are the same electron, right? And that spin depends on whether its moving forward or backward through time?
You're not really missing anything, other than my unwillingness to suspend my disbelief long enough to see how this one lonely electron in the universe ends up being in multiple orbits around multiple atoms throughout all of time. Or the random thought about what about positrons, does the one lonely positron time travel less than the electron?
It's basically like being the one guy in a group of people watching Doctor Who and going, "this shit is retarded and makes no sense."
It's fun because it would be a perfectly elegant, simple explanation except for the lack of corresponding positrons. Other than that particular hole it doesn't really strike me as particularly unlikely. I mean, not compared to everything else that we already know about.
wait. you don't know Feynman?!
FIX THIS INSTANTLY.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:36:19 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Yeah. even Feynman makes it seem like a BS thought experiment that isn't thought through well.
Thanks for the link, though.
When I originally read about it I didn't know who Feynman was. I still don't really know. Your response makes me think that he's a bit outre though.
It's really hard for me to tell because all modern physics sounds like crazy ramblings to me.
I'm still not sure what to make of Dr. Kaku, but that's a bit of bias since I happen to have seen him a lot on cable TV which I automatically assume is fluff.
Oh my goodness. Richard Feynman is someone you should know about.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-bio.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_feynman.html
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:44:01 AM
wait. you don't know Feynman?!
FIX THIS INSTANTLY.
:lol: I see that we had the same reaction to that information.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:44:01 AM
wait. you don't know Feynman?!
FIX THIS INSTANTLY.
I know his name.
My scientific interest has always primarily been astronomical. I chose biology because of the potential career opportunities, especially in Boston.
Though, that said, biology is getting more and more interesting to me, and I'm actually liking it and wanting to learn more. I don't see why physics wouldn't be different.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 23, 2013, 03:45:30 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:36:19 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:28:06 AM
Yeah. even Feynman makes it seem like a BS thought experiment that isn't thought through well.
Thanks for the link, though.
When I originally read about it I didn't know who Feynman was. I still don't really know. Your response makes me think that he's a bit outre though.
It's really hard for me to tell because all modern physics sounds like crazy ramblings to me.
I'm still not sure what to make of Dr. Kaku, but that's a bit of bias since I happen to have seen him a lot on cable TV which I automatically assume is fluff.
Oh my goodness. Richard Feynman is someone you should know about.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1965/feynman-bio.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_feynman.html
Grassy ass
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:48:09 AM
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
I SEE THE BIAS HERE. BUT IF HE'S A FUNNIER SAGAN I'LL TAKE IT.
Twid, this is probably something you want: http://www.amazon.com/Surely-Feynman-Adventures-Curious-Character/dp/0393316041
And this: http://www.amazon.com/Six-Easy-Pieces-Essentials-Explained/dp/0465025277/ref=pd_sim_b_3
OH AND THIS: http://www.amazon.com/The-Pleasure-Finding-Things-Out/dp/0465023959/ref=pd_sim_b_2
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:49:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:48:09 AM
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
I SEE THE BIAS HERE. BUT IF HE'S A FUNNIER SAGAN I'LL TAKE IT.
His lectures are WELL worth listening to. Even if you don't understand them, he's funny as hell.
Yeah, I have bias. But the dude is legit. and his QED lectures are the shit.
Quote from: Mrs. Nigelson on November 23, 2013, 03:50:42 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:49:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:48:09 AM
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
I SEE THE BIAS HERE. BUT IF HE'S A FUNNIER SAGAN I'LL TAKE IT.
His lectures are WELL worth listening to. Even if you don't understand them, he's funny as hell.
I like Sagan a lot, but funny is never something that I would think about him, except here and there, especially if it was a veiled reference to him being a pothead, or something or other. Sagan I get more of a sense of awe, which is probably why he resonates with me so much. Tyson I associate with humor. But I like the idea of a funny physicist.
ok, I should set expectations. He's funny for a physicist. But he's a REALLY funny physicist.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
It could also be interpreted to mean that the Buddhist model is correct, everything is one, separateness is an illusion and you don't have to do a damn thing. :lol:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:58:09 AM
ok, I should set expectations. He's funny for a physicist. But he's a REALLY funny physicist.
I'm liking him already from the clip Nigel provided. Science can be funny as hell. It's all about the delivery.
Also, as two musicians, we're doing applied physics, which is something I like. I might understand it less than you, but it's still fun.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 23, 2013, 03:59:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
It could also be interpreted to mean that the Buddhist model is correct, everything is one, separateness is an illusion and you don't have to do a damn thing. :lol:
Both can be simultaneously correct. I'm not a Buddhist yet though. :wink:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:49:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:48:09 AM
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
I SEE THE BIAS HERE. BUT IF HE'S A FUNNIER SAGAN I'LL TAKE IT.
"DRUMMER" IS ALWAYS A RECOMMENDATION TOO.
Aw. Hearts. Feels.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 04:01:39 AM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 23, 2013, 03:59:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
It could also be interpreted to mean that the Buddhist model is correct, everything is one, separateness is an illusion and you don't have to do a damn thing. :lol:
Both can be simultaneously correct. I'm not a Buddhist yet though. :wink:
Buddhism needs you.
I think the last one here was Hugh. :x
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 23, 2013, 04:02:20 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 03:49:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:48:09 AM
HE'S LIKE THE SAGAN OF PARTICLE PHYSICS. BUT HE'S FUNNIER. AND COOLER. AND PLAYED THE DRUMS.
I SEE THE BIAS HERE. BUT IF HE'S A FUNNIER SAGAN I'LL TAKE IT.
"DRUMMER" IS ALWAYS A RECOMMENDATION TOO.
SOMEONE HAS TO KEEP ME IN TIME.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 04:03:00 AM
Aw. Hearts. Feels.
Drummers get made fun of but Rock and Metal would be very boring without the bombastic drive of the drums. Also, you're an awesome drummer and as someone who made a stab at playing them, I respect proficiency at that a lot.
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 23, 2013, 04:04:28 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 04:01:39 AM
Quote from: Tiddleywomp Cockletit on November 23, 2013, 03:59:36 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
It could also be interpreted to mean that the Buddhist model is correct, everything is one, separateness is an illusion and you don't have to do a damn thing. :lol:
Both can be simultaneously correct. I'm not a Buddhist yet though. :wink:
Buddhism needs you.
I think the last one here was Hugh. :x
Buddhism will have to wait, though that was a strong contender with Judaism this round.
Actually, one of the best parts of listening to Rammstein is that their drummer is a strong drummer. His beats are pretty straightforward but it gives them that drive. And every so often he comes out with something interesting that grabs your attention more than the rest of the band, such as in Morgenstern, which has a bit of a Latin beat (mostly chorus).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LhmoZ_Q4ps
Or, taking Cradle of Filth's whole album Damnation and a Day where they hired, I think an orchestra and choir from Budapest, and when they heard it they were either freaked out or hated it, with one exception- the percussionist who was like, "Doze drums"
to be honest, i've always been jealous of guitarists who can be purposely sloppy and make the band sound "loose" and "free", but a single sixteenth note out of place and you're a "shit band".
Most of the bands I've loved (after the Art Rock phase) are exactly that. completely fucked delivery, except for the rhythm section. Bastards.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 04:22:56 AM
to be honest, i've always been jealous of guitarists who can be purposely sloppy and make the band sound "loose" and "free", but a single sixteenth note out of place and you're a "shit band".
Most of the bands I've loved (after the Art Rock phase) are exactly that. completely fucked delivery, except for the rhythm section. Bastards.
String players get a bit of slack because where they may lack on timing, they can make up for in dexterity. A nasty solo or intriguing bass line that is slightly offbeat is still respected because it is considered difficult and technical. Drums are no easier, but it's seen as being an interesting metronome, so the emphasis for a drummer is being tight. You even said it yourself with Pete and how he wasn't bringing it and how doing double bass might help that.
Let's think about that phrasing too. Offbeat. Offbeat is a euphemism for someone who's kinda weird but in a good way.
oh, i know. In a way, I'm more annoyed I can't get drunk before a show, but the singer is all, "let's see how much whiskey I can drink before the set!"
But if it was easy, anyone could do it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 04:34:52 AM
oh, i know. In a way, I'm more annoyed I can't get drunk before a show, but the singer is all, "let's see how much whiskey I can drink before the set!"
But if it was easy, anyone could do it.
Well to be honest, it's not that hard to play stringed instruments while hammered. Singing on the other hand....
Twid,
had to do a gig a few hours after my uncle's funeral. Nailed guitar, but was swaying all over the fucking place and sang like shit on Stare At the Sun.
You're not exactly changing my mind, here...
Gig in question:
(http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa66/dracolupus/giginquestion_zps27a9ea6a.jpg)
After that night I swore that buzzed was the most I would get before getting on stage. Hammered is for after.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 04:49:01 AM
You're not exactly changing my mind, here...
Well, your singer is also your bassist. It's not like you can miss those frets.
Twid,
Talking about bass.
OSNAP.
True, though, both guitarists are the rythm section, with those dueling arpeggios.
That may have come across as unintentionally harsh. Timing is essential for drums. Vocal cords are essential for singing. Alcohol directly impacts vocal performance, not out of just imprecision, but also because it dehydrates the vocal cords. High notes get difficult to hit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:04:27 AM
OSNAP.
True, though, both guitarists are the rythm section, with those dueling arpeggios.
Ok, I'll shut up now.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:06:43 AM
That may have come across as unintentionally harsh. Timing is essential for drums. Vocal cords are essential for singing. Alcohol directly impacts vocal performance, not out of just imprecision, but also because it dehydrates the vocal cords. High notes get difficult to hit.
This explains Tom Waits. :lulz:
Anyway, how about that יהוה?
All true. No offense taken.
I've found myself from playing drums at 20, downing a six pack per practice, and getting so wasted at shows I'd take speed to be able to play a set, to keeping it sort of dry at shows so I could perform well, to not even drinking at practice, because the guys needed a solid beat.
Drumming as a path to sobriety -- who would have thought?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:20:11 AM
All true. No offense taken.
I've found myself from playing drums at 20, downing a six pack per practice, and getting so wasted at shows I'd take speed to be able to play a set, to keeping it sort of dry at shows so I could perform well, to not even drinking at practice, because the guys needed a solid beat.
Drumming as a path to sobriety -- who would have thought?
Entire generations of rock n rollers are now bawling their crusty eyes out. :cry:
Eh, they just become guitarists. Drummers filter themselves out.
In the darkness, they multiply.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:20:11 AM
All true. No offense taken.
I've found myself from playing drums at 20, downing a six pack per practice, and getting so wasted at shows I'd take speed to be able to play a set, to keeping it sort of dry at shows so I could perform well, to not even drinking at practice, because the guys needed a solid beat.
Drumming as a path to sobriety -- who would have thought?
Well, you might be interested to know that one of the most interesting drum things I ever heard was Trent Reznor doing a test session on the drums and liking it so much that he decided to splice it into the end of a well known song. No timing on it or anything, it really was just a sound check for the recording process and it ended up sounding cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfCvcFLdq4Y
On second thought, maybe I should just shut up for a few days. I more or less have to anyway.
Your self-censorship is unusual.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:33:54 AM
On second thought, maybe I should just shut up for a few days. I more or less have to anyway.
Something bugging you, Twid?
Something's bugging me.
On some nights, I really, really wish I hadn't enlisted when I was a kid. I find this happening more and more often as I get older.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:34:29 AM
Your self-censorship is unusual.
Not sure how I should take that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 05:37:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:33:54 AM
On second thought, maybe I should just shut up for a few days. I more or less have to anyway.
Something bugging you, Twid?
I'm good. Well kinda. Shoulders are a bit tense and I'm sleep deprived. It's a good idea one way or the other.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:34:29 AM
Your self-censorship is unusual.
Not sure how I should take that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 05:37:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:33:54 AM
On second thought, maybe I should just shut up for a few days. I more or less have to anyway.
Something bugging you, Twid?
I'm good. Well kinda. Shoulders are a bit tense and I'm sleep deprived. It's a good idea one way or the other.
I think you're reading LMNO's orneriness as an attack on you, or as a suggestion to keep your thoughts to yourself. I think you're mistaken.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 05:41:45 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:40:06 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:34:29 AM
Your self-censorship is unusual.
Not sure how I should take that.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 05:37:31 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 23, 2013, 05:33:54 AM
On second thought, maybe I should just shut up for a few days. I more or less have to anyway.
Something bugging you, Twid?
I'm good. Well kinda. Shoulders are a bit tense and I'm sleep deprived. It's a good idea one way or the other.
I think you're reading LMNO's orneriness as an attack on you, or as a suggestion to keep your thoughts to yourself. I think you're mistaken.
Ok, fair enough.
I have, however, been kinda tense the last week, so that is probably playing into it anyway. It's somewhat to be expected. I'm usually a little agitated at this point in a semester.
Yes. is the opposite. you seemed to say "ill be quiet" out of the blue.
Roger, I didn't live what you did, in the day. But I can understand how experiences can affect the present. Can't sleep?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:46:54 AM
Yes. is the opposite. you seemed to say "ill be quiet" out of the blue.
Roger, I didn't live what you did, in the day. But I can understand how experiences can affect the present. Can't sleep?
Ok. I felt like I was offending you. All good.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:46:54 AM
Roger, I didn't live what you did, in the day. But I can understand how experiences can affect the present. Can't sleep?
Not a wink. When I was in my 30s, I'd have nightmares of being back in the day, and my weapon jamming. Now I dream that it doesn't jam.
All I can say is that I was intensely relieved when my son got sick right before his induction, and lost his infantry slot.
Aw, shit. I have no idea how hard it can be. Not to intrude, but do you have anyone you can talk to about that? I've seen a lot of good things come from talk therapy.
Again, not to intrude.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:55:23 AM
Aw, shit. I have no idea how hard it can be. Not to intrude, but do you have anyone you can talk to about that? I've seen a lot of good things come from talk therapy.
Again, not to intrude.
When my great uncle Bill was alive, I'd talk to him. He went through the very worst of the Western European front and knew exactly what I was talking about (and then some). The shrinks at the VA are useless; they care, but there's no connection, and the one civilian shrink I went to was visibly revolted. And most of the vets I know either weren't combat arms or don't seem to have any problem with what went on. The only one that does is certifiably nuts (manifested as conspiracy theory).
So while I recognize that talk therapy would probably do me some good, it's an availability thing.
understood. Wish I could do more. Sorry I can't.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 06:06:53 AM
understood. Wish I could do more. Sorry I can't.
Well, it's not like I was drafted.
Anyway, off to bed. Goodnight.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 06:01:46 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:55:23 AM
Aw, shit. I have no idea how hard it can be. Not to intrude, but do you have anyone you can talk to about that? I've seen a lot of good things come from talk therapy.
Again, not to intrude.
When my great uncle Bill was alive, I'd talk to him. He went through the very worst of the Western European front and knew exactly what I was talking about (and then some). The shrinks at the VA are useless; they care, but there's no connection, and the one civilian shrink I went to was visibly revolted. And most of the vets I know either weren't combat arms or don't seem to have any problem with what went on. The only one that does is certifiably nuts (manifested as conspiracy theory).
So while I recognize that talk therapy would probably do me some good, it's an availability thing.
Fuck, man.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 03:58:09 AM
ok, I should set expectations. He's funny for a physicist. But he's a REALLY funny physicist.
He really is! He isn't as funny as Sapolsky, but Sapolsky's a biologist, and biologists are funny people.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 23, 2013, 05:20:11 AM
All true. No offense taken.
I've found myself from playing drums at 20, downing a six pack per practice, and getting so wasted at shows I'd take speed to be able to play a set, to keeping it sort of dry at shows so I could perform well, to not even drinking at practice, because the guys needed a solid beat.
Drumming as a path to sobriety -- who would have thought?
OMG, you're making me nostalgic for my youth, when I would down a sixpack while I got ready to go out. At 11. And I weighed 125lbs.
Of course, I could probably get that figure back if I went dancing five nights a week. :lol:
I'll never get that alcohol tolerance back though; old bodies just don't make ADH like young ones.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on November 23, 2013, 05:39:59 AM
Something's bugging me.
On some nights, I really, really wish I hadn't enlisted when I was a kid. I find this happening more and more often as I get older.
:sad:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
I had similar things happen to me over the years.
Quote from: Don Coyote on November 24, 2013, 10:25:38 PM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 22, 2013, 05:32:09 AM
I haven't been ignoring this thread due to discomfort but rather due to academic obligations (for reasons that are about to be clear).
I've been expecting this, and, weird as it is, I've decided to be honest and give my interpretation of it.
God said, "You are God."
I interpret this to mean that the panentheist model is correct (or that I was just loudly talking to myself on a subconscious level), and that I, as an individual have a self-determined destiny to see about, and I'm not seeing about it, and God had to tell me flat out to stop worrying about me and start worrying about me. If that makes sense. I interpret it as "there is work to be done. You alone can determine what that work is." It was, however, a loud and clear voice that fell silent after is spoke.
I had similar things happen to me over the years.
That's comforting to know. I was afraid to admit it because of potential crazy sounding.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 10, 2013, 01:34:27 PM
Twid, the question to be asked is, "what's your purpose here?"
I mean, are you just trying on religions like suits at Men's Wearhouse, seeing if you like their fit? Are you searching for the One True God(s)? Are you just having a laugh? Is it a sort of immersion anthropology?
Furthermore, do you buy into the whole deity thing to begin with? That there is indeed a sky mommy or daddy, or there is some sort of elan vitale that exists outside of experiential reality that has conciousness and interacts with humans? And that it/they can be appeased or communicated with through a single group of game rules apart from any other?
The answers to these will help narrow down if you're on a spiritual search or just clowning around.
I think this is worth revisiting.
Re: God. I believe in God. Definition of God is debatable, but I take that as a given. It's just how I'm wired. I figured that was a given here too, since I had long before admitted that I was Pagan. I don't know what God is. I would like to get a better idea of It. Which brings us to:
Re: What am I doing here. Aside from the the fact that I want to try on different religions to understand their perspective, it's a means of exploring my perspective. If I take God as a given, and also that I tend to think of religion in general as different paths to the same place, it makes sense to me to explore "God" from different angles. Even as a Pagan I was a soft polytheist. All gods are the same God. There are, of course, mythological conflicts there, such as how do I relate Utu with Lugh, with Apollo, with Ra, and with Amaterasu? They're all solar deities. Well, maybe they're all different culturally specific angles on the same generalization of a specific aspect of the One True God
TM. I can say for certain that the reason that when I was an Irish polytheist, my main male deity was Lugh was because I see the sun as a very apt description of what a god should be and subsets of his specific profile appealed to me. Lugh is a Jack of All Trades. Indeed, one of his epithets, Samioldonach, is Old Irish for something like "equally skilled at everything" including music. I saw Lugh primarily as a musician, an Irish Apollo. But an interesting part of his mythology is when he attempted to enter the court at Tara (if you feel like reading: ermmmm.... new post, since I'm quoting.)
Source: http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/irish/2nd_moytura.html
Quote
Now as to the Tuatha De, this is what they were doing. After Bres, Nuada was again in sovereignty over the Tuatha De. At that time he held a mighty feast at Tara for them. Now there was a certain warrior on his way to Tara, whose name was Lug Samildanach. And there were then two doorkeepers at Tara, namely Gamal son of Figal and Camaall son of Riagall. When one of these was on duty he saw a strange company coming towards him. A young warrior fair and shapely, with a king's trappings, was in the forefront of that band. They told the doorkeeper to announce their arrival at Tara. The doorkeeper asked:"Who is there?"
"Here there is lug Lamfada (i.e. Lugh Long-Arm) son of Cian son of Diancecht and of Ethne daughter of Balor. Fosterson, he, of Tailltiu daughter of Magmor king of Spain and of Eochaid the Rough son of Duach."
The doorkeeper asked of Lug Samildanach: "What art dost thou practice?" Said he; " for no one without an art enters Tara."
"Question me," said he; I am a wright."
The doorkeeper answered:"We need thee not. We have a wright already, even Luchta son of Luachaid."
He said: " Question me, O doorkeeper! I am a smith."
The doorkeeper answered him:"We have a smith already, Colum Cualleineach of the three new processes."
He said:" Question me: I am a champion."
The doorkeeper answered: We need thee not. We have a champion already, Ogma son of Ethliu."
He said again:"Question me: I am a harper."
"We need thee not. We have a harper already, Abcan son of Bicelmos whom the Tuatha De Danann chose in the fairy mounds."
Said he:"Question me I am a hero."
The doorkeeper answered:" We need thee not. We have a hero already, even Bresal Etarlam son of Eochaid Baethlam."
Then he said:" Question me, O doorkeeper! I am a poet and I am a historian."
"We need thee not. We have already a poet and historian, even En son of Ethaman."
He said," Question me: I am a sorcerer."
"We need thee not. We have sorcerers already. Many are our wizards and our folk of might."
He said:" Question me; I am a leech."
"We need thee not. We have for a leech Diancecht."
"Question me,"said he; I am a cupbearer."
"We need thee not. We have cupbearers already, even Delt and Drucht and Daithe, Tae and Talom and Trog, Glei and Glan and Glesi."
He said: "Question me: I am a good brazier."
"We need thee not. We have a brazier already, Credne Cerd."
He said again, "Ask the king." Said he, "whether he has a single man who possesses all these arts, and if he has I will not enter Tara."
Tuatha De [Danann] are understood to be the [by analogy, Olympians, since the Fomorians are by analogy the Titans] gods.
Tuatha De Danann: Tribe of the Goddess Danu
Fomorians: (note that this is an anglicization of Fomoire) etymology is in debate but seems to be "Undersea People"
Re: as to whether God interacts with people, since my perspective, especially in light of my apparent revelation, that we are in fact one with God, yes, It partakes in human affairs, sometimes from a human perspective, sometimes from a non-human perspective. I guess it would be apt to say I view God as an [divine] emergent property of life. God coevolves with level of sentience available in the Universe, since God is inherently the soul of the Universe, and not the Creator of it.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 05:03:39 AM
Re: as to whether God interacts with people, since my perspective, especially in light of my apparent revelation, that we are in fact one with God, yes, It partakes in human affairs, sometimes from a human perspective, sometimes from a non-human perspective. I guess it would be apt to say I view God as an [divine] emergent property of life. God coevolves with level of sentience available in the Universe, since God is inherently the soul of the Universe, and not the Creator of it.
I like this. Still leaves room for the Spirit and perhaps a vagrant Prime Mover, as well. Much more accommodating this way, thank you :lulz:
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 05:03:39 AM
Re: as to whether God interacts with people, since my perspective, especially in light of my apparent revelation, that we are in fact one with God, yes, It partakes in human affairs, sometimes from a human perspective, sometimes from a non-human perspective. I guess it would be apt to say I view God as an [divine] emergent property of life. God coevolves with level of sentience available in the Universe, since God is inherently the soul of the Universe, and not the Creator of it.
I like this. Still leaves room for the Spirit and perhaps a vagrant Prime Mover, as well. Much more accommodating this way, thank you :lulz:
You're welcome?
Twid's,
spiritual exploration thingie
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 07:44:46 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 05:03:39 AM
Re: as to whether God interacts with people, since my perspective, especially in light of my apparent revelation, that we are in fact one with God, yes, It partakes in human affairs, sometimes from a human perspective, sometimes from a non-human perspective. I guess it would be apt to say I view God as an [divine] emergent property of life. God coevolves with level of sentience available in the Universe, since God is inherently the soul of the Universe, and not the Creator of it.
I like this. Still leaves room for the Spirit and perhaps a vagrant Prime Mover, as well. Much more accommodating this way, thank you :lulz:
You're welcome?
Twid's,
spiritual exploration thingie
:lulz: wait, youz haz vacancy too? :lulz:
Anyway, one of the interesting things to note about the Abrahamic God. Sometimes refers to himself in the plural. Early parts of the Torah seem to indicate some sort of henotheism (polytheism, with a bit of, my god is better than.... your god) that at some point switched to hard monotheism. Yahweh is the ONLY god. Interesting, that. I might have to reflect on that a bit. Why is that discrepancy there?
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 07:47:10 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 07:44:46 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 06:18:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 05:03:39 AM
Re: as to whether God interacts with people, since my perspective, especially in light of my apparent revelation, that we are in fact one with God, yes, It partakes in human affairs, sometimes from a human perspective, sometimes from a non-human perspective. I guess it would be apt to say I view God as an [divine] emergent property of life. God coevolves with level of sentience available in the Universe, since God is inherently the soul of the Universe, and not the Creator of it.
I like this. Still leaves room for the Spirit and perhaps a vagrant Prime Mover, as well. Much more accommodating this way, thank you :lulz:
You're welcome?
Twid's,
spiritual exploration thingie
:lulz: wait, youz haz vacancy too? :lulz:
Ferx,
I have no idea what you're talking about here. No seriously. I'm at the point where I can understand hirley0 and I don't know what you mean here.
I probably would have just acknowledged your original comment if it didn't have a :lulz:
Forgive the joke, it was just an attempt at psycho-sycophancy. On a more serious note. Reading back to the personal experience "to stop worrying and start worrying" (about concern), it's awesome how effortlessly (with benign indifference) it is communicated, and how loudly the subsequent silence still does speak :)
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 08:04:54 AM
Forgive the joke, it was just an attempt at psycho-sycophancy. On a more serious note. Reading back to the personal experience "to stop worrying and start worrying" (about concern), it's awesome how effortlessly (with benign indifference) it is communicated, and how loudly the subsequent silence still does speak :)
Actually, I took that as bit of comfort that I wasn't going (at least totally) crazy, was that God said what I needed to hear and then continued to ignore me, like he is wont to do.
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 08:07:36 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on November 25, 2013, 08:04:54 AM
Forgive the joke, it was just an attempt at psycho-sycophancy. On a more serious note. Reading back to the personal experience "to stop worrying and start worrying" (about concern), it's awesome how effortlessly (with benign indifference) it is communicated, and how loudly the subsequent silence still does speak :)
Actually, I took that as bit of comfort that I wasn't going (at least totally) crazy, was that God said what I needed to hear and then continued to ignore me, like he is wont to do.
True, although the most comforting is how you cannot actually forget what was said, or altogether ignore having had that experience... Ever again :wink:
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 07:50:12 AM
Anyway, one of the interesting things to note about the Abrahamic God. Sometimes refers to himself in the plural. Early parts of the Torah seem to indicate some sort of henotheism (polytheism, with a bit of, my god is better than.... your god) that at some point switched to hard monotheism. Yahweh is the ONLY god. Interesting, that. I might have to reflect on that a bit. Why is that discrepancy there?
I don't know about that, but originally, the religion of the Jewish tribes was polytheistic. Every family had their god for who they prayed, but Yahweh was above them all. I don't know why it changed, or why Yahweh <personally> referred to himself in the plural. Maybe something to do with the Holy Ghost? I can't answer 100% sure.
G'luck on your spiritual exploration.
Quote from: Mistre on November 26, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 07:50:12 AM
Anyway, one of the interesting things to note about the Abrahamic God. Sometimes refers to himself in the plural. Early parts of the Torah seem to indicate some sort of henotheism (polytheism, with a bit of, my god is better than.... your god) that at some point switched to hard monotheism. Yahweh is the ONLY god. Interesting, that. I might have to reflect on that a bit. Why is that discrepancy there?
I don't know about that, but originally, the religion of the Jewish tribes was polytheistic. Every family had their god for who they prayed, but Yahweh was above them all. I don't know why it changed, or why Yahweh <personally> referred to himself in the plural. Maybe something to do with the Holy Ghost? I can't answer 100% sure.
G'luck on your spiritual exploration.
That would have been a question for before Yom Kippur, when I was Catholic.
Interesting thought, that though, and thank you.
"Thou shalt have no gods before me" rather than "I am the One True God." but suspiciously similar to, "Your primary worship is directed towards me."
There would be no question of other gods, if there was only one god. JUST SAYIN THE OBS.
There are a lot of questions about how mono/polytheistic the original Jewish faith was. And there is some question about exactly how to properly translate the First Commandment. It can be read as supporting polytheism, but it can also be read to mean that the Jews were not to interact or pay respect to the gods of the nations around them. Its very difficult to know for sure and there are arguments on both sides. Sadly the arguments hinge on how Jews worshiped before the region was sacked by Babylon, and from the archaeological record we have no evidence that there was an Israel or a united Jewish Kingdom during that time leaving it all as conjecture.
Some Christian faiths claim that 'gods' included all spiritual beings (God, Archangels, other angels, Satan, demons etc). So if an Angel showed up with a message from God you would show him respect, but not venerate him above God. In a couple stories in the Bible, angels actually tell the humans to stop when they bow before them.
Quote from: Mistre on November 26, 2013, 05:30:16 AM
Quote from: Doktor Blight on November 25, 2013, 07:50:12 AM
Anyway, one of the interesting things to note about the Abrahamic God. Sometimes refers to himself in the plural. Early parts of the Torah seem to indicate some sort of henotheism (polytheism, with a bit of, my god is better than.... your god) that at some point switched to hard monotheism. Yahweh is the ONLY god. Interesting, that. I might have to reflect on that a bit. Why is that discrepancy there?
...
I don't know why it changed, or why Yahweh <personally> referred to himself in the plural. Maybe something to do with the Holy Ghost? I can't answer 100% sure.
....
Jes lica mun. Dat bee de dirty tree OV tree-nitty een jah - undah wot bee all de tings - braize jah
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 26, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
In a couple stories in the Bible, angels actually tell the humans to stop when they bow before them.
Well, it's just fucking embarrassing.
Quote from: Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies on November 27, 2013, 03:12:59 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 26, 2013, 01:00:18 PM
In a couple stories in the Bible, angels actually tell the humans to stop when they bow before them.
Well, it's just fucking embarrassing.
Tell me about it... The trick is to jump on their shoulders just as they get up, and then declare a jousting competition, oh my, good times :lulz:
The true story of Israel, ITT
LMNO
-Twid should get the joke.
:lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2013, 03:45:47 AM
The true story of Israel, ITT
LMNO
-Twid should get the joke.
Maybe I'll just sit this one out, go get my knitting, I mean knighting equipment :lulz:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2013, 03:45:47 AM
The true story of Israel, ITT
LMNO
-Twid should get the joke.
Drawing a blank, gimme a hint?
Google Jacob and Israel.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2013, 04:28:51 AM
Google Jacob and Israel.
Oh, like when he and God start wrestling?
The fact that the country exists threw me off.
Ok, don't read too much into it. It was a smarmy one-off. But yeah.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2013, 04:36:02 AM
Ok, don't read too much into it. It was a smarmy one-off. But yeah.
Is all good man. I was just confused.
I still, at the moment, can't believe in the afterlife.
I still, at the moment, believe in a higher power, whatever that may be.
I think that my experiment in Judaism is currently on hold, due to inclement weather.
Just an update. I don't see a point in praying to YHWH if I don't currently see him taking an active role in human affairs, and I don't see any reason to believe in the afterlife. I want to get that faith back. Faith in the soul, God be damned, because that's the whole point isn't it? The soul. My belief in a God is irrelevant. Until I can believe in the soul again, and honestly do so, I have no business dealing in religion, do I?
I finally talked to my Lutheran minister friend about this.
He sent me a copy of The Great Divorce by CS Lewis. I look forward to reading it.
I also asked him where I was before I was born. He said, probably in a bar, and I'll meet you in the next one. That made me smirk.
The Great Divorce isn't that bad of a book. It may even seem familiar, since you've been on these boards for as long as you have.